UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Women's issues and politics : getting the childcare issue onto a municipal political agenda Dunn, Elizabeth Margaret 1991

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1991_A8 D86.pdf [ 7.34MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0098735.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0098735-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0098735-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0098735-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0098735-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0098735-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0098735-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0098735-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0098735.ris

Full Text

WOMEN'S ISSUES AND POLITICS: GETTING THE CHILDCARE ISSUE ONTO A MUNICIPAL POLITICAL AGENDA by ELIZABETH MARGARET DUNN B.A., THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, 1988 B.Educ.(Elem.), THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, 1969 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Anthropology and Sociology We accept t h i s as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l 1991 © Elizabeth Margaret Dunn, 1991 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written r permission. Department of Anthropology & Sociology The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date A p r i l 29, 1991  DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT This thesis examines women's issues and the p o l i t i c a l agenda. Several factors a f f e c t the l i k e l i h o o d of a women's issue getting onto the formal p o l i t i c a l agenda of government (municipal, p r o v i n c i a l , and fe d e r a l ) . The nature of the issue (the degree to which i t challenges the status quo) af f e c t s the p o l i t i c a l outcome: those issues which have f i t into current and h i s t o r i c a l l e g i s l a t i v e patterns (such as welfare state guidelines) have been more successful. A pa t r i a r c h a l family ideology places l i m i t a t i o n s on the proper role of women: women have held primary r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the care of children and family. Women's labour force p a r t i c i p a t i o n creates parameters for government involvement i n issues such as childcare. The lobbying and organizational s k i l l s of the p o l i t i c a l actors involved are prerequisites for gaining access to government decision-makers. While the entry of women into the p o l i t i c a l arena has not insured the entry of women's issues onto the p o l i t i c a l agenda, female p o l i t i c i a n s have been es p e c i a l l y important i n bringing women's issues forward for debate and action. However, government bureaucracy has often been a bar r i e r i n the implementation of l e g i s l a t i o n concerning women's issues. I present a case study of a p a r t i c u l a r women's issue (childcare) at the municipal l e v e l of government. Five locations are examined i n the Greater Vancouver area, using a combination of qu a l i t a t i v e methods (personal interviews) and quantitative research techniques (government s t a t i s t i c s , o f f i c i a l documents, and reports from a vari e t y of community organizations). In spite of the ste a d i l y increasing labour force p a r t i c i p a t i o n of women i n a l l locations, the response of l o c a l governments to the childcare issue has varied greatly — childcare i s on Vancouver's p o l i t i c a l agenda but not that of the four d i s t r i c t municipalities examined. Vancouver's involvement has been more comprehensive and longterm (more childcare spaces, an involved Social Planning Department, two task forces, a Children's Advocate, and buildings and s i t e s f or childcare purposes). The response of municipal councils continues to r e f l e c t p a t r i a r c h a l notions of the family (where childcare i s a private, family r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ) . A l t e r n a t i v e l y , Vancouver council has recognized a permanent restructuring of the family and the ongoing involvement of the larger community i n childcare. At the same time, the lobbying approach of Vancouver childcare advocates has followed long established patterns concerning childcare and governments — the argument has been based on c h i l d welfare, not the rights or welfare of women. i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ABSTRACT i i LIST OF TABLES V ACKNOWLEDGEMENT v i CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1 I I . LOBBYING THE GOVERNMENT: STRATEGIES AND TACTICS 24 Why Some Groups Lobby Successfully 24 Lobbying Strategies: Feminist Perspectives 28 Access to Government 31 Government as Bureaucracy 36 Maintaining the Status Quo 41 The Status Quo, Patriarchal Ideology, and Current P o l i t i c a l Action 47 Summary 53 II I . OVERVIEW OF CHILDCARE DEVELOPMENTS IN GREATER VANCOUVER 55 Method for Gathering S t a t i s t i c a l Information 56 Vancouver's Greater Response: Indicators 57 Vancouver's Greater Response: Structural Context . 66 Conclusion 78 IV. FACTORS AFFECTING GREATER VANCOUVER CHILDCARE POLITICS: THEMES FROM INTERVIEWS 79 Methodology: the Interview Phase 79 The Social and P o l i t i c a l Climate 82 Access to Government: Municipal J u r i s d i c t i o n 84 The Importance of Supportive P o l i t i c i a n s 87 Basic Lobbying S k i l l s 90 The Childcare Community: Organized and Cohesive but Non-Bureaucratic 95 Ideology, the Status Quo, and P o l i t i c a l W i l l 103 Ownership of the Issue: Who i s Affected 110 Summary 114 V. CONCLUSION 117 FOOTNOTES 128 BIBLIOGRAPHY 129 APPENDIX A 140 Tables 141 i v LIST OF TABLES PAGE Table 1. Women's Labour Force P a r t i c i p a t i o n Rates i n Canada, 1901-1989 141 Table 2. Licensed Childcare Spaces, 1990, by City\Municipality 142 Table 3. Pro v i n c i a l Government Childcare Expenditures, 1970-1988 143 Table 4. 1984 Per Capita Revenues by City\Municipality 144 Table 5. Women's Labour Force P a r t i c i p a t i o n Rates by Year and City\Municipality 145 Table 6. Family Median Incomes by Year and City\Municipality 146 Table 7. Incidence of Low Income Families by Year and City\Municipality 147 Table 8. Family Composition: Single Parent Families as a Percentage of Total Number of Families by Year and City\Municipality 148 Table 9. Age Composition: Children 14 Years and Under as a Percentage of the Total Population by Year and City\Municipality 149 Table 10. Composition of Councils by Sex, Year, and City\Municipality, Showing Seats Held by Female Councillors as a Percentage of the Total Number of Seats Available 150 v ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I w i s h t o e x p r e s s m y g r a t i t u d e t o t h o s e w h o h a v e h e l p e d me i n t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s . D r . N e i l G u p p y , m y a d v i s o r , h a s o f f e r e d c o n s i d e r a b l e t i m e a n d a s s i s t a n c e a n d h a s a i d e d g r e a t l y i n m y t h e s i s ' t a k i n g s h a p e ' . I t h a n k D r . D a w n C u r r i e f o r h e r t h o u g h t f u l c o m m e n t s a n d s u g g e s t i o n s w h i c h h a v e a l l o w e d me t o m a k e m a n y i m p r o v e m e n t s . M y f r i e n d s a n d f a m i l y a r e a l s o a c k n o w l e d g e d f o r t h e s u p p o r t a n d e n c o u r a g e m e n t t h e y h a v e p r o v i d e d . T o m y c h i l d r e n , T a r a a n d R a v e n , I o f f e r h e a r t f e l t t h a n k s f o r t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e y h a v e s h o w n , a n d f o r t h e i n g e n u i t y w i t h w h i c h t h e y h a v e l e d t h e i r l i v e s , w h i l e I h a v e p u r s u e d m y s t u d i e s . v i Chapter One Introduction Thesis problem This thesis i s about women's issues and the p o l i t i c a l agenda. I begin with the premise that issues of central importance to women are less frequently addressed on the formal p o l i t i c a l agendas of federal, p r o v i n c i a l , and municipal governments. One reason for the r e l a t i v e absence of women's issues on formal p o l i t i c a l agendas may be that such issues are somehow less amenable to inclusion i n t r a d i t i o n a l p o l i t i c a l dialogue. I t may be the case that women's issues have c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which place them outside p o l i t i c a l favour and prevent them from being addressed by those holding p o l i t i c a l power. I explore whether there i s any substance to the claim that women's issues are somehow 'foreign' to the p o l i t i c a l agenda. While I focus s p e c i f i c a l l y on childcare, the arguments I present are not peculiar to the childcare issue. Indeed, the p o l i t i c s of childcare resemble the p o l i t i c s of other women's issues such as reproductive c o n t r o l . Issues which a f f e c t the l i v e s of women have h i s t o r i c a l l y been treated, and currently continue to be treated, s i m i l a r l y by various governments. My research question i s t h i s : how does a women's issue get onto the p o l i t i c a l agenda? That i s , what must occur i n order to bring a women's issue forward to the formal p o l i t i c a l structure of government, to be formally considered by p o l i t i c i a n s ? Other subsidiary questions r e l a t e to t h i s basic question: i ) what kinds 1 2 of issues make i t onto the p o l i t i c a l agenda; i i ) are there c e r t a i n c r i t e r i a which must be met i n order to see an issue addressed; and i i i ) what are the implications i n meeting those p a r t i c u l a r c r i t e r i a ? I define a 'women's issue' as an issue which i ) a f f e c t s the l i v e s of most women i n a much more predominant manner than i t aff e c t s the l i v e s of most men, and which i i ) r e f l e c t s the conditions of women's l i v e s i n a pat r i a r c h a l society (where men dominate the major s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l , and economic i n s t i t u t i o n s ) . Examples of women's issues include pay equity, reproductive control, and childcare. I use the term 'feminist' issue interchangeably with 'women's' issue: women's issues address feminist concerns. The l i t e r a t u r e I reviewed often used those terms interchangeably, as did many of the people I interviewed. While not a l l women are feminists, women's issues (as used i n t h i s context) r e f e r to issues which not only a f f e c t the l i v e s of most women (whether feminist or not), but which also aim at addressing the s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l , and economic i n e q u a l i t i e s between men and women. By ' p o l i t i c a l agenda', I mean the l e g i s l a t i v e and po l i c y making work of the three formal le v e l s of government: municipal, p r o v i n c i a l , and federal. For a feminist issue to get onto the p o l i t i c a l agenda, government decision-makers must not only discuss the issue, but they must also act on i t and move towards an equitable solution. There c l e a r l y are degrees of 'getting on the p o l i t i c a l agenda'. A f i r s t step concerns t a l k i n g about the issue, 3 a second step involves p o l i c y formation, a t h i r d step requires l e g i s l a t i o n , while a fourth step concerns implementation. I am less concerned about the p o l i t i c a l r h e t o r i c i n step one and more concerned with the action i n steps two to four. Thesis argument and outline I argue that several factors a f f e c t the l i k e l i h o o d of women's issues getting onto the p o l i t i c a l agenda. These factors include: a p a t r i a r c h a l family ideology (which h i s t o r i c a l l y and currently emphasizes the 'proper role of women'), the nature of the claim ( i . e . , how much i t upsets the status quo), women's labour force p a r t i c i p a t i o n , government bureaucracy, the lobbying and organizational s k i l l s of the p o l i t i c a l actors involved, and access to government decision-makers. Some factors, however, are more i n f l u e n t i a l than others. This means that even when certa i n conditions are met, such as organizational and lobbying s k i l l s , these may not be s u f f i c i e n t for getting the issue addressed at a government l e v e l . I w i l l argue that both the nature of the claim and the id e o l o g i c a l context outweigh organizational s k i l l s as factors of importance. At the same time, conditions influencing the p o l i t i c a l evolution of a women's issue tend to overlap and must be examined simultaneously. The women's movement i s not alone i n attempting to have i t s concerns addressed i n the formal p o l i t i c a l milieu. Other groups, from business lobbyists to environmental a c t i v i s t s , t r y to influence the agenda of government. Pross (1986) has outlined some 4 factors which he argues a f f e c t the success of groups t r y i n g to i n j e c t t h e i r ideas into the p o l i t i c a l arena. These factors, which I review i n Chapter Two, concern the degree of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n of the group as well as the use of basic lobbying strategies. I n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n , for Pross, i s an organizational capacity and includes bureaucratization. While some of the general factors outlined by Pross are relevant to women's issues (e.g. organizational s k i l l s and lobbying techniques), my research indicates that bureaucratization i s not relevant. Instead, they serve more to highlight a special condition that i s confronted when addressing women's issues — namely an id e o l o g i c a l context that r e s t r i c t s the ways i n which feminist issues can be promoted ( i . e . , the ideology of the patri a r c h a l family). In Chapters Three and Four, I present a case study where I examine a s p e c i f i c women's issue (childcare) and show how t h i s issue both has, and has not, been addressed at the l o c a l municipal l e v e l . Women's issues and male-stream p o l i t i c s Siltanen and Stanworth (1984) examine several assumptions i n current p o l i t i c a l analysis i n sociology and p o l i t i c a l science. These include the assumptions that women pa r t i c i p a t e i n p o l i t i c s less frequently and less f o r c e f u l l y , that t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s less authentic, and that women's imperatives are 'moral' rather than p o l i t i c a l . They argue that these assumptions are a product of 'male-stream' analysis, and that such analysis i s rooted i n masculine experience, without s e n s i t i v i t y to gender: i t f a i l s to 5 recognize the p o l i t i c a l dimension i n women's experience. Women's experience r e f l e c t s a p a r t i c u l a r power rel a t i o n s h i p i n which men dominate: Power i s the capacity to shape or form s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l r e l a t i o n s , i . e . , the capacity to perpetuate a given order or to transform i t (Siltanen and Stanworth, 1984, 14). They suggest women's p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y i s not firml y rooted i n either the private or public, and that i t i s important to examine the extent of overlap between the two. My research examines an aspect of t h i s overlap — how women's 'private' issues get into the public domain of male-stream p o l i t i c s . To examine the 'career' of women's issues i n the context of male-stream p o l i t i c s , I have chosen to focus on the issue of childcare as addressed (or not) i n the formal arena of l o c a l , municipal p o l i t i c s . To do t h i s , I trace some of the history of childcare p o l i c i e s , paying special attention to the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s for childcare. At the municipal l e v e l , I use both o f f i c i a l documents and s t a t i s t i c s to provide an overview of the context i n which childcare issues have been debated. F i n a l l y , I ta l k to a range of community actors about how the issue of childcare has been addressed. I focus both on what has been done, and on the silences surrounding the issue, t r y i n g to uncover the ways i n which the childcare issue has been promoted and re s i s t e d i n the formal s e t t i n g of municipal decision-making. Childcare has been advocated by a variety of groups, such as early childhood educators, childcare providers, and advocacy associations. P o l i t i c i a n s have discussed childcare (while 6 electioneering), and business people have noted the necessity for the provision of childcare i n order to avoid employee absenteeism. My research examines the treatment of the childcare issue by a pa r t i c u l a r group ( l o c a l government o f f i c i a l s i n the Greater Vancouver area). Women, women's issues, and the p o l i t i c a l agenda: a review Several bodies of l i t e r a t u r e are concerned with women's issues and p o l i t i c a l agendas and I b r i e f l y outline them here. This l i t e r a t u r e helps to place my own arguments regarding childcare p o l i t i c s i n a broad context, a context which includes both women themselves as p o l i t i c a l actors and the issues which are of importance i n understanding the s i t u a t i o n of women. I n i t i a l l y I examined the three main bodies of feminist theory which attempt to explain the subordination of women: l i b e r a l , r a d i c a l , and s o c i a l i s t feminist theory. This work helps place p o l i t i c a l demands i n perspective (e.g., Jaggar, 1983). Most p o l i t i c s surrounding women's issues have a l i b e r a l feminist face. I also examined l i t e r a t u r e on the involvement of women i n p o l i t i c s (e.g., Brodie, 1985; Kay, Lambert, Brown, and Curt i s , 1987), and, while my research question emerged from t h i s l i t e r a t u r e , my answers did not. My question concerning how women's issues get onto the p o l i t i c a l agenda arises i n the debate involving the formal p o l i t i c s of female p o l i t i c i a n s and the informal p o l i t i c s of feminist a c t i v i s t s (e.g., Vickers, 1989). Other recent research, s p e c i f i c a l l y concerning women's issues and the p o l i t i c a l process, -has provided additional background (e.g., Findlay, 1987; Burt, 7 Code, and Dorney, 1988). Since the nineteenth century, much of the debate surrounding women and women's issues i n Western Europe and North America has centered around the l i b e r a l feminist argument that women's oppression i s rooted i n t h e i r exclusion from the public domain (e.g., Jaggar, 1983; Donovan, 1986). The proposed remedy i s to give women access to public i n s t i t u t i o n s such as educational and p o l i t i c a l i n s t i t u t i o n s . L i b e r a l feminists argue that such access would fundamentally improve the s i t u a t i o n of women. However, even with women's increased entry into the public world of education, employment, and p o l i t i c s , many barrie r s to women's equality remain. Women s t i l l perform the bulk of the unpaid work of the home (Meissner et a l , 1975; Walker and Woods, 1976; Luxton 1986). The average Canadian woman earns only 65.3 percent of the average Canadian male. 1 Women are concentrated i n a few major sectors of the economy including the service sector and helping professions. Only 13.2 percent of Members of Parliament and 14.4 percent of B.C.'s M.L.A.'s are women (Maille, 1990). Women i n p o l i t i c s : explanations Women and p o l i t i c s has been an area of focus i n the d i s c i p l i n e s of p o l i t i c a l science and sociology over the past two decades i n Canada and the United States. During the 1980's, the debate developed i n several d i r e c t i o n s . I n i t i a l l y , i t documented women's p o l i t i c a l r o l e and examined women's r e l a t i v e absence i n male-stream p o l i t i c s . Later research questioned our understanding of the nature of p o l i t i c s . F i n a l l y , several theor i s t s developed a 8 c r i t i q u e of the methods used for studying women's rol e i n p o l i t i c s . Explanations of women's r e l a t i v e absence i n male-stream p o l i t i c s focus on i ) s o c i a l resources, i i ) family r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , i i i ) c u l t u r a l or s o c i a l i z a t i o n r e s t r a i n t s , and iv) the relevance of women's issues. These same factors emerge also i n the discussion of women's issues and the p o l i t i c a l process, but with a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t focus. Many e a r l i e r studies argue that women lack the necessary  s o c i a l resources: they have a lower educational, occupational, and f i n a n c i a l status compared to men, and are also absent i n necessary s o c i a l networks. Men and women get t h e i r p o l i t i c a l s k i l l s from d i f f e r e n t sources (men from professional experience and women from volunteerism) and at the same time, women have shorter p o l i t i c a l l i v e s (Merritt, 1977). Over time, the SES ratings of p o l i t i c i a n s have increased at both the municipal and federal l e v e l s (Brodie, 1985; Guppy, Freeman, and Buchan, 1987). Thus, p o l i t i c i a n s are more strongly representative of the middle class than any other stratum of society. Another argument for women's absence i n formal p o l i t i c s concerns t h e i r family r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s or rol e r e s t r a i n t s . Since women are t r a d i t i o n a l l y assigned r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for c h i l d rearing, as well as household maintainance, t h i s severely l i m i t s t h e i r time, energy, and f i n a n c i a l c a p a b i l i t i e s . Rearing children prevents women from having equal p o l i t i c a l opportunities with men because of the time commitment and t h e i r lack of p o l i t i c a l experience while young (Lee, 1976). While l o c a l p o l i t i c s allows women to sidestep 9 some of the ro l e r e s t r a i n t s , i t does not eliminate them (Kopinak, 1985). The a b i l i t y for men and women to be able to share p o l i t i c a l decision-making equally i s impossible as long as women are held primarily responsible for family (Pateman, 1979). The presence of children has a strong negative e f f e c t on women's p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y but not men's (Kay, Lambert, Brown, and Curt i s , 1987). Brodie (1985) argues that while women with c h i l d r e a r i n g and household r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s are constrained p o l i t i c a l l y , t h i s i s not as d e b i l i t a t i n g or deterministic as previously thought. Women 'harmonize' t h e i r gender and p o l i t i c a l roles by waiting u n t i l t h e i r children have grown, entering municipal p o l i t i c s , and e n l i s t i n g t h e i r spouses' support. While Brodie may be correct i n suggesting that women's role should not be seen as deterministic, research surrounding women's issues suggests that these adaptations bear l i t t l e resemblance to harmony but greater resemblance to constraint. The c u l t u r a l or s o c i a l i z a t i o n r e s t r a i n t s argument focuses on gender s o c i a l i z a t i o n — from an early age, females are s o c i a l i z e d to be passive rather than assertive, helpers rather than doers, and nurturant rather than competitive. A woman's role l i e s i n the private domain, while p o l i t i c s i s i n the public domain. When women do enter p o l i t i c s , they tend to do the routine housekeeping chores while men are more l i k e l y to form the e l i t e s . Male competitiveness and female fear of discrimination discourage >many women from seeking public o f f i c e (Lee, 1976). Self doubt and fear are among the constraints of female p o l i t i c i a n s (Brodie, 1985). While 10 women's el e c t i o n rates i n Canadian municipal p o l i t i c s increased greatly between 1966-1982, women's role i n municipal p o l i t i c s i s much narrower than men's (Kopinak, 1985). Kopinak c a l l s t h i s moving "two steps forward", but then "one step backwards." The fourth argument to explain women's absence i n male-stream p o l i t i c s concerns the relevance of women's issues: women are more interested i n broad s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l issues, such as war, pay equity, sexism, rape, and equality. These issues are often marginal to the more 'concrete' municipal concerns such as roads, sewers, p o l i c e , and f i r e protection. This argument coincides with much of the 1980's debate on the meaning of ' p o l i t i c a l ' and on whether or not women's concerns are t r u l y p o l i t i c a l i n the established framework (I discuss t h i s further below). Are women's issues relevant? Naomi Black (1980) argues that the chief problem with women's p o l i t i c s i s that i t i s i n v i s i b l e . I t i s i n v i s i b l e because i t i s l o c a l (municipal or action group focus), about women's issues (which are considered marginal), outside partisan p o l i t i c s , and seemingly i n e f f e c t i v e . However, the goals of women's p o l i t i c s are quite extraordinary and c l e a r l y put women i n competition with men. The argument that the relevance of women's issues gets questioned i n the formal p o l i t i c a l world i s central to my research concerning childcare p o l i t i c s . I f women's issues are seen as irr e l e v a n t , then these issues w i l l lack credence i n formal p o l i t i c a l c i r c l e s and i t w i l l be d i f f i c u l t to have them considered as items on the p o l i t i c a l agenda. Indeed, I think i t i s more d i f f i c u l t to get women's issues onto the p o l i t i c a l agenda than i t i s to get women into the p o l i t i c a l arena. These issues concern subjects which are at the heart of women's subordination. They i l l u s t r a t e why i t i s so d i f f i c u l t for women to function as equals with men i n society, and while middle class affluence allows some women to become p o l i t i c i a n s , the entry of these women into the p o l i t i c a l arena does not fundamentally challenge the status quo. Few major changes are l i k e l y to emerge from t h e i r ' p o l i t i c i n g ' . B e l l Hooks' (1984) question ('with whom do you want to be equal?') challenges the assumptions of white middle class feminists. I agree with her that equality with white middle class men i s not a true feminist goal. However, so far t h i s has defined the parameters of women and formal p o l i t i c s . Addressing feminist issues moves beyond bringing women into male designed and directed i n s t i t u t i o n s , i t involves s t r u c t u r a l change. Le g i s l a t i o n that would give women control over reproductive decision-making, or qual i t y affordable childcare services for a l l employed parents, or mandatory affirmative action l e g i s l a t i o n i n a l l economic sectors would be l e g i s l a t i o n that would seriously undermine the p a t r i a r c h a l and c a p i t a l i s t values i n our society. I t i s , i n t h i s l i g h t , not surprising that women's issues are only very slowly getting onto the p o l i t i c a l agenda. In 1967, women's issues were at the center of Canada's Royal Commission on the Status of Women. Examining the content of the subsequent report (1970) and the outcome on recommendations suggests that major women's issues which would fundamentally a l t e r the conditions of women's l i v e s (e.g., pay equity, reproductive control, and qu a l i t y affordable childcare) have not successfully been incorporated into Canadian l e g i s l a t i o n . The Report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women (1970) This report brought forward a lengthy l i s t of recommendations to improve the status of women. These included a wide range of issues, such as pension reform, f a i r employment practices, equal pay, welfare reform, abortion upon request, guaranteed annual income for the heads of single parent fam i l i e s , Senate reform, and criminal law reform. They also recommended a Status of Women council which would have funds available for undertaking feminist research, making po l i c y proposals, and establishing programs. Dawn Black (1990) has provided an assessment of the implementation of these recommendations. While p a r t i a l implementation has occurred on some issues, those recommendations which would fundamentally improve the conditions of women have been absent. For example, the National Childcare Act has not been implemented. Findlay (1987) has provided an analysis of how government bureaucrats (largely male and non-feminist) have prevented the implementation of feminist goals. Having feminist a c t i v i s t s within bureaucracy i s a necessary condition for feminist action, but i t i s d i f f i c u l t f or feminists to function within bureaucratic guidelines. What i s p o l i t i c a l ? Much of the 1980's debate regarding women and p o l i t i c s focused on the meaning of the p o l i t i c a l and some of that debate t r i e s to make the cross-over between women and p o l i t i c s and women's issues and p o l i t i c s . Vickers argues that feminists "have f a i l e d to come to grips with the character of power and power rela t i o n s h i p s " (1980, 6 6 ) . Siltanen and Stanworth (1984) argue that the demarcation between public and private i s i t s e l f a p o l i t i c a l process. Burt's (1987) research indicates that Canadian men and women think d i f f e r e n t l y about p o l i t i c s , men being more interested i n holding o f f i c e , having power, and making decisions while women are interested i n making the p o l i t i c a l system more responsive. Kealey and Sangster (1989) argue that feminists now need to look at the methods used to analyze women's p o l i t i c a l thought and action. This requires a broader concept of p o l i t i c s as women's p o l i t i c s are located i n both the world of formal p o l i t i c s and i n the 'informal' separate world of feminist activism. Vickers (1989) suggests joining the two — she c a l l s i t a double v i s i o n . I think t h i s joining of the two worlds of formal and informal p o l i t i c s i s fundamental to most women's issues. Those a c t i v i s t s who advocate l e g i s l a t i o n which gives women reproductive control or a national childcare policy designed to give a l l parents access to affordable childcare are c a l l i n g for fundamental change. Such change would break down the bar r i e r s between men and women which e x i s t now i n government. Of course, i f women were to be t r u l y represented i n government, the structure of government would have to change. Indeed i t would have to change just to see working class men represented. 14 Women's issues and p o l i t i c s : some major factors The debate concerning women's issues and p o l i t i c s emerges from more than one source: from the debate on women and formal p o l i t i c s , from the study of feminist activism, and from varied research on the condition of women i n society. A l l are tr y i n g to understand women's subordinate position, but the angle from which each examines the s i t u a t i o n of women d i f f e r s . I outline some of these ideas here and then discuss them further i n Chapter Two. I also r e f e r to the childcare issue i n p a r t i c u l a r and outline i t s h i s t o r i c a l context. One of the areas to be examined with respect to feminist activism i s bureaucracy. The nature of bureaucracy i s fundamental to understanding lobbying and pol i c y success with government. Government i s a bureaucracy: i t i s a h i e r a r c h i c a l structure i n which some groups and individuals have authority over others. This must be taken into consideration when t r y i n g to understand the lobbying effectiveness of p a r t i c u l a r groups. While more women now hold positions within bureaucracies, change within these structures i s slow and often reactionary (Ferguson, 1984). This has c e r t a i n l y been the case i n the Canadian federal bureaucracy (as already noted). Although the federal government approved the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women (1970), those changes remain largely unimplemented. Findlay (1987) argues that the floundering on implementation has occurred within the federal bureaucracy (federal bureaucrats do not generally advocate feminist b e l i e f s ) . 15 Other research to be discussed has focused on po l i c y influence. Burt (1990) examines the p o l i c y influence of Canadian women's groups and argues that p o l i c y which upsets the status quo i s not successful i n getting onto government agendas. Peattie and Rein (1983) show how the idea of the natural and the a r t i f i c i a l has changed over time, and successful claims on government follow unwritten guidelines on what i s natural. Ideology and the pat r i a r c h a l family model are important elements i n the discussion on women's issues. Many the o r i s t s look to the family to understand women's oppression (e.g. Luxton, 1980; Ursel, 1984). Abortion p o l i t i c s has much to do with middle class ideals of the family and the fundamental role of women as mothers (e.g. Lovenduski and Outshoorn, 1986). Defending childcare on the basis of c h i l d welfare l e f t feminist a c t i v i s t s i n Toronto vulnerable to id e o l o g i c a l attack and red bai t i n g following World War II (Prentice, 1989). Women's labour force p a r t i c i p a t i o n has been a primary focus i n debates involving women. While many working class women have always been employed out of necessity, the o v e r a l l numbers of women employed has been r e l a t i v e l y small throughout much of t h i s century (See Table 1). In 1901, women's labour force p a r t i c i p a t i o n rate was 14.4% and grew slowly but st e a d i l y throughout t h i s century (with a major f l u c t u a t i o n during World War II) up to 57.9% i n 1989. It i s not surprising that women's labour force p a r t i c i p a t i o n has been discussed frequently as employment status i s important i n defining a person's socio-economic well-being. However, i t i s only 16 one aspect of women's l i v e s . Family r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n t e r a c t heavily with women's labour force p a r t i c i p a t i o n . I r e f e r next to a debate which overlaps with my discussion of women's issues and p o l i t i c s : the debate surrounding women as a reserve army of labour which has been used i n attempts to explain women's changing employment patterns. Emerging from t h i s debate i s evidence that i n order to understand the condition of women, more emphasis needs to be given to the i d e o l o g i c a l factors involved, the sexual d i v i s i o n of labour i n the family, and childcare as a primary r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of women. These factors greatly a f f e c t women's l i v e s . Women as a 'Reserve Army of Labour' One of the most frequently used concepts i n explaining women's labour force p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s the Marxian concept of a reserve army  of labour. Connelly (1978) argues that women are a reserve army of labour, having the three primary c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of being competitive, available, and cheap. Bruegel (1979), on the other hand, i d e n t i f i e s d i s p o s a b i l i t y as the prime c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a reserve army of labour and argues that women are a 'disposable' reserve. Yanz and Smith (1983) argue that too much emphasis has been placed on defining a concept and f i t t i n g women into the concept rather than t r y i n g to understand how women d i r e c t l y r e l a t e to the broader theory of c a p i t a l i s t accumulation. In each case, however, the concept of a reserve army of labour tends to conceptually separate family r e l a t i o n s and c a p i t a l i s t r e l a t i o n s and t h i s separation i s problematic. My purpose here i s not to review a l l the arguments surrounding women as a reserve army of labour but to emphasize a few points which indicate a connection between women's vulnerable position within the labour force and the p o l i t i c s surrounding women's issues such as the childcare issue. One of the most c r u c i a l elements i n women's paid work over the l a s t century i n Canada, B r i t a i n , and the United States i s the increasing integration of women into the paid work force. While women have formerly gone i n and out of the labour force i n greater numbers, now the majority of women are 'permanently' employed. This includes women with young children (who are most l i k e l y to leave regular employment), and both working class and middle class women. Because of the nature of global economics, economic booms and recessions, and increasing l a y - o f f s even i n white c o l l a r sectors, very few people can be said to be 'permanently' employed and I use the term cautiously. However, my argument i s that the majority of women are now employed most of the time. The fundamental fa c t i s that paid employment i s an economic imperative for i n d i v i d u a l s , even i n two-parent fa m i l i e s . Women must be seen as permanent rather than temporary employees, and family r e s p o n s i b i i t i e s such as childcare must be seen i n l i g h t of t h i s . The debate surrounding women as a reserve army of labour examines economic factors without looking c l o s e l y at the ide o l o g i c a l implications of women's employment. While economic factors which a f f e c t women's labour force p a r t i c i p a t i o n have changed (e.g. women have increasingly been employed i n the 18 expanding service sector), i d e o l o g i c a l factors have not changed so rapidly . The ideology that women's true place i s i n the home continues, as does the ideology of the family wage (the idea that the male breadwinner's earnings w i l l support the entire family). Some theoris t s now suggest that the family wage may never have been a r e a l i t y for many and that i t has been used more as an ideology to bar women from male jobs and to keep women's wages low (Barrett & Mcintosh, 1980). While many le g a l b a r r i e r s which barred women's employment i n male sectors have f a l l e n , women's wages s t i l l f a l l f a r below men's wages. Women's economic inse c u r i t y along with the ide o l o g i c a l hold of the t r a d i t i o n a l family combine to make women's position very tenuous. How 'work' has been viewed i s problematic because i t does not include the f u l l picture of women's l i v e s . Even though the majority of women are now employed, the d i v i s i o n of labour i n the home has changed l i t t l e , i f at a l l . Women are s t i l l expected to perform the majority of the work of r a i s i n g children, household maintenance, and serv i c i n g other family members such as the el d e r l y and sick children. Even i f capitalism undermines the material basis of patriarchy within the family by drawing women into wage labour, p a t r i a r c h a l ideology i n the family remains strong (Power, 1983). I t i s t h i s p a t r i a r c h a l ideology and the sexual d i v i s i o n of labour which continue to a f f e c t how women pa r t i c i p a t e i n the labour force. Patriarchal ideology: some considerations An examination of how the issue of childcare has emerged i n t h e W e s t e r n E u r o p e a n and N o r t h A m e r i c a n c o n t e x t p r o v i d e s i n f o r m a t i o n n o t o n l y o f r e l e v a n c e t o t h i s p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e b u t t o o t h e r women's i s s u e s a s w e l l . What becomes a p p a r e n t i n s u c h an e x a m i n a t i o n i s t h e w i d e s p r e a d a s s u m p t i o n w i t h i n g o vernment d e b a t e s and a c t i o n s on t h e p r o p e r r o l e o f women. Women's p r i m a r y r o l e i s as m o t h e r s , w i t h s e c o n d a r y c o n s i d e r a t i o n g i v e n t o t h e i r r o l e a s wage e a r n e r s , e v e n i n t i m e s and p l a c e s where women a r e assumed t o be i n t h e l a b o u r f o r c e . The o v e r r i d i n g a s s u m p t i o n has b e e n , and c o n t i n u e s t o be, t h a t women have a p r i m a r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o w a r d s t h e home, as m o t h e r s and as h o u s e h o l d p r o v i d e r s . S e v e r a l p o i n t s n e e d t o be c o n s i d e r e d t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e go v e r n m e n t ' s p o s i t i o n i n a d d r e s s i n g women's r o l e a s m o t h e r s . F i r s t , o v e r t h e p a s t two c e n t u r i e s , t h e c o n d i t i o n s and e x p e c t a t i o n s a r o u n d t h e c a r e o f c h i l d r e n have c h a n g e d d r a s t i c a l l y . Much more t i m e i s now d e v o t e d t o t h e e d u c a t i o n a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t o f c h i l d r e n , and m o t h e r s i n p a r t i c u l a r have become i n c r e a s i n g l y i m p o r t a n t i n c a r i n g f o r c h i l d r e n ( T i l l y and S c o t t , 1978; A r i e s , 1 9 6 5 ) . S e c o n d , government a s s i s t a n c e t o w a r d s m o t h e r s c a r i n g f o r c h i l d r e n h as most o f t e n f o c u s e d on t h e needs o f c h i l d r e n r a t h e r t h a n t h e needs o f m o t h e r s ( U r s e l , 1984; J e n s o n , 1 9 8 6 ) . F o r example, d u r i n g t h e l a t e n i n e t e e n t h and e a r l y t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r i e s , m a t e r n a l l e a v e laws were d e s i g n e d t o p r e v e n t i n f a n t d e a t h s , n o t t o a d d r e s s t h e o p p r e s s i v e c o n d i t i o n s o f women's l i v e s . Women a r e o n l y i n d i r e c t l y i m p l i c a t e d , a s c h i l d b e a r e r s . T h i r d , women's e x p e c t e d r o l e i n t h e l a b o u r f o r c e c r e a t e s t h e p a r a m e t e r s u n d e r w h i c h c h i l d c a r e i s o r i s n o t p r o v i d e d ( J e n s o n , 1986; B u r t , Code, and Dorney, 1988). Where women are not necessarily seen as wage workers (as has been the case i n B r i t a i n and Canada), middle class c h a r i t y organizations have provided temporary care f o r the children of needy employed working class mothers. This care has had a d e f i n i t e welfare focus. While women were drawn into the labour force i n large numbers during World War II — and the federal government passed l e g i s l a t i o n which assisted i n the provision of childcare — women's recruitment into wartime industry was not a fundamental challenge to t h e i r proper r o l e nor were there any major concessions made regarding t h e i r r i g h t to work for pay (Pierson, 1986). Fourth, childcare i s governed under the Canada Assistance Plan (1966) and retains the welfare focus of e a r l i e r years. This a f f e c t s how the provision of childcare i s viewed i n general and sets l i m i t s on government action. The Canada Assistance Plan (CAP) sets out the funding formula between federal and p r o v i n c i a l governments. The federal government funds up to 50 percent of the cost of those programs designed for the "lessening, removal, or prevention of the causes and e f f e c t s of poverty, c h i l d neglect, or dependence on public assistance" (Canada Assistance Plan, quoted i n Marcy Cohen et a l , 1973, 56). Programs which do not q u a l i f y under these c r i t e r i a must be covered e n t i r e l y by the p r o v i n c i a l government. A report on daycare by the United Way notes that since the CAP funding formula confines support to families who q u a l i f y based on s o c i a l arid economic c r i t e r i a , t h i s "reinforces the concept of daycare as a service confined to situations of s o c i a l pathology and economic need" (Responsible Daycare, 1981, 6). Since the mid-1970's, the major portion of pa r t i c i p a t i o n by the B.C. government has been i n the form of daycare subsidies with s t r i c t guidelines concerning f i n a n c i a l need (See Chapter 3 for further d e t a i l s ) . Trying to understand the childcare issue i n p a r t i c u l a r involves an examination of women's l i v e s i n a broader context. Explaining the subordination of women i s a complicated process, and the discussion has taken several turns over the past two decades. Some research has focused on s p e c i f i c aspects of women's l i v e s . Now, several researchers also question the method of research: how we do research a f f e c t s what we learn. Methodology: some considerations Theorists such as J i l l Vickers and Dorothy Smith provide a methodological c r i t i q u e of the study of women and p o l i t i c s . Methodology i s not just 'techniques' but has s p e c i f i c h i s t o r i c a l and i d e o l o g i c a l contexts. Vickers (1989) suggests that the normal integration approach (quantitative research which examines how women f i t into the present p o l i t i c a l structure) , has been the basis for the majority of research to date including her own, but that we also need q u a l i t a t i v e research to lay a basis for women's p o l i t i c s . She asks whether women are apathetic (as t h e i r continuing absence i n many areas of formal p o l i t i c s might suggest) or are the r e a l l y important questions being decided elsewhere. Dorothy Smith (1987) argues that the 'relations of r u l i n g ' , including the power structure of government, are based i n a gender d i v i s i o n of labour and that the gender subtext has been i n v i s i b l e . Women's 22 experiences and interests have not been represented. The methodology I have used f o r my own research has been primarily q u a l i t a t i v e (personal interviews) but I complement that with some quantitative analysis (e.g., the use of federal, p r o v i n c i a l , and municipal s t a t i s t i c s ) . I have examined how the childcare issue gets onto a municipal agenda i n the Greater Vancouver area, using f i v e l o c a l governments for my analysis — the C i t y of Vancouver and four D i s t r i c t M u n i c i p a l i t i e s : North Vancouver DM, Richmond DM, Surrey DM, and Langley DM. I discuss my methodology i n further d e t a i l i n Chapters Three and Four. The childcare issue i s an issue which holds p a r t i c u l a r importance for women because they presently and h i s t o r i c a l l y have been primarily responsible for the care of children, family, and household. Also, using a l o c a l government set t i n g allows me to examine t h i s issue at the grass roots l e v e l where problems originate and i n which individuals and groups often begin to seek solutions. Local governments are more accessible to people compared to senior l e v e l s of government. At the same time, women are better represented at the municipal government l e v e l compared to either p r o v i n c i a l or federal l e v e l s (Brodie, 1985). The greater presence of women on government seats could conceivably improve the chances of bringing a women's issue forward. Holding personal interviews has enabled me to gather a variety of information "from where women act u a l l y l i v e and operate" (Smith, 1987). These interviews have e f f e c t i v e l y provided reasons for the childcare issue gaining prominence i n one area but not another, p a r t i c u l a r l y with respect to id e o l o g i c a l concerns. Rather than applying my data to an already established framework which may not incorporate those concerns, t h i s method of research allows me to question why women and t h e i r issues have not been ' f i t t i n g i n ' to the established p o l i t i c a l framework or to the established p o l i t i c a l typologies. Conclusion Examining how women's issues get addressed at the formal p o l i t i c a l l e v e l i s part of a broad picture of understanding the subordination of women. To address women's subordination means asking fundamental questions about how our society i s organized: i n government, fam i l i e s , and employment. Any major improvements i n the condition of women require a fundamental reorganization of how people think and organize t h e i r l i v e s . The extent to which women's issues can get onto the p o l i t i c a l agenda depends on the extent to which those i n control allow government to change. How i n f l u e n t i a l feminist a c t i v i s t s can be i n forcing change depends on many factors, but two of the most important are the extent to which they are able to upset the ideo l o g i c a l and socio-economic parameters of the status quo. The childcare issue may get on a p o l i t i c a l agenda, but under what auspices? How the issue gets formulated helps to determine the extent of change i n women's l i v e s . Chapter Two Lobbying the Government: Strategies and Tactics This chapter examines why some issues have been successfully added to the formal p o l i t i c a l agenda. I look at what c r i t e r i a these successful issues share and then at what might be special about women's issues, that i s , what makes i t more d i f f i c u l t for women's issues to be more f u l l y integrated onto the p o l i t i c a l agenda. Once I have examined the success rates on other issues, and the lobbying techniques used by t h e i r advocates, I w i l l be better able to analyze my own data concerning the childcare issue i n the Greater Vancouver area. I use research by Pross (1986) as a backdrop f o r my examination of issue success rates. Pross outlines factors which he considers important i n the lobbying effectiveness of a variety of Canadian organizations. These factors concern the degree of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n of the group as well as the a c q u i s i t i o n of basic lobbying strategies. I then examine other research which looks s p e c i f i c a l l y at women's issues and t h e i r success rates i n getting onto p o l i t i c a l agendas. This l a t t e r research focuses on the nature of the issue (how much i t upsets the status quo) and the i d e o l o g i c a l constraints, as well as an array of lobbying s k i l l s s i m i l a r to those outlined by Pross. Why some groups lobby successfully (according to Pross) Pross (1986) discusses group p o l i t i c s and public p o l i c y . He examines a variety of pressure groups within Canadian p o l i t i c s (including environmental a c t i v i s t s , business organizations, and 24 trade unions) and looks at who gets involved, how involvement occurs, where i t occurs, the importance of pressure groups, and the effectiveness of ce r t a i n t a c t i c s . He argues that p o l i c y formation occurs i n 'policy making communities'. Due to the complexity of our modern p o l i t i c a l and economic i n s t i t u t i o n s , s p e c i a l i z a t i o n occurs throughout the p o l i c y system and only major issues a c t u a l l y get discussed by Cabinet or government leaders. T y p i c a l l y , p o l i c y gets developed i n a spe c i a l i z e d bureaucratic system. He describes a po l i c y community as a 'special public' which acts as an intermediary between the general public and the government. Policy communities consist of a var i e t y of government agencies and i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d i n t e r e s t groups as well as issue oriented pressure groups who bring the issues of the public at large to the attention of government decision makers. The government r e l i e s on the po l i c y community to study issues, debate the options, propose l e g i s l a t i o n , and make arrangements for i t s implementation. Pross argues that p o l i c y i s seldom the r e s u l t of general public discussion. Instead, support i s generated i n a po l i c y community, often under the lead of a government o f f i c i a l . In general, t h i s loose c o a l i t i o n moves toward the public at large, not vice versa. Pressure groups are an in t e g r a l part of the p o l i c y community. They help evaluate p o l i c y , create opinion, and a r t i c u l a t e the concerns of those they represent. Pressure groups perform the same functions wherever they are found. They promote the interests of t h e i r members. They communicate between members and the state. They legitimate the demands t h e i r members make on the state and the public p o l i c i e s they support. They regulate t h e i r members and they a s s i s t the state to administer p o l i c i e s and programs (Pross, 1986, 84). According to Pross, pressure groups work within the framework established by government and they must adopt an i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d , bureaucratic structure to have p o l i c y success with government. Their method of organization and patterns of behaviour are part of the process by which they contribute to the formation of p o l i c y . Both i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n and bureaucratization are prime components i n Pross's c r i t e r i a for p o l i c y success. Pross places groups on a continuum according to t h e i r degree of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n — begining with issue-oriented groups and proceeding to f l e d g l i n g , mature, and i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d . Their organizational capacity i s "the key to the exploitation of power" (Pross, 1986, 114). Good organization means organizing bureaucratically and thinking i n bureaucratic terms. It includes a formal structure, c l e a r l y defined r o l e s , adequate resources, a c o l l e c t i v e memory, rules governing behaviour, and procedures for reaching decisions. Pross also argues that basic lobbying strategies are e s s e n t i a l prerequisites for getting issues onto the p o l i t i c a l agenda. These strategies include knowing where to lobby, understanding your target, being professional, and avoiding confrontation. A group needs to i d e n t i f y the appropriate government agencies and departments (know where to lobby). They should anticipate certain obstacles and be f a m i l i a r with important p o l i c i e s , programs, and problems (understand t h e i r target). Working with government i s a process of c o l l e c t i v e bargaining and a f r i e n d l y r e l a t i o n s h i p can ensure that the group w i l l be c a l l e d upon to make input into important decision-making. At the same time, becoming part of a bureaucracy and getting a foothold on a government agenda requires being professional. For Pross t h i s means doing your homework, writing b r i e f s that are well-prepared and e f f e c t i v e l y organized, making presentations with 'facts at your f i n g e r t i p s ' , and 'not whining or making outrageous demands' (Pross, 1986, 143). One of the continual debates i n lobbying c i r c l e s i s the co-operation-confrontation debate. While Pross argues that avoiding confrontation i s a basic lobbying s k i l l , he also acknowledges the successful lobbying of certa i n subgroups who have used confrontation when t h e i r i d e o l o g i c a l views have d i f f e r e d with government. He argues that there i s a close connection between the ideology of a group and i t s plan of action. When a group's id e o l o g i c a l viewpoint f i t s with the government's viewpoint, then i t i s e f f e c t i v e to work d i r e c t l y with government, but when there i s ideo l o g i c a l resistance, confrontation can be more e f f e c t i v e . According to Pross's continuum, issue-oriented groups are least l i k e l y to be e f f e c t i v e i n having t h e i r concerns addressed by government. Those attributes which are prerequisites for getting on the government agenda (cohesion, funds, structure, and the capacity to prepare b r i e f s and make presentations) are often formidable b a r r i e r s to small groups with few resources. He refers to the problems of small issue-oriented groups: 28 Access to the p o l i c y process, even at the l o c a l l e v e l , i s hard to obtain because they do not understand the bureaucratic ways of policy-makers, because the trappings of democracy are beyond t h e i r means, or because t h e i r p l i g h t i s too banal to s t i r a f l i c k e r of i n t e r e s t among crusading j o u r n a l i s t s (Pross, 1986, 131). While basic lobbying strategies are considered important by most researchers who have examined the lobbying and p o l i c y successes of various groups, researchers do not agree on the importance of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n or bureaucratization. The remainder of t h i s chapter examines feminist research which s p e c i f i c a l l y focuses on the lobbying and p o l i c y successes of groups who are attempting to get women's issues onto the p o l i t i c a l agenda. While these groups share some of Pross's c r i t e r i a for success, other considerations take precedence. Lobbying s t r a t e g i e s : feminist perspectives Some of the factors considered important by Pross are also stressed by feminist researchers, e s p e c i a l l y the basic lobbying s k i l l s which must be seen as prerequisites for e f f e c t i v e lobbying. Pross refers to knowing where to lobby, understanding your target, and being professional. The feminist research which I examined large l y incorporates those factors (being professional i n writing b r i e f s and making presentations i s considered standard procedure). However, t h i s research often steps beyond Pross's guidelines. For example, understanding your target i s not just a n t i c i p a t i n g obstacles, being f a m i l i a r with problems or p o l i c i e s , and being f r i e n d l y c o l l e c t i v e bargainers — i t also means having access to p o l i t i c i a n s . Environmental factors play a r o l e , since the p o l i t i c a l , economic, and s o c i a l climate a f f e c t lobbying effectiveness. Additional factors such as outside group support and an a b i l i t y to compromise and accept incremental change are also considered important i n lobbying for women's issues. Kome (1989) provides a guide to taking p o l i t i c a l action. She argues for the importance of organized and c o l l e c t i v e action, including goal-setting, gathering a l l i e s , media contact, brainstorming, presenting b r i e f s , organizing public meetings, and persistence ('eternal v i g i l a n c e ' ) . Identifying the proper j u r i s d i c t i o n i s often a very d i f f i c u l t task: Pinning r e s p o n s i b i l i t y where i t belongs can be more complicated than you'd expect. J u r i s d i c t i o n i s often murky (Kome, 1989, 10). She also notes the importance of being s p e c i f i c . She suggests, for example, that instead of asking a p o l i t i c i a n 'what i s your position on childcare?', i d e n t i f y a s p e c i f i c recommendation of a taskforce and then ask the p o l i t i c i a n 'what w i l l you do regarding i t s implementation?' (Kome, 43). In general, Kome i s arguing for professional s k i l l s , understanding government, and targeting e f f e c t i v e l y . Costain (1988) i d e n t i f i e s three factors which are necessary for women's movement advocates to gain i n i t i a l access to the p o l i c y system. The f i r s t i s external pressure on the movement which i s s u f f i c i e n t to break down the resistance of members to lobbying. The second factor i s the presence of outside groups to help with the lobbying e f f o r t . These groups are not only h e l p f u l , but they also e s t a b l i s h the parameters within which change occurs. The t h i r d factor i s the presence of members of government who support 30 your cause. This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y important i n gaining access to a l e g i s l a t i v e body. Gelb and Palley (1979) also i d e n t i f y several factors which a f f e c t i n t e r e s t groups making an impact on the government p o l i c y system. They too indicate the importance of broad based support (outside groups are important i n helping with the lobbying e f f o r t ) and a network which provides access to government decision makers. They i d e n t i f y other factors, including the a b i l i t y to compromise and the a b i l i t y to define success as incremental change (similar to Pross's guidelines for co-operation and c o l l e c t i v e bargaining). More importantly, they stress the importance of promoting issues that do not challenge basic values or divide supporters. In t h e i r analysis of the po l i c y system, role equity rather than r o l e change reaps more successes. This i s not surprising considering that role change i s a basic challenge to the way people think and l i v e t h e i r l i v e s . Before discussing further the importance of the status quo, i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p with basic values, and what i s considered natural and acceptable, I want to discuss two other items: i ) access to government, and i i ) the bureaucratic structure of government. These are important considerations i n the feminist research I examined concerning e f f e c t i v e lobbying, and they r e l a t e to both "women and p o l i t i c s " and "women's issues and p o l i t i c s . " E f f e c t i v e lobbying includes not only connecting with p o l i t i c i a n s who support your cause, but also functioning within a government framework. In the case of women's issues, i t i s often assumed that female p o l i t i c i a n s w i l l automatically play the rol e of advocate but the si t u a t i o n i s not so simple. Female p o l i t i c i a n s have c e r t a i n l y been important i n voicing the concerns of feminist a c t i v i s t s , but, at the same time, the aims of feminist a c t i v i s t s do not necessarily coincide with the aims of many p o l i t i c i a n s — male or female. Access to government: some considerations A commonly held b e l i e f within l i b e r a l feminism i s that the position of women w i l l improve with greater access to the p o l i t i c a l system. This would include increasing the numerical representation of women within mainstream p o l i t i c s . The underlying assumption i s that once women are part of the p o l i t i c a l system, the condition of women i n general w i l l improve. However, as more women have gained important p o l i t i c a l positions, and the condition of women has not appreciably changed, some the o r i s t s have come to question the v a l i d i t y of the l i b e r a l feminist argument. Several points need to be considered to place t h i s lack of change i n perspective. In Canada, women are r e l a t i v e l y new to the world of p o l i t i c s and are s t i l l removed from p o l i t i c a l and economic power, p a r t i c u l a r l y from most powerful Cabinet posts. While not a l l female p o l i t i c i a n s have feminist concerns or have chosen to be involved i n government action on women's issues, Canadian l e g i s l a t i o n which deals with women's issues has most often been introduced by women parliamentarians. Since 1971, there have been 10 Ministers Responsible for the Status of Women but only 2 of those have been women. This ministry i s not a favored post and has had major constraints: i t has most often lacked the resources to be e f f e c t i v e (e.g. support s t a f f , funding), i t has been marginalized from important government decision making, and i t has been met with strong Cabinet resistance to any change i n women's status (Burt, Code, & Dorney, 1988, 150). In general, although women's groups have lobbied government, t h e i r effectiveness as a lobby has been lim i t e d . A 1984 survey of women's groups indicates that while 76 percent of the groups had lobbied government, only 19 percent had some success i n influencing government and 25 percent indicated that government o f f i c i a l s acted in a h o s t i l e manner (Burt, Code, & Dorney, 1988). Some theoris t s argue that women elected to high government o f f i c e s do not generally come from the Women's Movement, nor do they necessarily share feminist b e l i e f s . Throughout the Western world, women are being elected and appointed to high posts i n p o l i t i c a l p arties; these women do not always come from women's movements, and come even less frequently from within feminism, although they do recognize i t s impact. Their image i s not an appealing one - neither for women generally, who do not necessarily vote for them, nor the feminists, who do not see them as t h e i r point of reference (Cohen & De Giorgio, 1989, 24). A d i f f e r e n t set of c r i t e r i a often shape the aims of women entering formal p o l i t i c s and the aims of feminist a c t i v i s t s . To be elected, female p o l i t i c i a n s need to f i t into the already defined p o l i t i c a l system. I t i s not unl i k e l y that they would share some of the values of t h e i r male counterparts, nor i s i t u n l i k e l y that they would spend considerable e f f o r t t r y i n g to follow the already established rules of the p o l i t i c a l game — such as following party p o l i c y or accepting the established hierarchy of important issues. On the other hand, feminist a c t i v i s t s often challenge fundamental aspects of the present p o l i t i c a l system. They are more l i k e l y to question party p o l i c y and f i g h t to place feminist concerns on the agenda. Feminist a c t i v i s t s i n Canada and the United States have helped create important changes i n state p o l i c i e s and action. In the United States, the women's movement (which followed the c i v i l r i g h t s movement) brought general recognition of the legitimacy of women's rights and created a general expectation that something would be done (Freeman, 1975). In Canada, the i n t i t i a l thrust of the women's movement i n the 1960's brought to the forefront the blatant discriminatory practices a f f e c t i n g women. State response was to act i n a general defence of equality r i g h t s and create an atmosphere of the state p u b l i c l y responding to women's demands (Findlay, 1987). Indeed, many women responded favourably to the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women (1970). While the women's movement was successful i n pressuring the Canadian government to represent women's in t e r e s t s , and the government did respond with a formal set of recommendations regarding the status of women, the state has been successful i n constructing the po l i c y making process i n such a way that i t has been able to 'control women's demands and l i m i t reform' (Findlay, 1987). For example, the recommendations of the Status of Women report were approved i n p r i n c i p l e only by the Cabinet i n 1972. I t i s not surp r i s i n g that feminist a c t i v i s t s formed NAC (National Action Committee on the Status of Women) as a watchdog on government action at that time, foreseeing the problem of 34 government resistance. An examination of the Canadian state over the past two decades indicates that the response of government i s not the r e s u l t of negotiations between two equal groups — those representing feminist interests and those representing government. Rather, i t has been a struggle between the state and feminists as to how the state would define women's inte r e s t s and integrate them into the inherently unequal structure (Findlay, 1987). While i n i t i a l l y the state was vulnerable to the requests of feminists, and i t was p o l i t i c a l l y expedient to make a public response, the parameters of change as put forward by state p o l i c y have been l i m i t e d . Responsiveness was limited to b r i e f periods and was almost e n t i r e l y due to converging p o l i t i c a l forces at a p a r t i c u l a r moment rather than r e f l e c t i n g any r a t i o n a l commitment to women's equality (Findlay, 1987, 33). Findlay (1987) argues that by the late 1970's, government response to feminist demands was more and more guarded. Those demands which would fundamentally challenge state p o l i c y and most e f f e c t i v e l y change the subordinate position of women were noticeably absent i n government response (demands for abortion, daycare, and mandatory affirmative action). She suggests that feminist a c t i v i s t s have gained l i t t l e access to government po l i c y makers, and when they have been present, they have acted more as token consultants. Many decisions are made at the state bureaucratic l e v e l , and at t h i s l e v e l feminist interests are generally absent. Because of the frequent lack of agreement between feminist a c t i v i s t s and p o l i t i c i a n s , i t becomes increasingly important to have access to key people i n important positions who w i l l f a c i l i t a t e the necessary p o l i c y changes and help bring about action. While t h i s f a c i l i t a t i o n process i s often dependent on s p e c i f i c p o l i t i c i a n s , trade union a c t i v i s t s and feminist a c t i v i s t s have also been important players (e.g., i n the case of B r i t i s h abortion p o l i t i c s ) . Successful lobbying usually e n t a i l s f i n a n c i a l resources, e f f e c t i v e communication (both within a group and with the public at large), p o l i t i c a l contacts, and a presence within the p o l i t i c a l arena. This i s much more e a s i l y accomplished as a c o a l i t i o n . Rarely i s an organized i n t e r e s t so i n f l u e n t i a l that i t can achieve i t s p o l i c y goals on i t s own (Boneparth & Stoper, 1988; Lovenduski, 1986). However, while alignments can be e f f e c t i v e i n bringing about important changes within a r e l a t i v e l y short period of time, they often disband or the key people are removed from decision making positions. As a r e s u l t , c o a l i t i o n s frequently s h i f t membership. Both key p o l i t i c i a n s and p o l i t i c a l c o a l i t i o n s become important factors i n accessing government. While the p o l i t i c i a n s are helpful i n doing p a r t i c u l a r advocacy work, c o a l i t i o n s provide a broad base of support — a factor which i s important i n dealing with an entrenched bureaucratic structure. In the next section, I examine government bureaucracy and some of the bureaucratic problems confronted by those lobbying government. 36 Government as bureaucracy As outlined e a r l i e r , one of Pross's major considerations i n lobbying effectiveness concerns bureaucratic organizational capacity. Those groups which become more i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d and bureaucratized have more success. In t h i s section, I discuss arguments put forward by feminist researchers concerning bureaucracy i n general and consider the p a r t i c u l a r case of the Canadian federal government bureaucracy. Feminist arguments d i f f e r from those put forward by Pross. Indeed, most feminist organizations have non-hierarchical structures. At the same time, government i s bureaucratic and those who lobby government must deal with bureaucracy. Bureaucracy i s inherently h i e r a r c h i c a l and i s designed to maintain the present power structure. A bureaucratic structure routinely places people and s p e c i f i c i nterests i n a hierarchy, and many feminists argue that women's concerns are part of what gets routinely dominated. While the l i b e r a l feminist challenge has been to give women access to public i n s t i t u t i o n s , t h i s assumes that major changes w i l l occur within the bureaucratic structure to create more equality for women. The p o s s i b i l i t y for such change may be minimal. Women need power i n order to change society, but power within bureaucracies i s not change-making power. The organized forms and discourse of bureaucratic capitalism i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e modes of domination that recreate the very patterns of oppression that feminism arose to combat (Ferguson, 1984, 203). Other feminists have argued that improving the conditions of women's l i v e s requires r e j e c t i n g the h i e r a r c h i c a l d i v i s i o n of labour which i s at the heart of bureaucracy and bureaucratic capitalism. Various alternatives have been t r i e d which attempt to keep the d i v i s i o n of labour horizontal rather than v e r t i c a l . However, these often present d i f f i c u l t i e s around decision making, in t e n s i t y of int e r a c t i o n , and le v e l s of c a p a b i l i t y . Even with these attempts to restructure hierarchies, the r e a l i t y i s that government i s bureaucratic. Those who want to do business with government must learn to function within the framework of government bureaucracy. Thus, an important s k i l l i n reaching feminist goals i s being able to deal with bureaucracy without being co-opted by i t . This means maintaining appropriate o f f i c e s so that government o f f i c i a l s have points of contact for exchange of information, grants, etc., without adopting the government's structure. This i s a d i f f i c u l t challenge. Feminists cannot turn t h e i r backs on public bureaucrats because the decisions of bureaucrats a f f e c t the l i v e s of women. Each i s part of the larger system. By choosing to opt out of the system, a group (whether feminist or not) w i l l lose i t s public v i a b i l i t y and i t s public voice. At the same time, by choosing to work within the bureaucracy, a group becomes part of a h i e r a r c h i c a l system. Hopes that major changes w i l l occur with the entry of women onto the bureaucratic stage are often 'naive and pious hopes'. To ' l i b e r a t e ' women so that they may take an 'equal' place i n s t a f f i n g other oppressive i n s t i t u t i o n s and share an 'equal' r o l e i n perpetuating other kinds of subordination would be a pyrrhic v i c t o r y indeed (Ferguson, 1984, 122). 38 The incorporation of women into positions of power i n public i n s t i t u t i o n s often enlarges the bureaucratic hierarchy without challenging the structure of the hierarchy. As long as one group i s primarily concerned with exercising power, another w i l l be concerned with coping with that power held over them. Women are among those who have power held over them and bureaucracy i s an ef f e c t i v e means of control. Relying on women i n executive positions to be the leaders on women's issues i s often f r u i t l e s s . They do not generally have the mandate to deal with women's issues, and they are often bound by administrative guidelines which circumvent feminist concerns. At the same time, many are p o l i t i c a l appointees. They must choose between losing the support of women's groups and losing t h e i r jobs (Boneparth & Stoper, 1988). While a bureaucratic structure i n general i s problematic for many feminists, the Canadian government bureaucracy has pa r t i c u l a r problems. I w i l l address some of these concerns i n the remainder of t h i s section. Government bureaucracy has had a large e f f e c t on how the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women have been implemented. While the recommendations were quite f a r -reaching, t h e i r implementation has been marred by a series of problems. Women's Programs were i n i t i a l l y led by feminist a c t i v i s t s , but by the late 1970's they were led by state bureaucrats who had very l i t t l e i n t e r e s t i n the concerns of feminist a c t i v i s t s (Findlay, 1987). The state has been able to 39 l i m i t reforms, even though women were i n i t i a l l y brought i n on the pol i c y making process. Findlay (1987) documents several instances of how senior management has subordinated women's issues. She argues that any feminist proposals that made i t to Cabinet l e v e l (e.g., a National Daycare Act) were met with " w i l l f u l misunderstanding or f r i e n d l y r i d i c u l e " , and while now such exchanges are more often c o r r e c t l y labeled as sexual harassment, at t h i s point they were considered "natural" ( i b i d : 39). Also, the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women (CACSW), which was established i n 1973, has been prone to the abuses of p o l i t i c a l patronage. The Departments of Justi c e , Health and Welfare, Secretary of State, and Employment and Immigration have been involved with the implementation of recommendations but those positions have tended to be f i l l e d with public servants who have been unwilling to challenge e x i s t i n g procedures and p r i o r i t i e s . They have not been rooted i n the Women's Movement. Barriers developed between the Women's Programs and the Women's Movement, and i n 1976 the Of f i c e of the Co-ordinator of the Status of Women was removed. Also, between 1976-1979, Women's Programs became more accountable to government and to the 'primacy of bureaucratic rules, regulations, and procedures'. Findlay argues that successful challenges to state bureaucracy depend on feminists inside the state maintaining contact with the Women's Movement. If decisions are l e f t to c i v i l servants, the representation of women suffers greatly: r e l y i n g on the state to represent women's interests leads to limited reform. The 40 government's i n i t i a l support more l i k e l y indicates a response to overwhelming evidence of women's inequality at a time when many governments were dealing with human right s issues. Not to respond at a l l would have been i m p o l i t i c . At times when the State i s more vulnerable to women's demands, feminists can play a more active r o l e i n the development of state proposals to promote women's equality. Taking advantage of the state's need for legitimation, they can e s t a b l i s h feminist alternatives to the bureaucratic mode of operating that reinforces patterns of inequality, or advocate p o l i c i e s that challenge the ideology of capitalism and patriarchy (Findlay, 1987, 48). As Findlay notes, the government may only occasionally allow changes which challenge p r e v a i l i n g ideology. However, ideology becomes a major concern with women's issues: i t i s central to government decision making. How t h i s occurs relates to what i s considered normal and acceptable: when the demands step beyond current i d e o l o g i c a l guidelines (as women's issues generally do), that upsets the status quo and the response i s frequently negative. While Pross b r i e f l y includes ideology i n his analysis of lobbying effectiveness, i t i s not a major variable. The most important variable i n his research i s organizational capacity (bureaucratization and i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n ) — a factor which has not been important i n the feminist research I examined. However, another factor (concerning ideology and the status quo) has been discussed frequently by feminists. Researchers describe i t i n a v a r i e t y of ways: the perceived legitimacy of the issue, the degree to which i t challenges the idea of the natural, the extent to which i t challenges basic values, i t s degree of normalcy, and the l e v e l to which i t demands role change rather than role equity. The underlying theme i s that p o l i c y influence i s much greater where the issue does not threaten the status quo. Policy which i s threatening i s usually met with much government resistance. In the next section, I discuss maintaining the status quo. Maintaining the status quo: implications f o r lobbying effectiveness In analyzing p o l i c y influence, i t i s important to consider variables which incorporate the environment i n which an issue i s brought forward. These include s o c i a l , economic, and p o l i t i c a l variables — conditions which often cross national boundaries. These conditions provide an i n d i c a t i o n of how well an issue w i l l be received not only by government but by the public at large. I f i r s t discuss these environmental factors, for they create the parameters around which an issue i s perceived and presented. Then I discuss s p e c i f i c concerns, such as r o l e equity, what i s perceived as natural, and issue legitimacy. The North American s o c i a l climate of the 1960's was i d e a l i s t i c and forward looking. In general, the economic climate i n the 1960's and 1970's was more favorable f o r s o c i a l programs than the 1980's (in the United States i n 1971, Congress passed a childcare b i l l which was to lay the groundwork for future action). However, by the l a t e 1970's, r e s t r a i n t and government cutbacks were widespread and Congressional action on the childcare issue ceased. By the 1980's, Reagan promoted 'a strong family' rather than government support for childcare. In Canada, federal government expenditure on childcare was highest during the mid 1970's. The increased federal spending coincided with the el e c t i o n of an N.D.P. government i n B.C., which opted into the fed e r a l - p r o v i n c i a l cost sharing programs. This allowed for increased c a p i t a l expenditures on childcare. At the same time, the p o l i t i c a l climate also influences campaigns and the effectiveness of lobbying. During the 1970's, many feminist ideas appeared as legitimate concerns (e.g., concerns around pay equity, violence against women, and women's professional status). By the early 1980's, recession, as well as a backlash against feminist lobbies, affected the degree of influence a group could have. Underlying the changing s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l , and economic climate i s a fundamental consideration which l i m i t s the effectiveness of a feminist lobby. In general, p o l i c y influence i s r e s t r i c t e d to areas which are non-threatening to the status quo. The chance of lobbying e f f e c t i v e l y i s greater when the issue has low v i s i b i l i t y , f i t s with current values, and has narrow concerns ( i . e . , the po l i c y does not fundamentally challenge how people's l i v e s are organized [Boneparth & Stoper, 1988]). The success rate i s lower i f i t i s highly v i s i b l e , controversial, and wide-ranging. Issues such as childcare, reproductive control, and pay equity, are more highly v i s i b l e and controversial than others. Each of these issues i s challenging to the status quo. As noted e a r l i e r , p o l i c y making which i s incremental tends to be more successful, but, quite importantly, t h i s e n t a i l s f i t t i n g into other issues and not fundamentally challenging p r e v a i l i n g ideologies. The hist o r y of childcare p o l i c y i n Canada and United States follows a pattern of avoiding any major i d e o l o g i c a l restructuring. (Childcare) has never been recognized as a fundamental r i g h t for working women, but rather has been provided r e l u c t a n t l y and often temporarily as a solution to other problems such as labor shortages or welfare dependency. Thus, the s t y l e of incremental policy-making, while permitting s o c i a l change i n established p o l i c y areas, i n h i b i t s the process of change when the demand i s for p o l i c y i n new realms (Boneparth & Stoper, 1988, 10). Boneparth and Stoper (1988) suggest that an important d i s t i n c t i o n i n analyzing p o l i c y success with respect to women's issues i s the d i s t i n c t i o n between ro l e equity and ro l e change. Role equity i s a general p r i n c i p l e and i s not necessarily threatening to the status quo: i t f i t s into our general l i b e r a l democratic p r i n c i p l e s . Role change, however, i s a fundamental change i n how men and women organize t h e i r l i v e s and challenges our basic t r a d i t i o n a l sex ro l e ideology. While the women's movement has grown s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n professionalism and effectiveness i n the past two decades, the present economic, s o c i a l , and p o l i t i c a l climate puts feminists on the defensive at the federal l e v e l and creates a demand for new strategies at the lower l e v e l s of government and i n the private sector (Boneparth & Stoper, 1988). Women's groups have confronted many obstacles i n t h e i r lobbying e f f o r t s : gaining access to pol i c y makers, building c r e d i b i l i t y , and persuading o f f i c e holders to represent women's in t e r e s t s . A major step i n overcoming these 44 obstacles seems to l i e i n not challenging the status quo. However, that c l e a r l y undermines feminist aims. Peattie and Rein (1983) examine the structure of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d r o l e s . These roles involve a d i v i s i o n between what i s seen as 'natural' and what i s seen as ' a r t i f i c i a l ' . H i s t o r i c a l l y , c e r t a i n s o c i a l roles and i n s t i t u t i o n s have become accepted as natural. For example, the family i s considered the natural i n s t i t u t i o n for rearing children and the natural d i v i s i o n of labour has women rearing the children. On the other hand, pol i c y i s seen as a r t i f i c i a l . I t i s s o c i a l l y constructed and varies over time. The boundary between the natural and the a r t i f i c i a l s h i f t s with time and r e f l e c t s the int e r a c t i o n between various ideas, i n t e r e s t s , and actions. Placing women's issues on p o l i t i c a l agendas involves a s h i f t i n g of t h i s boundary between what i s perceived as the natural and the a r t i f i c i a l . The claims women make often fundamentally challenge the accepted norm of what i s seen as natural. Claims have an element of r i g h t or entitlement and must be seen i n l i g h t of s o c i a l convention: they confer income, position, and status. Often, one needs a certa i n l e v e l of status just to make a claim. While women's claims are interwoven with other changes occurring i n society, they must also deal with the accepted norms and ideas of the society. In many ways, women are challenging the idea of the natural to a greater extent than many other s o c i a l movements. Feminism raises new issues and new claiming categories. The involvement of women with domestic and interpersonal work leads feminists to create turbulence i n a l l sorts of e x i s t i n g s o c i a l arrangements to a degree not nearly as c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of other claiming movements (Peattie & Rein, 1983, 109). Bringing women's issues out into the p o l i t i c a l forefront i s challenging many of our ideas of what i s natural. I t challenges the v a l i d i t y of the underlying premise of what i s women's natural place and natural r o l e . Thus, influencing p o l i c y on women's issues — an area which i s threatening to the status quo — i s , not sur p r i s i n g l y , a d i f f i c u l t task. The lobbying e f f o r t s of Canadian feminists i n the early 1980's regarding the wording of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms i s ind i c a t i v e of the parameters for success on women's issues. Their success was limi t e d to strengthening government commitment to legal equality rights f or women (Burt, 1988). Such action does not undermine basic values and the idea of the natural. Barriers which go beyond le g a l equality r i g h t s were not broken down at t h i s time. The Charter was an equal rig h t s issue, and therefore less l i k e l y to provoke controversy than moral issues l i k e abortion, or r e d i s t r i b u t i v e issues l i k e pensions for housewives or daycare (Burt, 1988, 80). Burt's analysis of t h i s lobby indicates that Costain's three factors f o r po l i c y success were present (an impetus for action, group support, and the presence of supportive women l e g i s l a t o r s ) . At the same time, she stresses an additional factor: the perceived legitimacy of the group's goals. Women's leg a l r i g h t s were seen as legitimate. P o l i t i c a l l y s e n s i t i v e issues, however, are much more d i f f i c u l t to get endorsed as these r e d i s t r i b u t i v e demands go beyond government commitment. Burt (1990) examines the organizational continuum developed by Pross (1986) and applies i t to 144 Canadian women's groups. She examines four types of women's groups ( t r a d i t i o n a l , Status of Women, service, and shelter groups) and uses four a n a l y t i c a l categories from the Pross continuum (objectives, organization, media orientation, and access o r i e n t a t i o n ) . These women's groups, l i k e Pross's groups, are i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d on some dimensions but not others. T r a d i t i o n a l women's groups and the Status of Women groups are more i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d according to these measurements. I n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n , i n her analysis, does not improve policy access nor pol i c y influence and challenges the idea that groups must become bureaucratic i n order to have influence. What appears more important i s the nature of the issue. Those issues which challenge gender roles receive less co-operation. While Pross suggests that issue orientation i s an occasional correlate of po l i c y influence, Burt's study of women's groups suggests that issue orientation i s at least as important as organizational development. The type of pol i c y claim or issue may hold greater influence on issues which are not considered 'normal or acceptable'. Pross (1990) challenges Burt's methodology i n her study of women's groups and again stresses the importance of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n . At the same time, he acknowledges the d i f f i c u l t y surrounding claims that c o n f l i c t with p r e v a i l i n g ideology. He also argues that influence further depends on the state's capacity to debate those claims or issues. Smaller claims 47 are more fe a s i b l e not only for i d e o l o g i c a l reasons but because they are administrable. I think the state's willingness and c a p a b i l i t y to debate women's issues does r e l a t e to ideology and adm i n i s t r a b i l i t y , but the l a t t e r r e f l e c t s the former. I t i s not easy to administer new claims that fundamentally challenge the assumptions of the established order. I t i s much easier to recognize women's right s to equality as a matter of p r i n c i p l e than i t i s to pass l e g i s l a t i o n which changes women's economic and moral powers v i s - a - v i s men. Daycare, reproductive r i g h t s , and pay equity challenge those powers. There i s more evidence to support the argument that a major b a r r i e r i n po l i c y success on women's issues i s that those issues generally threaten the present power structure. In the f i n a l section, I consider current i d e o l o g i c a l implications a f f e c t i n g the p o l i t i c s of women's issues and the a b i l i t y of a c t i v i s t s to upset the status quo. While the shape of the family continues to change, the id e o l o g i c a l context often remains the same. The form which p o l i t i c a l action takes relates to ideology and established norms. The status quo, pa t r i a r c h a l ideology, and the connection with current p o l i t i c a l action Many the o r i s t s point to the family and motherhood as being at the center of women's subordinate p o s i t i o n (e.g. Luxton, 1980, 1982; Ursel, 1984; Maroney and Luxton, 1987). The family i s a contested zone. I t i s at the centre of the struggle for women's l i b e r a t i o n and i t i s the place where the r i g h t wing has staked out, preparing for b a t t l e (Luxton, 1982, 113). 48 Conceptualizing motherhood as an i n s t i t u t i o n places i t i n s o c i a l and h i s t o r i c a l context, and helps to c l a r i f y aims of the Women's Movement (e.g., reproductive c o n t r o l ) . As mothers, women get defined as moral guardians and become responsible for many of the moral aspects of society. At the same time, women's reproductive r o l e has often been " i n v i s i b l e " and consequently has been untheorized or undertheorized. Because reproduction, ultimately the only source of labour, i s assumed, untheorized and hence unnoticed, i t s i n t e r n a l operation i s taken for granted and small variations or even large ones over long periods are seen only as reactive, never active forces i n history (Ursel, 1984, 267). Understanding the position of women must include an examination of t h e i r role within the family and as mothers. Women's ro l e i n the family also a f f e c t s t h e i r p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s and I examine that connection here. As already noted, women's work within the family includes procreation, rearing children, s e r v i c i n g family members, and household maintenance. Because these a c t i v i t i e s are so i n t r i c a t e l y connected, i t i s d i f f i c u l t and somewhat i n e f f e c t i v e to discuss one aspect without i n d i c a t i n g how each overlaps with another aspect, whether that l i e s inside or outside the family. Discussing women's rol e as childbearers without acknowledging how i n t r i c a t e l y i t has become connected with c h i l d r e a r i n g , or household maintenance without c h i l d r e a r i n g , i s shortsighted. S i m i l a r l y , discussing women's labour force p a r t i c i p a t i o n or p o l i t i c a l action, without acknowledging childcare or the d i v i s i o n of labour within the home, i s also incomplete. Families are not monolithic e n t i t i e s but take on a variety of forms (Eichler, 1983). Family patterns continue to change rapidly, as divorce and remarriage occur. Approximately half of a l l Canadian households experience some form of parental-spousal discrepancy, either i n the form of children l i v i n g i n a husband-wife family not being the b i o l o g i c a l children of one or both of the spouses, or of children l i v i n g i n one-parent households, or of an adult being a parent of a c h i l d who does not l i v e i n his or her household (E i c h l e r , 238). While the patterns i n family l i f e continue to change, an underlying theme which has not fundamentally changed i s the subordinate po s i t i o n of women within the family. Even where women are the heads of single parent households, many problems e x i s t including the high incidence of poverty among such f a m i l i e s . Women are i n t r i c a t e l y t i e d to the maintenance of family and household without having control over the means of support for the family. The material basis of patriarchy has always been male control of the resources that are esse n t i a l to the maintenance of the family (Ursel, 1984, 282). Women's v u l n e r a b i l i t y i n t h i s respect af f e c t s how they carry out t h e i r r o l e , what they see as options, and how they make decisions on such matters as employment, abortion, and childcare. Women must make decisions which have large f i n a n c i a l commitments without the necessary f i n a n c i a l security. At the same time, those decisions are made within very entrenched expectations surrounding what a 'good woman' and a 'good mother' i s . The present system, i n which women do the majority of unpaid reproductive work, operates i n the best interests of production and 50 of men i n general. Employers benefit from not having to concern themselves with the maintenance of family. Employers and husbands also benefit from a strong ideology which encourages or coerces women into a very imbalanced d i v i s i o n of labour. The costs of family remain lar g e l y p r i v a t i z e d , while at the same time, the family serves as the i n s t i t u t i o n which provides f o r the physical and i d e o l o g i c a l reproduction of the sex gender system (Ursel, 1984; Luxton, 1980, 1982). Sexist ideology r e s t r i c t s the advancement of women with respect to employment opportunities, pay equity, family a c t i v i t i e s , and p o l i t i c a l decision making powers. This ideology benefits those i n c o n t r o l . I t i s , therefore, hardly s u r p r i s i n g that challenges to women's present r o l e are met with resistance, whether t h i s resistance i s stated outright or hidden i n the language of 'a threat to the family' or 'a crime against God and country'. A key underlying theme i n childcare p o l i t i c s i s that childcare i s a private family r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (except perhaps i n very needy s i t u a t i o n s ) . At the same time, 'family r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ' can often be interpreted to mean women's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Canadian welfare state l e g i s l a t i o n makes gender r o l e assumptions, such as the assumption that women's primary r o l e i s as mothers. Childcare, as l a i d out under the Canada Assistance Plan (1966), i s aimed at r e l i e v i n g extreme poverty and government dependence. Luxton (1982) argues that a major v i c t o r y of feminism has been to show that the ide a l family does not correspond to the r e a l i t y of family l i f e , e s p e c i a l l y from the women's point of view. Women's r o l e i n the family i s not 'natural' but s o c i a l l y constructed and involves r e a l work, a l b e i t unpaid. That work i s i n t e g r a l to keeping the whole economy going and i s fundamentally t i e d to assumptions about normal l i f e . A l t e r i n g the family and the d i v i s i o n of labour within and outside the home means challenging very entrenched gender r e l a t i o n s . T r a d i t i o n and economic clout are on the side of a continuation of the present a l l o c a t i o n of labour. Resisting assigned gender roles i s a long and d i f f i c u l t task. Any changes which challenge the a l l o c a t i o n of work within the home are generally met with resistance. This resistance l i e s on a continuum which includes verbal abuse, anger, f i n a n c i a l insecurity, psychological intimidation, and physical violence. When women's struggle moves beyond the home, i t necessarily moves into the realm of p o l i t i c s , and the world of formal p o l i t i c s contains many of the gender r o l e assumptions that e x i s t i n the family. Understanding the actions of family members or p o l i t i c i a n s requires deciphering the underlying ideology. The sexual d i v i s i o n of labour permeates how people carry on t h e i r work, exercise power, and understand t h e i r world. Basic to understanding p o l i t i c s and women's issues i s understanding how sex di v i s i o n s e x i s t i n c a p i t a l i s t production and reproduction, paid work and unpaid work, and the home and place of employment. At the same time, the p a r t i c u l a r form the d i v i s i o n of labour takes depends on class position (e.g., i t has been much more common for working class women to be employed f u l l time than i t has for middle class women). Both class and gender d i v i s i o n s a f f e c t how people make decisions: the 'free' wage labourer has l i m i t e d leverage i n making decisions about his/her job s i t u a t i o n just as women ra r e l y ' f r e e l y ' choose to get married and have babies. The s o c i a l i z a t i o n which females undergo i n society strongly encourages women to adopt t h i s r o l e . Even less choice i s involved for women i n rearing the children once those children are born. In both s i t u a t i o n s , limited choice borders on coercion. Understanding p o l i t i c a l demands means understanding the s o c i a l and i d e o l o g i c a l parameters under which people must make decisions. An analysis of women's p o l i t i c a l action must take into consideration not only the a c q u i s i t i o n of p o l i t i c a l s k i l l s , such as professionalism and accessing government o f f i c i a l s , but also i d e o l o g i c a l concerns. The form that p o l i t i c a l action takes w i l l depend on what i s perceived as p o l i t i c a l l y f e a s i b l e . Feminist activism i s p a r t i c u l a r l y prone to being confrontational for the issues frequently involve i d e o l o g i c a l upheaval. When there i s a way to circumvent t h i s i d e o l o g i c a l wrangling, i t may be more p o l i t i c a l l y expedient to take the less confrontational course of action. I think childcare p o l i t i c s i s such a case. In the past, childcare advocates have argued from the point of view of the welfare of children — without consideration for the health, r i g h t s , or welfare of women. It may follow that current p o l i t i c a l action i s more l i k e l y to be e f f e c t i v e i f argued s i m i l a r l y . How the childcare issue has been approached i n the Greater Vancouver area supports the premise that c h i l d welfare should be at the center of childcare advocacy. In Chapters Three and Four, I present a case study of Greater Vancouver childcare p o l i t i c s and indicate connections with other childcare advocacy and pol i c y . Summary This chapter examines the c r i t e r i a f or the lobbying effectiveness of various groups. Pross (1986) analyses a variety of Canadian organizations (e.g., environmental groups, business organizations, and trade unions) and argues that the organizational capacity (or degree of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n and bureaucratization) i s the key component i n lobbying effectiveness. At the same time, basic lobbying strategies (being professional, knowing where to lobby, understanding your target, and avoiding confrontation) are important. Some feminist researchers support Pross's claims regarding lobbying s k i l l s (e.g., Kome, 1989). Other feminist researchers argue that, while basic lobbying strategies are important prerequisites for lobbying effectiveness, other considerations take precedence. These include the nature of the claim (the degree to which i t upsets the status quo) and id e o l o g i c a l concerns. Gelb and Palley (1979) argue that not challenging basic values i s important. Boneparth and Stoper (1988) suggest that, while role equity does not challenge t r a d i t i o n a l sex role ideology, r o l e change does — issues which challenge sex roles are generally met with resistance. Peattie and Rein (1983) examine the d i v i s i o n between what i s perceived as 'natural' and what i s ' a r t i f i c i a l ' . Burt (1988, 1990) 54 suggests that lobbying for le g a l equality r i g h t s for women has been successful; however, issues which have challenged gender roles (pay equity, reproductive control by women, and childcare) have not been successful because of the nature of the issue. Issue orientation i s at least as important as organizational capacity i n predicting the lobbying effectiveness of women's groups. Two other concerns r e l a t e to lobbying effectiveness, according to feminist researchers. These are access to government (including gaining the support of key p o l i t i c i a n s ) and the nature of bureaucracy. Ferguson (1984) suggests that the power women gain within bureaucracy i s minimal. Findlay (1987) examines the Canadian government bureaucracy and argues that state bureaucrats have undermined the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. To understand p o l i t i c a l activism on women's issues requires taking into consideration the nature of the issue, the ide o l o g i c a l parameters, and the history of the issue. The most l i k e l y pattern for feminist a c t i v i s t s to follow i s a path of least resistance — and t h i s path i s one of id e o l o g i c a l a c c e p t a b i l i t y . Chapter Three Overview of Childcare Developments i n Greater Vancouver Introduction In order to understand the development of childcare p o l i t i c s , i t i s important to have some background information on what has occurred concerning childcare i n the p a r t i c u l a r l o c a l i t y under consideration. This chapter provides some s t r u c t u r a l guidelines on the development of childcare i n Greater Vancouver. I discuss my method for gathering s t a t i s t i c a l information on childcare developments and then describe the se t t i n g i n which the debate on childcare has taken place. To do t h i s , I outline the major differences i n response between the f i v e locations covered by my research (Vancouver and four D i s t r i c t Municipalities) and then discuss the s t r u c t u r a l context of that response. In Chapter Four, I discuss my methodology for gathering information from a variety of people connected with the childcare issue and present the major themes which emerged during those interviews. The f i v e l o c a l i t i e s covered by t h i s research include the City of Vancouver and four d i s t r i c t municipalities (North Vancouver DM, Richmond DM, Surrey DM, and Langley DM). While Vancouver was noticeably involved with the childcare issue (and therefore became part of my research), involvement by other locations i n the Greater Vancouver area was not as apparent. The four municipalities were chosen randomly i n order to get an impression of childcare p o l i t i c s i n the general area surrounding Vancouver. Each location operates under i t s own j u r i s d i c t i o n , and, therefore, would have i t s own 55 56 childcare p o l i c y . Constraints of time and money prevented me from expanding my work beyond these f i v e locations. Method f o r Gathering S t a t i s t i c a l Information General information was gathered from a v a r i e t y of sources: task force reports, municipal papers and reports, h i s t o r i c a l papers available through municipal o f f i c e s or community groups, position papers of community groups, and council minutes. These sources provided background information f o r each l o c a l i t y . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , s t a t i s t i c a l information for the Cit y of Vancouver and the four municipalities was gathered from several sources which I outline next. S t a t i s t i c s Canada reports, dating from 1971 to 1986, provided information on labour force p a r t i c i p a t i o n rates, family median incomes, incidence of low income famil i e s , family composition, and age composition. Municipal employees were contacted for information on the composition of councils since 1970, so that the r e l a t i v e number of council positions held by men and women could be tabulated. Health Departments and Community Care F a c i l i t i e s Licensing Board employees were contacted concerning the number of licensed childcare spaces i n each area. While current figures are available, e a r l i e r s t a t i s t i c s on licensed childcare spaces were not kept. Information was gathered from municipal reports on the per capita revenue and expenditures for Vancouver and the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . Detailed information from the l e g a l statutes governing Vancouver and the municipalities i s also provided. 57 Overview of response to the childcare issue i n Greater Vancouver The response of the City of Vancouver to the childcare issue has been appreciably d i f f e r e n t from that of the four D i s t r i c t M u n i c i p a l i t i e s . I f i r s t discuss indicators of Vancouver's greater response and then provide important contextual information concerning the response. Vancouver has responded to the childcare issue i n a more comprehensive and longterm manner than the four m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . Indicators of t h i s greater response include the creation of more licensed childcare spaces and the continued and more d i r e c t involvement of C i t y Council. This includes the involvement of i t s Social Planning Department, the ac q u i s i t i o n of buildings and s i t e s for childcare purposes, the creation of two Task Forces, and the introduction of a position for a Children's Advocate. Vancouver's Greater Response: Indicators Vancouver has developed a greater number of licensed childcare  spaces r e l a t i v e to i t s c h i l d population than the four m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . Table 2 presents figures gathered from Community Care F a c i l i t i e s Licensing o f f i c e r s i n the f i v e areas, along with census data. These figures indicate that Vancouver averages 7.4 children per licensed childcare space while the municipalities vary from 8.1 (North Vancouver) to 20.9 children per licensed childcare space (Surrey). While licensed childcare spaces do not represent the only care being provided — indeed estimates from the B.C. and federal Daycare Action Coalitions and the federal task force on childcare 58 a l l indicate that t h i s may only represent about 10-20 percent of the children i n care — t h i s i s the form of care for which there are regulations on q u a l i t y of care and for which government subsidies are a v a i l a b l e . Licensing gives the assurance that the f a c i l i t y meets government standards: caregivers have received proper t r a i n i n g , the building meets acceptable health and safety standards, and the o v e r a l l program i s approved by those knowledgeable i n the f i e l d . Vancouver has involved i t s Social Planning Department i n the provision of childcare services. This occurs through the community services branch of the department. Social planners have been involved i n both task forces on childcare (1983 and 1988) and have been given the mandate by council to provide information on childcare services i n both cases. Thus c i t y employees are being paid to a s s i s t i n the provision of childcare by providing informational services. Social Planning Departments have not been as extensively involved i n the four m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . While Richmond and North Vancouver departments have produced reports on childcare i n the past decade, they have not created task forces which would give a more comprehensive analysis. Also, action by council on recommendations put forward has been minimal i n Richmond and i s currently under consideration i n North Vancouver. During 1990, North Vancouver organized a childcare needs assessment and the report was presented to council during the late f a l l , 1990. Surrey has only recently created a Social Planning Department and 59 Langley does not yet have one. Vancouver acquired several buildings and s i t e s f o r childcare during the 1970's. The majority of c a p i t a l grants that have been available to childcare centers i n the past 20 years occurred during the early to mid 1970's as a r e s u l t of action taken by the pr o v i n c i a l (NDP) government between 1972 and 1975. The p r o v i n c i a l government opted into federal cost-sharing programs under the Canada Assistance Plan (CAP). In p a r t i c u l a r they established the Capital and Equipment Grants program which allowed a $20,000 c a p i t a l grant for the establishment of a childcare center and a $2,500 grant for equipment. Even by 1975, however, the pr o v i n c i a l Annual Report acknowledges problems surrounding i n f l a t i o n : The $20,000 c a p i t a l grant i n 1973 went a long way toward establishing a new daycare center, but today i t represents less than half the amount required. For t h i s reason, a special a l l o c a t i o n of $527,000 was made to purchase 12 prefabricated uni t s . 1 As the report d e t a i l s , these centers were made available to c i t i e s / m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n exchange for t h e i r making land available, o f f e r i n g u t i l i t y hook-ups, landscaping, and contributing to outdoor equipment. Vancouver secured 10 of the 12 portables available at t h i s time, with Kelowna and Sparwood getting one unit each. While t h i s a c q u i s i t i o n of childcare centers was f a c i l i t a t e d by Vancouver having recently completed a c i t y land and building inventory, council was s t i l l required to vote to re l i n q u i s h c i t y property for childcare purposes. By 1975, centers were operating on 9 of the 10 s i t e s . This program required a 'partnership 7 between the c i t y and the p r o v i n c i a l government. According to the 1975-76 Annual Report: In a l l areas, there was considerable l o c a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n and contributions on the part of c i t y , municipal, and school board o f f i c i a l s , and community and parent volunteers. 2 However, as reported i n the 1976-77 Annual Report, the Capital and Equipment Grant program for new daycare development saw a 'slowing down of expansion i n 1975' and 'was suspended i n 1976'. Instead, $36,865 was spent i n what the report refers to as 'high p r i o r i t y areas'. Needless to say, t h i s amount f e l l f a r short of the funding necessary to e s t a b l i s h new centers or even maintain those already i n existence. In 1981-82, a new p r o v i n c i a l program covering start-up, expansion, relocation, and emergency repair was instigated. In 1982-83, approximately $395 thousand was d i s t r i b u t e d under these guidelines, decreasing to $87 thousand i n 1985-86 and increasing to $221.6 thousand i n 1987-88. By the 1980's, these d o l l a r s represented not only a reduced buying power but the number of centers applying for assistance had increased, thus making the amount available to any one center much smaller. What i s p a r t i c u l a r l y relevant here i s that Vancouver acquired buildings and s i t e s , which comprise a very large portion of childcare costs, at the most optimum funding time i n the past 20 years. Vancouver's willingness to co-operate with p r o v i n c i a l guidelines at t h i s time has had very b e n e f i c i a l repercussions for the c i t y due to i n f l a t i o n and the disappearance of c a p i t a l grants. 61 Table 3 provides an examination of p r o v i n c i a l expenditures i n the area of childcare and helps to place the importance of t h i s early funding into perspective. Dollar figures are available i n the Annual Reports of the Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (1970-1972), the Department of Human Resources (1972-1976), the Ministry of Human Resources (1976-1986), and the Ministry of Social Services and Housing (1986-1988). At a f i r s t glance, i t would appear that p r o v i n c i a l government funding has increased considerably. In 1970-71, the pr o v i n c i a l government contributed approximately $1.2 m i l l i o n ; t h i s increased to $13.7 m i l l i o n by 1974-75, then decreased to $10.3 m i l l i o n i n 1976-77 and rose to the mid-seventies l e v e l again by the end of the 1970's. Over the 1980's the t o t a l expenditure i n current d o l l a r s rose to $36.5 m i l l i o n i n 1987-88. However, using constant d o l l a r s , which takes into account i n f l a t i o n and thus the purchasing power of the d o l l a r , a d i f f e r e n t story emerges. Using 1970 constant d o l l a r s , the p r o v i n c i a l contribution decreases enormously a f t e r the mid-1970's. Between 1970-71 and 1974-75, p r o v i n c i a l expenditures grew from $1.2 m i l l i o n to $9.9 m i l l i o n . However, p r o v i n c i a l expenditures then decreased and remained below the 1974-75 l e v e l u n t i l 1987-88. Thus the a b i l i t y of childcare centers to meet r i s i n g costs, l e t alone es t a b l i s h new centers, i s n e g l i g i b l e . An important indicator of Vancouver council's response to the childcare issue was the creation of two task forces, the 1983 Task Force on Day Care and the 1988 Task Force on Children. While the creation of the task forces provides i n i t i a l educational material on the issue, the implementation of recommendations from these two task forces have helped considerably to secure a place for the childcare issue on the c i t y ' s p o l i t i c a l agenda. The 1983 Mayor's Task Force on Daycare reviewed the a v a i l a b i l i t y and qual i t y of daycare services i n the C i t y and provided recommendations for future improvements. I t focused on daycare capacity (type of daycare, centers, and spaces), the administration of daycare, funding issues, the development of the Daycare Information Service, and the City's role i n daycare, including i t s Health and Social Planning Departments. The report of the Task Force notes that while the majority of funding comes d i r e c t l y from the p r o v i n c i a l government for daycare services, Vancouver has provided d i r e c t grants to the City H a l l Daycare Society for construction and to Dia l Daycare for start-up. In general, t h i s task force provided an overview of daycare services and created an awareness to some of the major issues. The second task force — the Mayor's Task Force on Children — went further i n examining the childcare issue within the c i t y and made much more extensive recommendations than previously. I t took the issue of provision for children from the narrower focus of daycare to the broader focus of children's needs o v e r a l l . While daycare remained a major concern, the issue evolved to another l e v e l which included policy surrounding planning, schooling, l i c e n s i n g , health, c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s , and advocacy. The report of the Daycare Committee of the 1988 Task Force states that Vancouver must "value and support the needs of i t s f a m i l i e s . . . and must recognize the r o l e of childcare as a v i t a l community service". 3 The f i n a l report of the whole task force states that " i t i s time to adjust our p r i o r i t i e s so that we more c a r e f u l l y consider our children i n our planning decisions". 4 I t i d e n t i f i e s and outlines the p o s i t i v e steps already taken by Vancouver City Council, the actions necessary for improvements, po l i c y needs, and advocacy positions with respect to the p r o v i n c i a l and federal governments. Thus, t h i s task force has shown the extent to which the childcare issue has already been placed on the municipal agenda and provided extensive information on how the c i t y can improve on i t s present record. A l l of the recommendations of the 1988 task force were unanimously passed i n council. These include the creation of the position of a Children's Advocate, t r a n s l a t i o n services, educational programs, the involvement of the Social Planning Department i n providing data on the c i t y ' s children, the development of planning p o l i c y which automatically takes into consideration the needs of children, increased health and l i c e n s i n g services, and the establishment of a C i t y advocacy r o l e v i s - a - v i s Parks, School Board, and senior governments. One of the most important outcomes of the 1988 task force was the creation of the position of Children's Advocate, a move which received strong recommendation i n the task force report. The r o l e of the Children's Advocate was modeled along the l i n e s of the Business Advocate, a position created previously to provide a l i a i s o n between the business community and the City, and which has been deemed very successful. This position i s designed so that the City recognizes the presence of children, t h e i r needs, and the City's r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s towards providing for those needs. The objective of t h i s i n d i v i d u a l (is) to endeavour to ensure that children's needs are taken into account i n a formal and consistent manner during the planning stages of a l l a c t i v i t i e s under C i v i c j u r i s d i c t i o n . 5 In September, 1990, the Children's Advocate submitted a comprehensive c i v i c Daycare Policy and Program Implementation Plan to the Social Planning Department, and subsequently to the C i t y Manager and Council. This report contains detailed information for an o v e r a l l childcare strategy for the c i t y , recognizing the presence of women in the labour force as a 'permanent f i x t u r e of Canadian Society', the c r i t i c a l shortage of childcare services, the s o c i a l and economic returns on q u a l i t y childhood programs, childcare as a core community need, and the c i t y ' s o v e r a l l commitment to q u a l i t y services and f a c i l i t i e s for a l l i t s c i t i z e n s . The report encourages the c i t y to provide ongoing f i n a n c i a l assistance for childcare services and programs while acknowledging the d i f f i c u l t i e s surrounding government mandates: i t i s not the mandate for municipal governments to finance childcare services, but the federal and p r o v i n c i a l governments. I t also stresses the need for t h e i r continued lobbying with senior l e v e l s of government to provide funding and to remove the present employability status of single parents with dependent children i n the P r o v i n c i a l GAIN regulations which requires that they f i n d employment. Thus, t h i s report argues for the rights and needs of children. the i n c l u s i o n of l o c a l government i n the lobbying with senior governments, and the f i n a n c i a l support of l o c a l government because of senior government resistance and i n spite of t h e i r o f f i c i a l mandate. Women enter into the issue only so f a r as they are 'permanent' members of the labour force and no longer available f o r the provision of childcare. Summary A l l of these factors — childcare spaces, the involvement of the Social Planning Department, the a c q u i s i t i o n of buildings and s i t e s , the creation of two task forces and unanimous passing of t h e i r recommendations, and the creation of the position of Children's Advocate — help to indicate Vancouver's response to the childcare issue. Together they show that Vancouver has incorporated several concerns surrounding childcare and children into t h e i r formal p o l i c y and acted on recommendations. The extent to which Vancouver City Council has gone to place childcare and the needs of children onto t h e i r agenda i s greater than that of the municipalities examined. Vancouver has 7.4 children per licensed childcare space, while the municipalities range from 8.1 children per licensed childcare space i n North Vancouver to 20.9 children per licensed childcare space i n Surrey. Vancouver's council has given i t s Social Planning Department the mandate to provide informational services on childcare. I t opted into p r o v i n c i a l cost sharing programs i n the early 1970's which proved to be the optimum time f i n a n c i a l l y , and was able to benefit from the c a p i t a l grants available between 1972-1975. Using 1970 constant d o l l a r s , the 66 p r o v i n c i a l contribution to childcare increased from $1.2 m i l l i o n i n 1970-71 to $9.9 m i l l i o n i n 1974-75, then decreased considerably and did not reach the mid-1970's l e v e l again u n t i l 1987-88. F i n a l l y , the creation of the position of the Children's Advocate has been very h e l p f u l i n promoting the needs of children at the council l e v e l and i n l o c a l government as a whole, while acknowledging the presence of women i n the labour force as a 'permanent f i x t u r e ' . Vancouver's Greater Response: The Structural Context The Vancouver Charter vs. the Municipal Act A recurring theme with respect to explaining Vancouver's greater response to the childcare issue, and one which produced very contradictory statements from those interviewed (see Chapter Four), surrounds legal statutes. Vancouver operates under i t s own Charter while the municipalities operate under the Municipal Act. Both the Charter and Municipal Act are p r o v i n c i a l statutes. While many of those interviewed i n the course of t h i s research state that Vancouver's greater involvement i n childcare i s because Vancouver has i t s own Charter that gives i t a mandate to become involved i n Social Services, t h i s does not appear to be a viable explanation. During the 1930's, s o c i a l services gradually started becoming a p r o v i n c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y where previously they had been a municipal mandate (Bish, 1987). This was the case for Vancouver and the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . By 1970, the majority of s o c i a l services were being provided by the province i n both cases. Vancouver does not have a s p e c i f i c mandate to look a f t e r i t s own s o c i a l services, nor do the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . Yet the p o l i t i c a l w i l l to provide assistance i n f a c i l i t a t i n g the creation and maintenance of childcare f a c i l i t i e s i s much greater i n Vancouver. Vancouver does have greater f i n a n c i a l c a p a b i l i t y (compared to the municipalities) because i t has a more diverse tax base, assessed values, and l e v i e s . Both the per capita revenue and per capita expenditure are higher i n Vancouver. Municipal s t a t i s t i c s for 1984 indicate that Vancouver's revenue i s $756 per capita while the municipalities vary from $425 per capita i n Langley, $433 per capita i n North Vancouver, $455 per capita i n Surrey, and to $579 per capita i n Richmond (See Table 4). However, greater revenue i n i t s e l f does not guarantee that money would go towards childcare services or any other s o c i a l service. The Vancouver c o u n c i l l o r s interviewed frequently noted the l i m i t e d budget for spending on any s o c i a l service. In the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , lack of mandate (rather than lack of finances) was more frequently c i t e d during interviews as a reason for municipal inaction on the childcare issue. Also, the municipalities did not cost share with the p r o v i n c i a l government during the 1970's when additional funding was available. I t i s not that money i s not important, but that i t does not appear to be the most important reason for inaction on the childcare issue by the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . P o l i t i c a l w i l l i s also very relevant. Both the Vancouver Charter and the Municipal Act provide for the a c q u i s i t i o n of r e a l property for municipal purposes. While neither s p e c i f i c a l l y refers to childcare f a c i l i t i e s as an example of municipal use, they both contain guidelines which would be applicable to childcare f a c i l i t i e s . The Vancouver Charter states 68 that Council can provide money for the ac q u i s i t i o n of r e a l property for f a c i l i t i e s such as l i b r a r i e s , museums, public schools, recreation centers, and "any other buildings or premises required for municipal purposes" [Section 204 ( j ) ] . If childcare f a c i l t i e s were considered necessary and important i n s a t i s f y i n g a public need, they would q u a l i f y as a 'municipal purpose'. The Municipal Act states that a council, i n providing community services, may "acquire, accept, and hold any property i n the municipality for pleasure, recreation, or community uses of the public..." [Section 679 (1) ( a ) ] . I t can make rules and regulations governing the operation, control, and use of the property, and can lease or rent the property. Such a lease may be granted for 5 years without the assent of electors or for 20 years with the assent [Section 679 (1) (2)]. A municipality can also designate zones and regulate within zones with respect to "the use of land, buildings, and structures" [Section 682 (4)]. Both the Charter and the Municipal Act make provisions for development plans and o f f i c i a l community plans. In Vancouver, council can make development plans that r e l a t e to the whole or part of the c i t y and can "designate s i t e s for parks, schools, and public buildings" [Section 561]. They can make zoning bylaws [Section 565] and must hold public hearings [Section 566]. S i m i l a r l y , under the Municipal Act, a council can produce o f f i c i a l community plans which state the p o l i c i e s of the l o c a l government respecting proposed land use. They can state the proposed location and type of public f a c i l i t i e s , and i f they include a matter which i s 69 normally not under t h e i r j u r s i d i c t i o n , they can state t h e i r 'broad objective' [Section 945 (1) (2) & (5)]. As with Vancouver, a municipal council must provide public hearings. In both si t u a t i o n s , council can set p r i o r i t i e s with respect to land use, public f a c i l i t i e s , and zoning. Thus, the wording of the Act suggests that a muncipality has considerable leeway i n the ownership and use of property. There are no p a r t i c u l a r rulings with respect to the a c q u i s i t i o n and use of municipal land which would be more r e s t r i c t i v e for a municipal council compared to Vancouver c i t y c o u n c il. A municipal council may also operate, improve, and use buildings on i t s own property [as s p e c i f i e d under 679 (1) (a)] and can make agreements with the School Board to construct, operate, or use j o i n t l y f a c i l i t i e s for community use on either School Board or municipal land. This i s relevant with respect to out-of-school care f a c i l i t i e s as well as some preschool a c t i v i t i e s which could use school property as s i t e s for f a c i l i t i e s . Once again, there i s scope for the municipality to act i f the p o l i t i c a l w i l l i s there. Under the Charter, Vancouver can give grants to "any organization deemed by the Council to be contributing to the culture, b e a u t i f i c a t i o n , health or welfare of the c i t y " [Section 2 0 6 ( j ) ] - Under the Municipal Act, council can grant aid to "an organization considered by council to be contributing to the general i n t e r e s t and advantage of the municipality" [Section 269 (h)]. In both cases, a response to the need for childcare i s f e a s i b l e : i n Vancouver, childcare q u a l i f i e s as a concern for the 70 general health and welfare of those l i v i n g i n the City; i n a municipality, childcare could contribute to the 'general i n t e r e s t and advantage' of the municipality. Vancouver has given grants to s p e c i f i c daycares (City H a l l , Mount Pleasant, False Creek, and Champlain Heights), but such instances of d i r e c t grants are rare i n the munic i p a l i t i e s . In interviews, the reason often given by both members of councils and representatives of community groups i s that the municipality does not want to get involved i n funding something which i s a p r o v i n c i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n . Yet childcare i s not o f f i c i a l l y i n Vancouver's j u r i s d i c t i o n either. While Vancouver does not as a rule 'provide s o c i a l services', i t has responded d i f f e r e n t l y to very s i m i l a r guidelines concerning f a c i l i t a t i n g the provision of such services. The general welfare of the community i n Vancouver includes provision for childcare while i n the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , a s s i s t i n g with childcare services does not appear to conform to the 'general i n t e r e s t and advantage of the municipality'. Since childcare has been primarily the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of women, i t follows that the groups most disadvantaged by a lack of municipal response to the need for childcare f a c i l i t i e s are women and children. In Vancouver, council can appoint a Board of Administration and give i t executive or administrative powers normally exercisable by council [Section 162 (a)]. In a municipality, council can delegate a commission with administrative powers of council to administer property held by the municipality [Section 688 (1)]. In both si t u a t i o n s , council can delegate powers to a board for administrative purposes. If a council considers helping to f a c i l i t a t e the provision of childcare f a c i l i t i e s important to the community as a whole, l e g a l l y they can do so. Both le g a l statutes, the Charter and the Municipal Act, have taxation powers and t r e a t the taxation of non-profit organizations s i m i l a r l y . The e f f e c t , however, i s d i f f e r e n t . Under the Charter, wherever council can regulate, license, or tax persons carrying on a business, trade, profession, or other occupation, i t has the power to discriminate between groups or classes regarding the tax to be paid and the terms under which a group can carry on a business, trade, profession, or occupation [Section 203 (b)]. The taxation of childcare f a c i l i t i e s i n Vancouver i s not as great a problem as i t i s for several f a c i l i t i e s i n the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . Through the action of C i t y Council, the Vancouver Parks Board, and the Vancouver School Board, several f a c i l i t i e s pay only a nominal taxation fee. This exists for non-profit organizations and Vancouver has encouraged the establishment of non-profit childcare rather than private businesses. Also, as noted, Vancouver has since the early 1970's made an e f f o r t to provide assistance i n the a c q u i s i t i o n of buildings and s i t e s for the provision of non-profit childcare. This coincides with i t s taxation powers surrounding non-profit organizations. Under the Municipal Act, councils can exempt from taxation land and improvements or both when "not being operated for p r o f i t or gain and owned by a charitable or philanthropic organization supported i n whole or i n part by public funds" [Section 400 ( c ) ] . However, childcare f a c i l i t i e s i n the four municipalities have had d i f f i c u l t i e s getting tax exemptions because they have been c l a s s i f i e d as businesses. Operating under a commercial business license i s very onerous for a childcare center whose sources of revenue are primarily limited to government subsidies to the very low income parents and the childcare fees paid by (other) parents. At the same time, municipalities are not a s s i s t i n g i n the provision of organized non-profit childcare which would allow f or greater municipal assistance under the Municipal Act. In addition to the powers of a municipal council as outlined under the Municipal Act, the minister responsible for municipal a f f a i r s can confer additional powers regarding the d i s p o s i t i o n of assets [Section 288] and the Lieutenant Governor can bestow additional powers to preserve and promote the "welfare of the inhabitants" [Section 289]. I t would appear that not only are the municipalities not c u r t a i l e d by the Municipal Act i n f a c i l i t a t i n g the provision of childcare f a c i l i t i e s , they could also apply to the minister or Lieutenant Governor for more powers i f the p o l i t i c a l w i l l was there. Indeed, Bish (1987) indicates that: While l o c a l governments do not possess home rule, the Municipal Act i n 1936 l i s t e d 266 voluntary functions for c i t i e s , towns, and d i s t r i c t municipalities and few constraints have been exercised i f a municipality had a good reason for wishing to undertake some new function (Bish, 1987, 16). Women's Labour Force P a r t i c i p a t i o n Vancouver's involvement i n childcare r e f l e c t s women's labour force p a r t i c i p a t i o n rates as well as federal and p r o v i n c i a l s o c i a l p o l i c y . Canadian census data show that i n 1971 Vancouver women had a higher labour force p a r t i c i p a t i o n rate than women i n the four municipalities (See Table 5). (Rates f o r women with young children were not available.) Vancouver women's labour force p a r t i c i p a t i o n rate was 47.6 percent while Richmond's rate was 44.1 percent, North Vancouver's was 41.9 percent, Langley's was 36.1 percent, and Surrey's was 35.3 percent. At a time when governments at both the federal and p r o v i n c i a l l e v e l s were f i r s t coming to grips with an increasing number of women i n the labour force, more Vancouver women were already employed. This was a p a r t i c u l a r l y c r u c i a l time period with respect to the a v a i l a b i l i t y of funding from federal and pr o v i n c i a l sources. During the f i r s t half of the 1970's, a s h i f t was occurring nat i o n a l l y i n the f i e l d of childcare. Capital grants were available which allowed for the establishment of many childcare services. Within B.C. also, t h i s marks a time of rapid growth, peaking i n 1974-75. Labour force p a r t i c i p a t i o n on i t s own, however, cannot explain Vancouver's greater response to childcare. By 1976, women's employment rate was almost i d e n t i c a l i n Vancouver, North Vancouver, and Richmond (just under 50 percent). More importantly, North Vancouver and Richmond led Vancouver i n both 1981 and 1986. In 1981, North Vancouver's rate was 60.4 percent and Richmond's rate was 60.2 percent, while Vancouver's was only 57.3 percent. In 1986, North Vancouver's rate rose to 63.5 percent and Richmond's rate to 63.0 percent, but Vancouver's rate was lower at 60.1 percent. However, those other two municipalities did not follow 74 the same patterns of response to an increasing need for childcare. Childcare as a Welfare Issue While childcare i s a r e l a t i v e l y new concern on any Canadian p o l i t i c a l agenda, i t has primarily held a welfare focus as i t did when i t was a service provided by charitable organizations e a r l i e r (See Chapters One and Two). Both the federal guidelines under the Canada Assistance Plan and the p r o v i n c i a l mandate as l a i d out under s o c i a l services view childcare as a service to be provided under pathological conditions. With federal and p r o v i n c i a l p o l i c y focusing so strongly on the aspect of poverty, i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t that Vancouver has a higher incidence of low income fa m i l i e s . I t has maintained a mid-range to low Family Median Income since the early 1970's, and had a considerably higher incidence of Low Income Families i n both 1981 and 1986 (See Tables F and G). North Vancouver, on the other hand, has consistently had the highest Family Median Income and the lowest incidence of Low Income Families. Richmond continues i n a mid-range on both measurements throughout the same time period. Thus, there are more families i n Vancouver that would q u a l i f y for the childcare subsidies which are based on f i n a n c i a l need. Table 6 indicates that i n 1971, Vancouver's family median income was $9,029, with North Vancouver at $12,479 and Richmond at $10,231. Surrey and Langley were below Vancouver at t h i s point. In both 1981 and 1986, Vancouver had the lowest family median income. In 1981, Vancouver's family median income was $25,525, while North Vancouver was $36,567; Richmond was $30,922; Langley was $27,711; and Surrey was $26,229. In 1986, Vancouver's family median income was $32,428, while North Vancouver was $48,153; Richmond was $40,506; Langley was $36,463; and Surrey was $33,861. Table 7 indicates that there were more low income families i n Vancouver than i n any of the municipalities i n both 1981 and 1986. In 1981, 14.3 percent of Vancouver families were low income, while North Vancouver's rate was 6.3 percent; Langley's rate was 7.2 percent; Richmond's rate was 7.9 percent; and Surrey's rate was 12.6 percent. In 1986, 19.4 percent of Vancouver families were low income, while North Vancouver's rate was 7.5 percent; Langley's was 10.4 percent; Richmond's was 11.1 percent; and Surrey's was 16.5 percent. The majority of recipients of childcare subsidies are single  parent f a m i l i e s . According to the Ministry of Human Resources Annual Reports, during 1974-75 and 1975-76, 70 percent of daycare subsidies went to single parent f a m i l i e s . By 1976-77, t h i s figure rose to 75 percent. During the 1980's, the percent of subsidies going to single parent families remained high. Vancouver has had a high percentage of single parent families compared to the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . Table 8 shows Family Composition figures. While s t a t i s t i c s on single parent families are not available for 1971, they are available i n the 1981 and 1986 census data. Vancouver had a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher percentage of single parent families for both census years compared to the muni c i p a l i t i e s . In 1981, while Vancouver had 31.9 percent single parent families, Surrey, North Vancouver, and Richmond followed at 76 a much lower rate (20.3 percent to 17.8 percent). In 1986, Vancouver had a 35.3 percent single parent family rate, considerably higher than Surrey, Richmond, and North Vancouver (23.7 percent to 19.4 percent). Langley, which has had the l e a s t public response to the childcare issue (based on i t s low number of childcare spaces and the almost t o t a l absence of any childcare issues on the muncipal council agenda) has had a considerably lower percentage of single parent families compared to a l l other areas (12 percent i n 1981 and 14.6 percent i n 1986). Since the majority of childcare funding since the mid-1970 #s has gone into childcare subsidies to poor single parent fam i l i e s , rather than into c a p i t a l expenditures for childcare f a c i l i t i e s , i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t that Vancouver has such a large percentage of single parent f a m i l i e s . There are more poor single parent families i n Vancouver who are e l i g i b l e for these subsidies than i n the muni c i p a l i t i e s . The majority of these families are headed by women ; Age composition for the C i t y of Vancouver and the four municipalities also follows a pattern. In a l l census years (1971, 1981, and 1986), Vancouver had fewer children as a percent of the t o t a l population (See Table 9). In 1971, Vancouver children represented only 19.5 percent of the population while the four municipalities hovered at 31.6 percent to 32.1 percent, just under one-third of the t o t a l population. In 1981, there was a wider range of age composition but Vancouver was s u b s t a n t i a l l y lower at 14.4 percent while the other municipalities ranged from 77 approximately 21 to 27 percent. In 1986, the gap narrowed between Vancouver and the others but Vancouver was s t i l l s u b s t a n t i a l l y lower at 14 percent: the others ranged from 20 to 26 percent. In a l l three census years, Vancouver also has had a much higher rate of Seniors as a percent of the t o t a l population. In general, Vancouver has had a more diverse population. The municip a l i t i e s , on the other hand, have had a high proportion of children. A preponderance of children, however, does not necessarily increase the l i k e l i h o o d of the childcare issue getting onto the p o l i t i c a l agenda. Other factors r e l a t i n g to s o c i a l and economic need are more i n f l u e n t i a l . Summary Legal statutues do not provide an explanation for the greater response by Vancouver to the childcare issue compared to the four mun i c i p a l i t i e s . While Vancouver does operate under i t s own charter, and the municipalities under the Municipal Act, the legal parameters do not s i g n i f i c a n t l y vary. This i s true of i t s powers with respect to the acq u i s i t i o n of r e a l property, development, use of buildings, grants, and taxation powers. Neither the City of Vancouver nor the D i s t r i c t M u n i c i p a l i t i e s have a s p e c i f i c mandate for the coverage of s o c i a l services. A combination of factors — some of them s t r u c t u r a l — contribute to the childcare issue emerging on the p o l i t i c a l agenda i n Vancouver. Vancouver had a high labour force p a r t i c i p a t i o n rate for women i n the early 1970's when the i n i t i a l surge of childcare a c t i v i t y occurred p r o v i n c i a l l y and natio n a l l y . I t was able to 78 c a p i t a l i z e on the greater a v a i l a b i l i t y of federal and pr o v i n c i a l funding at t h i s time. However, both Richmond and North Vancouver women exceeded Vancouver women i n t h e i r employment rates throughout the 1980's. Vancouver has had greater o v e r a l l f i n a n c i a l c a p a b i l i t y , but i t also has had more low income fa m i l i e s . I t has consistently had a mid-range or lower median family income and a high proportion of single parent f a m i l i e s . At the same time, the percentage of children has been greater i n the municipalities compared to Vancouver. Conclusion The question then becomes why i s the p o l i t i c a l w i l l to respond to the need for childcare greater i n Vancouver than i n the four mun i c i p a l i t i e s . Vancouver women's labour force p a r t i c i p a t i o n can help explain i t s early response but i t cannot explain the ov e r a l l municipal response from the mid-70's onwards. While Vancouver does have a larger population that would q u a l i f y under welfare provisions, that does not provide a complete explanation. Childcare subsidies given to ind i v i d u a l needy parents cannot explain such factors as the two Vancouver task forces (on daycare and children), Vancouver's involvement i n the ac q u i s i t i o n and placement of childcare f a c i l i t i e s during the 1970's, or the creation of the position of Children's Advocate. Other factors must also be relevant, and these are discussed i n Chapter Four. Chapter Four Factors A f f e c t i n g Greater Vancouver Childcare P o l i t i c s : Themes from Interviews Introduction In t h i s chapter, I discuss several themes which emerged during interviews and indicate how they r e l a t e to other research i n the area of women's issues and government. Previously, I outlined the h i s t o r i c a l importance of the p a t r i a r c h a l family (see Chapter One): p a t r i a r c h a l ideology i s also an important factor i n understanding childcare p o l i t i c s i n Greater Vancouver. I have also outlined Pross's (1986) c r i t e r i a for lobbying effectiveness, as well as arguments put forward by feminist researchers (see Chapter Two). In t h i s research, while basic lobbying s k i l l s are important, other factors take precedence ( p a r t i c u l a r l y ideology). Before discussing my findings i n d e t a i l , I w i l l outline my research methodology and arguments. Methodology: the Interview Phase My methodology for examining the childcare issue i n the Greater Vancouver area included face-to-face interviews and telephone interviews with l o c a l c o u n c i l l o r s and representatives of community resource groups involved with childcare, as well as municipal employees such as Health Department representatives, Social Planners, and representatives from Community Care F a c i l i t i e s Licensing Boards. Through the use of in-depth interviews, I have been able to gather a variety of ideas concerning l o c a l childcare p o l i t i c s . The format I used was open-ended questions: t h i s format allowed those interviewed to discuss i n d e t a i l factors which they 80 considered important and to ra i s e concerns which had not been dealt with. The i n i t i a l questions asked of interviewees concerned the major d i f f i c u l t i e s surrounding childcare and childcare p o l i c y , j u r i s d i c t i o n , influencing decision making on the issue, the effectiveness (or lack of effectiveness) of p a r t i c u l a r groups or lobbying methods, the nature of women's issues, and the consideration of childcare as a women's issue. Among those interviewed from community groups were childcare advocates who have lobbied federal, p r o v i n c i a l , and municipal governments, early childhood educators, project co-ordinators at Neighbourhood Houses, members of the Westcoast Child Care Umbrella Resource and Support Society, municipal employees, and representatives from groups which promote the care of children i n the t r a d i t i o n a l family s e t t i n g . Many of those chosen for interviews were immediately i d e n t i f i a b l e as involved with the issue — i n council minutes, task force reports, municipal papers, community group studies, or the media. Other names were suggested verbally through the i n i t i a l contacts. Those c o u n c i l l o r s i n i t i a l l y chosen were also immediately i d e n t i f i a b l e through the same sources. Other c o u n c i l l o r s were suggested as able to o f f e r alternative viewpoints to the i n i t i a l contacts. An e f f o r t was made to locate a balance of opinion among those interviewed. A l l members of community groups contacted agreed to an interview, while one co u n c i l l o r declined an interview. I interviewed a t o t a l of 41 people: 26 face-to-face interviews and 15 telephone interviews. Among the face-to-face 81 interviewees were 12 c o u n c i l l o r s , 9 members of the childcare community, and 5 municipal employees/community workers. Those interviewed by telephone included 1 c o u n c i l l o r , 5 members of the childcare community, 2 representatives of t r a d i t i o n a l family organizations, and 7 municipal employees/community workers. I o f f e r d i r e c t quotations from 25 interviewees (about 60 percent) and chose those quotations to r e f l e c t not only c l a r i t y and variety but also to express the main themes which emerged during interviews. While these themes (and quotations) do not represent a l l the ideas discussed by those interviewed, they o f f e r a cross-section of widely held opinion. In the following pages, I use a three character alphanumeric notation to designate respondents. The f i r s t character, a l e t t e r , indicates city/municipality (V = Vancouver, N = North Vancouver, R = Richmond, S = Surrey, and L = Langley). The second character, a number, indicates the order i n which (quoted) people i n each subgroup were interviewed. F i n a l l y , the t h i r d character, a l e t t e r , indicates a person's position (either P for p o l i t i c i a n or C for c i t i z e n ) . A further breakdown of ' c i t i z e n s ' i s provided i n the text of the chapter (e.g., Social Planners, community service workers, and members of the childcare community). This chapter i s a discussion of the main themes: these ideas help to explain why the childcare issue has been addressed at the formal p o l i t i c a l l e v e l i n Vancouver i n a more comprehensive manner than i t has been i n the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . My discussion i s organized around f i v e broad themes, as follows. F i r s t , the s o c i a l and 82 p o l i t i c a l climate i n which the issue emerges a f f e c t s outcome: Vancouver's 'climate' has been favourable. Second, access to government i s important and involves several factors including: i ) j u r i s d i c t i o n (the municipal l e v e l of government i s e a s i l y accessible although i t lacks the primary mandate for c h i l d c a r e ) , i i ) key p o l i t i c i a n s (the involvement of supportive female c o u n c i l l o r s i s e s s e n t i a l ) , and i i i ) / ^ basic lobbying s k i l l s ( p o l i t i c a l and professional s k i l l s are important prerequisites for approaching government}. Third, while e f f e c t i v e lobbying requires that a childcare community be organized and cohesive, t h i s does not necessarily mean adopting a bureaucratic structures Fourth, the "proper r o l e " of women i s an important consideration (patriarchal ideology plays a more dominant r o l e i n the municipalities than i n Vancouver). F i f t h , childcare has not been viewed as a women's issue i n Vancouver (indeed, childcare advocates have c a r e f u l l y avoided such an association). The s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l climate Whether an issue i s favourably, or unfavourably, perceived by those i n decision-making positions i s at least p a r t i a l l y affected by the s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l context i n which the issue emerges. I t was clear i n my interviews that for Vancouver, the childcare issue developed within the context of a number of s o c i a l issues (problems surrounding poverty, housing, congestion, noise, and safety). A Social Planner commented: I think that Vancouver councils have been quite supportive (of s o c i a l issues). You see i t i n the centers i n the 70's and 80's. My sense i s that there has been stronger support i n Vancouver for 83 over a longer period, from successive councils, than there has been i n other municipalities where we hear t o t a l r e f u s a l to even consider the concept of grants to s o c i a l service agencies (V4C). During the 1970's, several groups worked together to humanize the c i t y and prevent i t from acquiring many of the problems that were becoming prominent i n large American c i t i e s . This meant having a broad cross-section of people — including children — i n the center of the c i t y , an area where problems of poverty, crime, and ghettos often develop. During the 1970's, university f a c u l t y who were f a m i l i a r with urban problems became involved with City Council as well as with a number of community groups (e.g. Walter Hardwick, Ken Denike). One Vancouver c o u n c i l l o r interviewed has pointed to the Strathcona community group as an example of a p o l i t i c a l l y active, broadly based grass roots organization whose actions and arguments reinforced what univer s i t y professors were saying about li v e a b l e c i t i e s . Several u n i v e r s i t y people who had been studying American c i t i e s got involved at t h i s time. They knew what was happening i n U.S. c i t i e s and didn't want to see i t happen here. They convinced others that something was wrong with the way the c i t y was developing, and they got involved with other groups such as the Strathcona group (V5P). Making c i t i e s l i v e a b l e for children, and being cognizant about the problems of childcare, were part of a broader picture of s o c i a l improvement. As discussed i n Chapter Three, Vancouver has had a larger percentage of low income families than the mun i c i p a l i t i e s . This, too, has provided an impetus for council to get involved as senior 84 l e v e l s of government have i d e n t i f i e d childcare as a welfare issue. More Vancouver families have received childcare subsidies, which comprise the largest government contribution towards childcare services. Access to government: municipal j u r i s d i c t i o n One major difference between senior l e v e l s of government and municipal government i s that a municipal council i s accessible to the i n d i v i d u a l c i t i z e n , unlike the p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e or federal parliament. Local government has been accessible to a v a r i e t y of groups (including childcare advocates) i n a l l f i v e locations. While t h i s does not d i f f e r e n t i a t e Vancouver from the mun i c i p a l i t i e s , i t i s an important precondition to consider when examining an aspect of l o c a l p o l i t i c s . Individuals can and do regularly make presentations to council ( i n a l l f i v e l o cations), as comments from a v a r i e t y of c o u n c i l l o r s indicate: I think the municipal government has more c r e d i b i l i t y than the other l e v e l s of government... they can come and t a l k to us (R2P). The mechanisms are i n place to approach council (L2P). The municipal l e v e l i s the easiest one to access on any issue. We deal with federal and p r o v i n i c i a l issues because c i t i z e n s can't get access to those f o l k (V2P). Because we're the nearest, the most d i r e c t , and they can get at us the easiest, they're t r y i n g to involve us a l l the time (S2P). My examination of the childcare issue and municipal councils suggests that consideration of the issue does not usually extend beyond a b r i e f discussion of s i t i n g or zoning for childcare f a c i l i t i e s . One c o u n c i l l o r commented: 85 The main approach is where are you going to put them and how can a municipality assist in that process. . . that's usually the extent of the debate. Alot of these issues aren't debated on a t err ib ly high philosophical plane. I don't want to d i s i l lus ion you about the majesty of the inte l lect of the average council lor. It doesn't get debated in that way. Part of i t i s you don't have the time, and, secondly, i t ' s peripheral to the decision that you've got to make. Most of the debate is about whether this is a good location ( S 3 P ) . On the other hand, the formation of more comprehensive childcare policy (as has been evident in Vancouver) happens within 'a policy making community' consisting of those working in the f i e ld (e.g. daycare co-ordinators, early childhood educators), along with government employees (e.g. social planners, Health Department representatives), and one or more council lors. Councillors rely on the expertise of those working in the f i e ld not only to identify the problems but the important people as well . One councillor noted: On the daycare side, I went to a couple of people in the community that I knew had been involved. . . and said you know the players, I don't want p o l i t i c a l folks, I don't want the regular people who participate. You know the players, you give me the names, and lets try to cover a l l the bases - multicultural , academic, working in the f i e ld , special needs - and so they came up with names for me, and I just went with that (V3P). Government funding can make a group vulnerable and manipulable, but at the same time walking that fine l ine of co-operation with government can give a group more gains than they might achieve without subsidization. In the case of childcare, government contributions in the form of direct grants, commissions or task forces, and/or research services are part icularly important. This appears to be the case with the 86 Vancouver childcare community and the funding i t has secured from Ci t y Council for Daycare Information services, for the West Coast Childcare umbrella organization, and f o r the position of the Children's Advocate. Those achievements have each increased the v i a b i l i t y of t h i s community i n gaining a public presence and i n putting i t s views forward not only to l o c a l government but very importantly to the p r o v i n c i a l government as well. Some members of the Vancouver childcare community were recently named to a p r o v i n c i a l task force on childcare needs. They now have an ' i n 7 to the p r o v i n c i a l government that they could not get e a r l i e r , as a Vancouver c o u n c i l l o r noted: The daycare community t o l d me that from 1980 or 1981 u n t i l we started our task force i n 1987 that they had never had a meeting not only with any cabinet minister who i s responsible for t h e i r area, but also any deputy minister despite repeated requests - phonecalls, l e t t e r s , every kind of request. They would never even meet with the daycare community. That's not even getting to the next step of saying, well no, I don't agree with you. They wouldn't even t a l k to them. How can you s t a r t to change minds i f you can't access the system? (V3P). Local government i s the easiest l e v e l of government to access. While municipal funding assistance i s l i m i t e d , contact with a municipal council can also help i n lobbying senior l e v e l s of government. Having access to government not only involves securing s u f f i c i e n t government funding i n the form of task forces, grants, or research services so that a case can be made for the issue, i t also means making contact with sympathetic p o l i t i c i a n s who w i l l drive the issue along. Access to government: the importance of supportive pol i t ic ians According to those interviewed, having key pol i t ic ians on your side helps greatly in moving the issue along. When the issue personally affects — or has personally affected — a member of council , the issue takes on more importance. Thus, one of the factors which helps to give an issue a higher prof i le on the p o l i t i c a l agenda is the presence of a councillor (or councillors) who feels strongly about the issue, who vocalizes the concerns of advocates, and who in general fac i l i ta tes the process of getting the issue onto the p o l i t i c a l agenda. This opinion was reiterated frequently, including the following comment from a former Vancouver council lor: When there i sn ' t a broad base of support, you need someone to bulldog the issue. Childcare was such an issue ear l ier . Now i t i s more broadly accepted... there was an anti-daycare 'don't warehouse your kids' attitude, but now more prominent women need daycare and employers realize that i f they want to keep well-qualif ied staff, they need to get involved (V5P). Key pol i t ic ians are part icularly important in the early lobbying days for childcare services, before i t gets a broad base of support, before i t takes on a sufficient degree of middle class acceptability. Much of this work happens 'behind the scenes', away from council chambers, as this former councillor noted. I think we did a fa i r b i t of work to be sure that people understood. We didn't want i t to go to council too early, and any chance we got to speak to the aldermen we took, and the mayor was fu l ly behind i t . By the time i t got to council , people knew that there was a fa i r b i t of support for i t and even i f someone did not want to support i t , they realized p o l i t i c a l l y i t wasn't a smart thing to do, so I think i t had support (VIP). An analogy drawn by a Vancouver councillor quite aptly points 88 out the importance of personal i n t e r e s t i n an issue: If you scratch the surface of someone very vocal about monster houses, y o u ' l l probably f i n d that he or she has a monster house going up next door (V3P). In the case of childcare, f or whom i s t h i s issue a 'monster' problem? Women. I t i s women who have had, and continue to have, the primary r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the care of children. Women much more often than men have an increased awareness of the issue and an understanding of how i t af f e c t s the l i v e s of women, of children, and of families and communities i n general. They are more l i k e l y to see the issue as an important consideration to place on the p o l i t i c a l agenda. In Vancouver, i t i s female c o u n c i l l o r s who have primarily given the issue a p r o f i l e and car r i e d the issue along through the gauntlet of committee rooms (where childcare advocates and government o f f i c i a l s meet), o f f i c e s and ' l i v i n g rooms' (where b r i e f s get prepared), and council chambers (for f i n a l presentations and voting). A former Vancouver c o u n c i l l o r noted: The advantage i n my view of having people on council prepared to work at t h i s i s that once people know that you're the person who w i l l l i s t e n and who are interested in helping, then they say maybe I ' l l t a l k to Alderman X about that: she might have an idea about what we can do about that. And t h i s person says I ' l l go t a l k to the mayor. They have an i n . That has been a major r o l e of the alderman (VIP). While some men, both mayors and co u n c i l l o r s , have supported the childcare issue, those most involved with the issue and f a c i l i t a t i n g changes have been women. Those p o l i t i c i a n s who have maintained d i r e c t and continuous involvement with seeing the work of a task force c a r r i e d through, and those who have done the behind 8 9 the scenes work of winning over other members of council , have generally been women. Likewise, those who have brought the issue forward for discussion on council have most often been women. A former Vancouver councillor noted the myriad of problems surrounding childcare such as l icensing, teacher qualif ications, subsidies, cut-off rates, and different levels of government. She thought that personal experience with those problems is what pushes a po l i t i c ian to get involved. Who could begin to understand the intricacies of a l l those problems except someone who has been through i t . . . Who wants to know about i t except someone who has been through i t? (V4P). Partisan po l i t i c s can also play a role . Having access to one po l i t i c ian who is sympathetic to your cause can give you other supporters from among that particular p o l i t i c a l organization. A Vancouver councillor noted: She got support from that group; some of i t i s p o l i t i c s , they were a l l from the same p o l i t i c a l organization, and the mayor would be working with the chair of the School Board, and the Chair of the Parks Board, a l l the same p o l i t i c a l group. So when the mayor is for i t , h e ' l l influence those other people. . . they had a good start with that group (VIP). Since the presence of supportive pol i t ic ians (partisan or not) is a necessary factor, and women have been part icularly involved with the issue, i t is important to consider the relative numbers of women on councils. An examination of the composition of councils for Vancouver, North Vancouver DM, Richmond DM, Surrey DM, and Langley DM indicates that Vancouver has had a higher overall percentage of women councillors than the four municipalities over the past 20 years (See Table 10 ). Vancouver has had approximately 25 percent female membership on council, nowhere near equal representation with men but higher than the rates of female representation i n the mu n i c i p a l i t i e s . At the same time, however, Vancouver's female representation i s not s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than a l l the others: i n f a c t , North Vancouver's o v e r a l l female representation i s close behind at 23 percent. Also, only i n 10 of the 21 years examined has there been a higher percentage of women on council i n Vancouver compared to other m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . Indeed, i n the 1973-75 period when the NDP p r o v i n c i a l government made more funds available and Vancouver council a c t i v e l y responded, North Vancouver, Richmond, and Surrey a l l had a greater proportion of women on council than did Vancouver. This would suggest that the presence of women on council i s not the only consideration. Merely having women on council does not automatically lead to t h e i r involvement on issues of importance to women. Their presence on council may be a necessary (but not s u f f i c i e n t ) condition for action. Access to government: basic lobbying s k i l l s While understanding childcare includes a knowledge of c h i l d development (that held by early childhood educators, c h i l d s p e c i a l i s t s , daycare operators and workers, childcare co-ordinators, and parents), knowledge of the p o l i c y process i s a d i f f e r e n t kind of information. I t concerns knowing who to t a l k to (or 'target'), who makes the jj^ortant^dec-js^ons^ where to go for help (which j u r i s d i c t i o n ) , and when to move (the correct timing). Those wishing to influence government must be available for the committee work, meetings, presentations, and so on, that are a l l part of the p o l i t i c a l package. An issue-oriented group, such as the childcare community, i s much more l i k e l y to have a thorough understanding of daycare or c h i l d development than an understanding of the p o l i t i c a l process. Some municipal c o u n c i l l o r s commented on t h i s , including t h i s p a r t i c u l a r c o u n c i l l o r . People r e a l l y don't understand the p o l i t i c a l process... Many groups just t a l k among themselves — they don't t a l k to anybody who can make a difference (SIP). Basic lobbying s k i l l s involve not only understanding the substantive issues i n the f i e l d but also the p o l i t i c a l process of getting the issue out to the p o l i t i c i a n s . A point brought out by a variety of those interviewed (including p o l i t i c i a n s , childcare a c t i v i s t s , and municipal employees such as s o c i a l planners) concerns the time commitment for lobbying. Those most d i r e c t l y affected by the childcare issue (parents, e s p e c i a l l y mothers) r a r e l y have the time or energy to expend on organizing p o l i t i c a l l y . Parents of young children are already exhausted without adding p o l i t i c a l meetings to t h e i r evening schedules — p a r t i c u l a r l y women, because the brunt of the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for childcare l i e s on t h e i r shoulders. Parents of preschool children are p a r t i c u l a r l y involved with the everyday problems of childcare, but those parents are often the least l i k e l y to bring the issue forward. Because parent involvement on the boards of non-profit s o c i e t i e s i s often mandatory, many parents are already adding meeting times to an already f u l l schedule, making further a v a i l a b i l i t y f o r p o l i t i c a l action very u n l i k e l y . A former Vancouver c o u n c i l l o r noted the problems i n forming a c o a l i t i o n : They were getting mothers with small children who needed the daycare to be on the daycare c o a l i t i o n , but mothers with small children are the l a s t people who would have the energy f o r being on a board, and once t h e i r children are older, they aren't generally interested (V5P). This lack of parental involvement has repercussions when the issue i s placed on the p o l i t i c a l agenda i n the muni c i p a l i t i e s . Some childcare operators and members of municipal councils f e e l that the lack of parental involvement i s a disadvantage: there was a louder outcry from parents, more would get done' and 'parents don't organize themselves to voice t h e i r complaints' are common refrains^? Those childcare operators who do get involved with municipal governments tend to act u n i l a t e r a l l y and come forward to council with a s p e c i f i c zoning or s i t i n g request. They do not get Another lobbying requirement i s making sure you're 'on target', a s k i l l which i s c r u c i a l but, unfortunately, not s t r a i g h t -d i f f i c u l t . I t involves knowing both the proper j u r i s d i c t i o n , as well as who i n p a r t i c u l a r makes the important decisions. This has been important i n the childcare issue, as suggested by two municipal c o u n c i l l o r s . You have to decide i f that's the r i g h t person to rant at and you've got to know what you want to rant about... and know what you want at the end (NIP). deeply involved with forward. Pinning r e s p o n s i b i l i t y where i t belongs i s often I t ' s a very confusing j u r i s d i c t i o n , and I f i n d that because of the distance of the p r o v i n c i a l government, and confusion of the d i f f e r e n t m i n i s t r i e s , p r o v i n c i a l l y and fe d e r a l l y , that many people just don't know where to go (SIP). On the other hand, comments from a childcare advocate i n the Greater Vancouver area who finds lobbying 'easy', and has learned how to access ministers at the p r o v i n c i a l and federal l e v e l s , indicates that she understands targeting government p o l i t i c i a n s . I watch (the p o l i t i c i a n s ) f or awhile, watch what makes them t i c k . I set my sights on who I want to target and then watch them at events or when they're working. I have taken three years 'to c u l t i v a t e ' (a p o l i t i c i a n ) . . . Having the nerve was the most important thing (V5C). Issue-oriented groups spring up where there i s a strong f e e l i n g about a p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n and while they are often led by dedicated people, they are not necessarily p o l i t i c a l l y experienced. They can often suffer from poor organization, a lack of cohesion, a f l u i d membership, and d i f f i c u l t i e s i n formulating and reaching objectives (Pross, 1986). Some municipal c o u n c i l l o r s pointed out that childcare advocates i n t h e i r municipalities are often novice lobbiers and need to learn about government organization. In many instances, the daycare workers are not f o r c e f u l people. They're daycare workers, they don't know how / to lobby, don't have the time, don't have the money, / they're just t r y i n g to run a business (SIP). Women have to organize — and not just women, there are a l o t of single fathers — but they don't seem to see that they're fractured. They're a l l over the place, just managing, just t r y i n g to keep t h e i r heads above water (RIP). A member of the Greater Vancouver childcare community also commented on the lack of p o l i t i c a l experience of some advocates. 94 Often people are naive. They don't r e a l i z e they are one of a series of issues... You have to go and l i s t e n to a council before actually bringing forward your issue... you can do more damage than good by presenting the wrong way, or the wrong day. Sometimes waiting i s more e f f e c t i v e (V5C). Yet even i f parents or i n d i v i d u a l daycare operators wish to see the issue get p u b l i c l y addressed, and f i n d the time and energy to do so, where to turn f o r help can be very confusing, as t h i s municipal c o u n c i l l o r indicated: I think part of i t i s f r u s t r a t i o n . They don't know where to go, where to s t a r t . I think you have to be extremely persistent; part of i t i s understanding the government. How do you approach a government for money? How do you lobby a government? Where do you start? (SIP). Those from the childcare community who organize p o l i t i c a l l y tend to be a rather se l e c t group who have learned to wade through the p o l i t i c a l quagmire out of necessity. They stand out within t h e i r own community and from parents as well. Many would argue that t h i s i s not unusual: p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i s t s are rare. However, what i s p a r t i c u l a r l y relevant here i s that a group which i s c r u c i a l l y affected by the issue ( i . e . parents, p a r t i c u l a r l y mothers) i s so s i l e n t . ,,,, Another aspect of lobbying effectiveness concerns incremental change. Movement within a government bureaucracy i s generally very slow. Those working for change within such a system need to acknowledge the inherent d i f f i c u l t i e s and f i n d progress i n small steps. A North Vancouver c o u n c i l l o r noted: To be successful, you have to see the other side, and know where you want to go and know what r e a l i s t i c a l l y i t ' s possible to do (NIP). Being pragmatic i s part of the p o l i t i c a l process and re s u l t s i n getting more accomplished. Without f i g h t i n g for s p e c i f i c goals, the o v e r a l l issue w i l l not move forward but w i l l merely get bogged down i n the bureaucracy. A Vancouver c o u n c i l l o r commented: I said what I don't want at the end i s for you to say we want the world to be better for kids — that means nothing i n p o l i t i c a l terms. What I want i s an action that I can go and f i g h t for and argue behind the scenes, push and p u l l and t r y and get passed. Argue your case. Be s p e c i f i c . P r i o r i t i z e . If you come and just say we need more daycare, nothing w i l l happen i n a bureaucracy. If you've got t i n y steps, then you can push i t through and actually get something done (V3P). Yet t h i s kind of incremental change assumes that there i s nothing which fundamentally challenges the way people think and expect t h e i r world to function. Several factors contribute to e f f e c t i v e lobbying — knowing the correct j u r i s d i c t i o n , targeting the r i g h t p o l i t i c i a n s , and timing appropriately. P o l i t i c a l players must develop these s k i l l s . Another factor which i s important i n e f f e c t i v e lobbying concerns how the i n d i v i d u a l actors work together as a group. While Pross suggested that a bureaucratic organizational capacity was important, my research indicates that what i s important i s that the lobbying group be cohesive and have a support network. The childcare community: organized and cohesive but non-bureaucratic Government organization i s bureaucratic and i t i s important for a group to be able to est a b l i s h s u f f i c i e n t organizational s k i l l s i n order to function with government. Pross (1986) argues that a group which f a i l s to organize e f f e c t i v e l y may win 'a b a t t l e ' but not a 'major campaign'. I would agree with him on t h i s point: the Vancouver childcare community has managed to organize e f f e c t i v e l y and acts as a r e l a t i v e l y cohesive unit, unlike the childcare communities i n the mun i c i p a l i t i e s . While i n d i v i d u a l daycare operators do win i n d i v i d u a l zoning or s i t i n g b a t t l e s i n the municipalities, these are not 'major campaigns' i n which childcare p o l i c y gets onto the municipal agenda i n a more comprehensive and longterm manner. However, while Pross argues that those organizational s k i l l s are developed within a bureaucratic structure, t h i s does not appear to be the case with respect to the Vancouver childcare community. For example, a look at the Daycare Information Offices established by the P r o v i n c i a l Government i n the 1970's indicates that while these o f f i c e s operated i n i t i a l l y i n a s i m i l a r manner i n Vancouver and North Vancouver, Vancouver's o f f i c e evolved d i f f e r e n t l y . I t became more entrenched, yet i t s structure did not become bureaucratic. I t ' s mandate continued to expand, and i t became a foc a l point for daycare services, programs, and i n q u i r i e s . Members of the childcare community recognized i t s importance i n holding t h e i r community and services together. When p r o v i n c i a l funds were discontinued i n 1981, the childcare community lobbied to get municipal help, and the City of Vancouver responded with f i n a n c i a l help to maintain the services provided through the Daycare Information o f f i c e . During the early 1980's, t h i s o f f i c e received funding assistance from both the City of Vancouver and other sources. In 1987, the organization expanded into the Westcoast Child Care Resource Centre operated by the Westcoast Child Care Umbrella Resource and Support Society, and as i t s 'umbrella' name suggests, i t functions to place the various arms of the childcare community i n close working contact with each other. 'Westcoast' i s a co-ordinated f a c i l i t y run by a non-profit society and shares resources, support services, and housing with several organizations involved i n the f i e l d of childcare. These organizations provide a variety of programs and services, such as daycare information services, early childhood m u l t i c u l t u r a l services, a resource l i b r a r y , volunteer co-ordinating, and support services for fa m i l i e s . Other organizations are also part of the resource centre f a c i l i t y . These include the Children's Services Employees Union of B.C., Early Childhood Educators of B.C., the B.C. Daycare Action C o a l i t i o n , the School Age Child Care Association, and Western Canada Family Daycare Asociation of B.C. Westcoast i s funded by three lev e l s of government: the federal Child Care I n i t i a t i v e s Fund, Health and Welfare Canada, the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, and the City of Vancouver. This co-ordinated approach aims at reducing problems of funding, space, operating c a p a b i l i t i e s , i s o l a t i o n , low v i s i b i l i t y within the community, and s t a f f i n g whlle__at-t.e.mpt.ing to b u i l d ^ a strong childcare in f r a s t r u c t u r e . They t r y to improve public awareness and provide support for the care and education of children. J o i n t a c t i v i t i e s , programs, and projects occur rather than a bureaucratic chain of command. Cohesiveness i s c r u c i a l i n terms of a group making an impact 98 on government p o l i c y . Westcoast and i t s predecessors have had the organizational capacity to function within a government bureaucracy. The Vancouver childcare community i s cohesive as t h i s Vancouver c o u n c i l l o r pointed out: The (childcare) advocacy group i n Vancouver, i t i s surpr i s i n g what a cohesive group they are... they have a very good network here (VIP). They are e a s i l y i d e n t i f i a b l e and have earned a degree of legitimation within government c i r c l e s . At the same time, they are not bureaucratic. The Westcoast C h i l d Care Centre, and i t s predecessor Information Daycare, have not only provided increased awareness of members of the childcare community to each other, but City Council i s much more aware of them as a viable e n t i t y to speak for the childcare community as a whole. A former Vancouver c o u n c i l l o r noted: We put i n the Daycare Information. We got funding, we knew i t was a good idea but we had no way to get the money f o r i t . We didn't have a source except c i t y council and they said we don't fund daycare. But we did go to council, and we did get the money, and so we got i t established. And once we got funding so that we could hire someone, we could put that into operation. Now that became a foc a l point, and i f I am t r y i n g to think of a name or whatever, I can always phone X, everyone can phone X (VIP). Daycare information services i n North Vancouver evolved d i f f e r e n t l y from Vancouver. While daycare information was i n i t i a t e d i n a s i m i l a r fashion to Vancouver — by Family Services, augmented by the Junior League of Vancouver and the United Way — i t did not acquire the same organizational capacity to withstand the upcoming cutbacks. In 1973, the (NDP) p r o v i n c i a l government established a Daycare Information o f f i c e there, s i m i l a r to Vancouver's Daycare Information o f f i c e , which provided information on subsidies, childcare services, group daycare, and t r a i n i n g and support for family daycare. This was an umbrella organization which was linked to the volunteer service sector and with c h i l d abuse services. In general, i t appeared to be a f o c a l point of the community. In 1981, during a recession which brought s t a f f i n g and budget cuts, the (Socred) p r o v i n c i a l government took over the Daycare Information O f f i c e and, by 1984, i t did not e x i s t anymore. Their consulting arm and subsidies team became part of a Ministry resource team, and support for unlicensed Family Daycare, which had been doing s o c i a l assessments, was l o s t . Municipal government involvement throughout t h i s time period was minimal, and the childcare community, which was active through the Daycare Information O f f i c e , was not cohesive enough to withstand the early 1980's cutbacks, nor was i t i n c l i n e d to go to the Municipal Council for support. A North Vancouver government employee who had been active i n the childcare community commented: The municipal council has only been involved when a p a r t i c u l a r center goes to council for help, usually for land or zoning... but i t was very ad hoc, only when an immediate need was there (NIC). In North Vancouver, those active i n the childcare f i e l d , and parents needing childcare services, tended to act i n a more i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c fashion. At no time did the childcare community join forces to request municipal help, and eventually the Daycare Information o f f i c e folded. The municipal council was not involved; i t was not t h e i r j u r i s d i c t i o n and there was not a very loud i n t e r e s t i n daycare i n general. People are just interested when they need i t — for a short time. People here have the money to make t h e i r own arrangements. Private nanny arrangements are common... the Daycare Information Of f i c e died without a whimper (NIC). Being organized and cohesive i s important not only f o r a lobbying group to be able to approach government c o l l e c t i v e l y , but i t i s also important for government o f f i c i a l s to be able to i d e n t i f y the group and p a r t i c u l a r spokespersons. Pross (1986) suggests that a flow of information between members of the public and the government lends legitimacy to the po l i c y formulated. This research supports that premise. In Vancouver, several members of the childcare community, as well as government employees involved with childcare, participated on both major task forces (the 1983 Task Force on Daycare and the 1988 Task Force on Children). They were named to the task forces i n a co-operative move between co u n c i l l o r s and members of the childcare community. These two co u n c i l l o r s commented on the interplay between community groups and themselves: I said what I want to do i s take a l l those people who are the experts i n the community and just pick t h e i r brains, the ones who have for 20 years been working with kids — they know what's wrong, they know where the gaps are, where the overlaps are. What I need for them to do i s to brainstorm and then t e l l me what to do... the l a s t thing you need i s a p o l i t i c i a n running things (V3P). The main people were community group people that I went to. I knew the people who were working i n the f i e l d and the people who were doing the advocacy work. I knew them from a l l sorts of contacts and from previously working with people... you know the people who speak out at meetings (VIP). Once a group has gone through the i n i t i a l struggle of being recognized by government, they are i n an advantageous position to reap more benefits. This has c e r t a i n l y been the case with the Vancouver childcare community and i t s evolution over the past 20 years. P a r t i c i p a t i n g with a government not only helps to get the group's wishes onto the p o l i t i c a l agenda, but i t helps to create more cohesion i n that p a r t i c u l a r community i n general. Working together increases the awareness to mutual int e r e s t s and leads to an increase i n informal s o c i a l t i e s as well. A s o c i a l planner commented: The same group that was on (the 1983) task force was pretty much on (the 1988) task force. We're sort of long time friends — Langara, a l l the folks over at lic e n s i n g and UBC. It's a pretty small community and, I think, cohesive (V4C). According to Pross (1986), i t i s not uncommon for the d i f f e r e n t sectors of an issue-oriented group to have separate concerns and/or strategies. This i s the case with respect to childcare. Group daycare has certa i n concerns such as affordable buildings and s i t e s ; family daycare has t h e i r own associations which deal with_pr.Qblems such as zoning and l i c e n s i n g requirements; preschool teachers are another d i s t i n c t s e c t i o n ^ jspecial needs workers come at the issue from yet—another, angle and_ often^deal with d i f f e r e n t government ministries from any of the others. However, one of the important points which separates the Vancouver childcare community and the municipalities i s , once again, that o v e r a l l cohesiveness as a group ( i . e . , the a b i l i t y of the d i f f e r e n t sectors to have a common bond and support each other's cause). I w i l l use Richmond as an example of a 102 municipality with several disconnected sectors within the childcare community. A c o u n c i l l o r noted: They're not organized enough to be e f f e c t i v e v i s - a - v i s other groups.. Daycare operators and childcare educators haven't been active here... i t has not been a cohesive group (RIP). A s i m i l a r view was put forward by a member of the childcare community and a community service worker: The Richmond Community Services Advisory Council set up a childcare committee as a subcommittee because there i s no group that speaks out on childcare. There i s the ECE (Early Childhood Educators) which i s mainly preschool operators, but they tend to not come to meetings i n the evenings... which i s unfortunate because we don't get much input from them. There i s a Family Daycare Society but they again are providers of childcare and don't do much i n the way of advocacy work (R1C). There have been many attempts to organize the childcare community but nothing successful u n t i l a couple months ago there was a workshop organized to get them a l l together (R2C). Comments from a va r i e t y of people associated with the childcare issue ( c o u n c i l l o r s , advocates, and municipal employees) seem to concur that the organizational capacity of a group i s important i n order to be e f f e c t i v e with government. The v a r i a t i o n l i e s i n the form of organization. While Pross (1986) has suggested a bureaucratic structure, t h i s research suggests a more horizontal (or 'umbrella') structure. Certainly the cohesiveness of a group i s important, and, once a lobbying community i s able to est a b l i s h s u f f i c i e n t rapport to approach government, they are often i n a position to reap more benefits. A support network i s part of being cohesive, and i t improves communication both within the group and between the group and government. However, cohesiveness does not necessarily imply bureaucratic. In Greater Vancouver, the pattern adopted by two municipalities (North Vancouver and Richmond) indicates a more i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c approach, rather than the united action of Vancouver. Ideology, the status quo, and p o l i t i c a l w i l l A theme which developed during interviews, and which appears to be an important part of the childcare issue (here as well as elsewhere), concerns the pa t r i a r c h a l family. The ideology of the family a f f e c t s how people formulate the problem and how they seek solutions. Many comments during interviews suggested that the lure of the t r a d i t i o n a l family i s much stronger i n the four municipalities than i t has been i n Vancouver. These i d e o l o g i c a l concerns r e l a t e to arguments raised i n other research concerning the importance of the status quo. That i s , those issues which challenge the status quo (and ideology i s part of the status quo) are frequently met with resistance from those i n decision making positions. The municipalities ('suburbs') tend to have more homogeneous cross-sections of people (each has a smaller range of socio-economic p o s i t i o n s ) . Higher average family incomes occur i n the municipalities ( p a r t i c u l a r l y North Vancouver and Richmond), as already noted. According to many of those interviewed, along with t h i s homogeneity of socio-economic position comes a more conservative attitude — an attitude which includes a much stronger focus on t r a d i t i o n a l family values and perspectives. For example, a municipal employee active i n North Vancouver for several years, 104 who has been involved with the childcare issue there, commented: Suburban women tend to be non-confrontational, though they are very involved with implementing s o c i a l services i n general. Why are they non-confrontational? Well, money, a conservative attitude... and also a lack of p o l i t i c a l t r a d i t i o n . . . Suburbs are 'non-organic' — they're r e a l l y a narrow cross-section of people... The idea i s women and children at home and men come home from the o f f i c e l a t e r . Even when suburban women are employed, they often i d e n t i f y themselves as homemakers (e.g., I know women who go home to make lunch for t h e i r children when other arrangements could be made) (N2C). Family t r a d i t i o n and the idea that problems should be solved within the parameters of the i n d i v i d u a l family have been strong i n Richmond. In the t r a d i t i o n a l family, women ra i s e children: i t i s t h e i r private r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . The municipal council has been very reluctant to get involved with childcare: "they don't want to get stuck with i t " (RIP). A community worker who has been active i n the implementation of a variety of community services commented: The p r e v a i l i n g attitude here i s that women should stay home and look a f t e r the kids... By the l a t e 1970's, childcare arrangements were being made i n a very haphazard fashion. Arrangements were often dreadful and parents were desperate. They often didn't see what was going on at the childcare place (R2C). On a s i m i l a r vein, a member of the childcare community commented: The assumption of many people and a number of the people on council i s that childcare i s a family r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . . . That view was quite strongly expressed at one of the Community Services Advisory Council meetings. I t was the i n d i v i d u a l family's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and people should stay home and r a i s e t h e i r children. Others had made a s a c r i f i c e and today's society i s very m a t e r i a l i s t i c and wanting luxury items (R1C). It i s not only a private family r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , i t i s a middle class value that only those i n very needy situations should receive 105 assistance. Getting council involved would be asking them to step beyond t h i s i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c pattern of thinking, and so f a r the incentive does not appear to be there. One of the f i r s t steps i n any kind of change i s awareness, recognition that a problem e x i s t s . While Richmond has had two studies during the 1980's to examine the childcare issue, action has not followed the recommendations. Some of those interviewed commented on the inaction: The attitude i n Richmond i s that Richmond doesn't have the same problems as other places, l i k e Vancouver for instance (R1C). The community at large i s just waking up to the issue that 'two working parents' i s here to stay (R2C). Langley also holds strong t r a d i t i o n a l values and aims at an " i d e a l i z e d way of r a i s i n g c hildren." Childcare has not become an issue. Instead, as one c o u n c i l l o r noted, "water and sewer are the burning issues here" (LIP). Recently, a public workshop was held to examine people's concerns and expectations for the future of the municipality. This c o u n c i l l o r commented: You won't f i n d one thing about daycare. These are the concerns they have: public meetings, r e t a i n r u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . . . preserve the l i l a c s and pussywillows... no Surrey urban sprawl, a balance of r u r a l and urban, t h i s i s what they want Langley to be in 20 years. They want green space; they want heritage buildings; adequate education, parks, f a c i l i t i e s ; l i b e r t y , freedom, and j u s t i c e for a l l ; a nursery — but the kind where you grow tomatoes... We're going to have a big questionnaire go out but childcare won't be on that e i t h e r . I would put i t on i f someone wanted i t but no-one i s saying anything (LIP). Another Langley c o u n c i l l o r commented on the "aura of motherhood" and that one of the issues that Langley has become 106 involved with i s pregnant teenagers. Naturally, you do the best because, quite frankly, you re a l i z e that yes, we can help t h i s k id. Whether she keeps the baby or not i s not the issue. The issue i s i f you can get her educated, then one, she might be able to migrate into the work force and become s e l f -s u f f i c i e n t and maintain her c h i l d or she might decide on a more l i b e r a l education. (She might think) I love t h i s k id so much, maybe the best thing for t h i s k id i s to put him or her into an adopted home, and maybe I ' l l mature. It's a very large sphere ( L 2 P ) . This comment f i t s well with the general history of childcare p o l i c y (that childcare should be provided to 'help out' i n very needy s i t u a t i o n s ) . Besides being associated with needy situations, childcare i s also associated with t r a d i t i o n a l roles — and maleness i s a major concern i n getting past the barrie r s of t r a d i t i o n a l r o l e s . Boys playing with d o l l s and men becoming involved with r a i s i n g children are not 'male' a c t i v i t i e s . One c o u n c i l l o r commented that i t i s not advisable for boys to learn a 'mothering' role while young. While both mothering and fathering are important, the roles are di f f e r e n t , and i t i s mothers who perform the t r a d i t i o n a l nurturing r o l e . Homophobic fears were connected with crossing the unwritten guidelines for appropriate behaviour. There's some discussion... i f l i t t l e Johnny plays with d o l l s i n some predominant manner, i s t h i s going to aff e c t l i t t l e Johnny as far as being effeminate, w i l l t h i s a f f e c t him down the road? How many of the homosexuals that you end up with, i s i t because of some pattern i n t h e i r childhood? I r e a l l y don't know ( L 2 P ) . In Surrey, as i n the other municipalities, childcare has not become an issue which af f e c t s men i n the same way as women. Those interviewed a l l agreed that a large number of women are i n the 107 labour force and that other forms of care are necessary. In spite of that, the b e l i e f i n mothers caring for children remains strong fo r some. One c o u n c i l l o r commented: Mother i s the best for our childcare. I don't think anyone w i l l argue with that, when they're young up to four or f i v e . Few people w i l l argue with that. But there i s n ' t too much choice now. Thirty years ago there was a choice. Now a great many people are working today while t h e i r children are young, and they don't r e a l l y want to... Group care i s a symptom of decay i n our society ( S 2 P ) . Building on the mother-is-best argument i s the idea that women are 'innately' more suitable to providing a nurturant family environment. I say thank God there i s a difference between men and women. There i s a difference i n mental texture i f you want to c a l l i t . I've always gotten along well with women, I enjoy women, but I'm glad I'm a man, but I appreciate women and I appreciate that they're d i f f e r e n t . They're more caring. I t ' s not a l l culture because i t runs through a l l cultures, so i t can't be any s p e c i f i c culture... i t ' s got to be innate rather than c u l t u r a l ( S 2 P ) . With men not as affected by the issue as much as women, the issue lacks the force i t would otherwise have, as t h i s c o u n c i l l o r argued: If more men were given control or given r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for daycare, I believe i t would be more of an issue. I f e e l very strongly that when men take on an issue, i t becomes resolved (SIP). Among those interviewed were representatives from two groups who promote t r a d i t i o n a l family values and childcare performed by at-home mothers. While neither of those groups have been d i r e c t l y involved with lobbying at the l o c a l l e v e l i n any of the municipalities examined or i n Vancouver, they have been involved 108 with lobbying at the p r o v i n c i a l and federal l e v e l s . These groups share much of the pat r i a r c h a l viewpoint of government (as suggested by comments i n t h i s chapter). For example, they agree that government should d i f f e r e n t i a t e between those who 'need' daycare and those who 'want' daycare. The government should be a safety net: not everyone i s e n t i t l e d to receive assistance regardless of income. Instead, childcare i s the r i g h t and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the family. Government help should be non-intrusive and should not be showing preference f o r substitute care. At the same time, they argue that mothers want to stay home, as t h i s comment indicates: Women nurse t h e i r babies and so therefore they're more suitable for doing childcare. In our experience, women usually want to stay home. The mothers are the ones who want to stay home. It's free choice (S2C). In Vancouver, where childcare has become an issue at the council l e v e l , the debate has broadened and moved away from the idea that the best environment i s mother at home. That i s no longer a major part of the debate as t h i s former c o u n c i l l o r noted: If you t a l k to young parents, the whole thing i s changing. They aren't going to enter into a big debate about whether we should have daycare. I t just i s n ' t a debate. It's more my generation who s t a r t to say the mother should be at home. I think the more i t i s discussed i n these public forums, the more i t becomes a community/society issue and I think that's good (VIP). At the same time, m i l i t a n t action i s rare i n a l l the locations examined. I think one of the reasons for t h i s lack of militancy i s the i d e o l o g i c a l hold of the family. Women often f e e l g u i l t around the issue of childcare and family: the 'good mother' 109 r o l e i s not only hard to meet, i t i s also very hard to break, as one member of the childcare community commented. I think there are a l o t of people, even working i n the f i e l d , that s t i l l have those r e a l l y deep down feelings of being judged because of t h e i r own kids. That growth s t i l l hasn't happened... I'm not sure that they're even comfortable even t a l k i n g with each other about the daycare that t h e i r children are i n . You know, 'I put my c h i l d i n a daycare that I r e a l l y don't l i k e ' . I t ' s tough for a mother to admit to other people. The sad thing i s i f they would just admit i t , everybody else would be saying 'you know I'm i n the same boat, what can we do about i t ? ' (L1C). P o l i t i c a l w i l l i s important i n getting past t h i s strong i d e o l o g i c a l b a r r i e r . I t i s involved i n discussions which get bogged down in d e t a i l s such as j u r i s d i c t i o n a l disputes. While j u r i s d i c t i o n or money often appear to be the problem, I think the problem goes much deeper. This idea was supported by a Vancouver childcare advocate who has been active p r o v i n c i a l l y and i n the Greater Vancouver area: I have consistently taken the point of view that the issue i s a p o l i t i c a l one, not a s t r u c t u r a l one. One ministry needs to be given the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to d e l i v e r to the c i t i z e n s of t h i s province a comprehensive childcare system. Once there i s that p o l i t i c a l w i l l , i t doesn't matter where you put i t . . . It's more important to get the p o l i t i c a l w i l l than to name the ministry (V2C). When t r a d i t i o n a l ways change, the ideas which held those patterns i n place do not automatically change with them. While those ideas are often not a r t i c u l a t e d , they greatly a f f e c t how the issue gets formulated and what change occurs. A s u f f i c i e n t degree of p o l i t i c a l w i l l i s needed to pass e f f e c t i v e l e g i s l a t i o n i n spite of p r e v a i l i n g attitudes. The f i n a l section of t h i s chapter deals with the manner i n which the issue has been formulated i n order to get e f f e c t i v e r e s u l t s (keeping i n mind concerns such as patr i a r c h a l ideology). While childcare i s an issue which p a r t i c u l a r l y a f f e c t s the l i v e s of women, arguments put forward by childcare advocates do not necessarily make that connection. Ownership of the issue: who i s affected by the issue? One way i n which getting the childcare issue onto a p o l i t i c a l agenda d i f f e r s from a 'non-women's' issue such as an environmental issue i s that environmental problems are less s e l e c t i v e i n t h e i r e f f e c t on people. Problems of a i r pollutants, carcinogenic food additives, or a hole i n the ozone layer d i r e c t l y a f f e c t a much broader cross-section of the population. The childcare issue, on the other hand, af f e c t s women and children i n a more pronounced fashion. Perhaps, then, the increasingly high p r o f i l e which the environment i s getting i s at lea s t p a r t i a l l y the r e s u l t of more people being d i r e c t l y affected. At the same time, i t i s important that those i n important decision making positions are p a r t i c u l a r l y affected, as they are capable of giving the issue prominence. For some time, farmworkers have been concerned about the health e f f e c t s of handling pesticides, but t h i s has not necessarily resulted i n t h e i r concerns getting on p o l i t i c a l agendas. Now that a much broader cross-section of people see themselves as d i r e c t l y affected by pesticides and other carcinogenic substances (through food consumption), i t has become a more important concern for the general population and subsequently f o r government. This issue, which was not getting a large p o l i t i c a l p r o f i l e while i t was a farmworkers' issue, now i s on government agendas as an environmental issue. Those who make decisions which would give the issue prominence are among those d i r e c t l y affected. Women are l i k e farmworkers i n terms of t h e i r p o l i t i c a l influence and economic v i a b i l i t y . Getting t h e i r concerns out into the open and acted upon i s a slow process. One of the factors which w i l l l i k e l y increase the importance of a women's issue i s having i t personally a f f e c t a broader cross-section of people (men as well as women), and i n p a r t i c u l a r having i t a f f e c t those i n i n f l u e n t i a l positions. Several members of the childcare community, as well as cou n c i l l o r s i n the municipalities and Vancouver, mentioned the increased a c t i v i t y around employer sponsored daycare. Corporate employers (a male-dominated and high SES group) are becoming increasingly aware of and responsive to the issue of childcare as they lose the valuable productivity of highly trained and q u a l i f i e d female employees. According to a recent research project sponsored through Douglas College and the University of B.C. , ^jaoxe employers now r e a l i z e that the lack of suitable daycare services i s costing them money and valued employees^(Ebner, 1990). The childcare issue i s now becoming the concern of an i n f l u e n t i a l male e l i t e who are i n a position to make decisions with f i n a n c i a l ramifications. Because the issue i s d i r e c t l y a f f e c t i n g them, they are beginning to see i t as important enough to act on, at least i n those situations which d i r e c t l y a f f e c t them and company p r o f i t . What i s p a r t i c u l a r l y important for t h i s discussion i s that 112 action on the childcare issue occurs when i t a f f e c t s those i n i n f l u e n t i a l positions, either the p o l i t i c i a n s who control the public purse or the employers who are losing money due to t h e i r employees' lack of daycare services. With the former, the well-being of children i n the community has become a primary focus, and with the l a t t e r , the economic well-being of major employers has become ce n t r a l . In both si t u a t i o n s , the problems occur during hours of employment. Childcare a c t i v i s t s who pressure l o c a l governments argue that both parents are now employed and that the interests and rights of children to proper care must be upheld. Employers are becoming interested i n an e f f o r t to reduce t h e i r losses r e s u l t i n g from employee (largely female and middle class) absenteeism and ' u n r e l i a b i l i t y ' . The o v e r a l l d i v i s i o n of labour within the family, and the inherent r e s p o n s i b i l i t y which women hold f o r family well-being, are not part of the debate. Childcare "ownership" My examination of the childcare issue i n the Greater Vancouver area indicates that while the presence of women co u n c i l l o r s i s important to carry the childcare issue along, the issue does not get viewed as a women's issue by either those working i n the childcare community or by c o u n c i l l o r s . In fact, one of the themes which emerged quite strongly and consistently i n interviews of both childcare advocates and co u n c i l l o r s i s that childcare i s not, and should not, be seen as a women's issue. Instead, childcare i s viewed (by those interviewed) i n a 113 var i e t y of ways: as a family issue, a parent issue, a community need, a s o c i a l issue, a class issue, or a 'people problem'. Two Vancouver c o u n c i l l o r s who have been active i n bringing the childcare issue forward to council argued: I think i t got on the Vancouver p o l i t i c a l agenda because i t wasn't a women's issue... we have a very male, p a t e r n a l i s t i c , p a t r i a r c h a l system and they'd l i k e to think often that i t ' s a family issue... so put i t on the agenda as a family issue. I t ' s women who usually do the work to get i t there ... but i t wasn't seen as a women's issue i n Vancouver. I t wasn't the women's movement out there screaming about i t (V4P). Childcare w i l l never get funded, i t w i l l never get attention, and i t w i l l never be adequately dealt with u n t i l we can convince people that t h i s i s not a women's issue. You'll get these nice l i t t l e pats on the head — and you go out with your $1,000 and you just do something t e r r i f i c — i t just gets no v a l i d i t y as long as i t ' s a women's issue (V3P). Members of the Vancouver childcare community also indicate that childcare should not be seen as a women's issue. I t i s very important that childcare be seen not as a women's issue, but as a family issue, for people to solve, not just women. I don't see NAC's involvement i n childcare as necessarily advantageous (VIC). Childcare as a women's issue — that's a p i l e of garbage. Women don't make babies on t h e i r own... Childcare i s a human or a people's issue (V3C). Women bear the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , adjust t h e i r l i v e s , and are affected most by the lack of adequate service... i t f a l l s on the shoulders of mothers... but at the council l e v e l , childcare i s less and less a women's issue (V2C). The childcare issue, however, i s generally raised by women. Those p o l i t i c i a n s who get involved have generally been women. Caring for children has not been a 'male' r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . I t has not been a 'male' issue, as t h i s former Vancouver c o u n c i l l o r commented: 114 Previously, the childcare issue was always raised by women. Now, there are a few men who might say something. Before they would have been considered 's i s s y ' . . . I think women's issues i n general don't get much attention from men (V5P). Just as caring for children has been a female r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , the p o l i t i c a l work surrounding childcare has also l a r g e l y been done by women — although, for pragmatic reasons, women's ro l e i s often not acknowledged. The fa c t that i t i s a women's issue and i s not allowed to be a r t i c u l a t e d that way i s a b i t of a concern to me. I get sick of women doing a l l the work and getting none of the c r e d i t . . . but t h i s i s p o l i t i c s (V4P). Those who become vocal about the childcare issue are usually personally affected (e.g., employers now becoming interested because of the impact of employee absenteeism). With more families having two wage earners, more fathers are becoming affected by the issue than previously. Those fathers who do get involved are often vocal about the issue. A Surrey government worker who has been active i n the provision of s o c i a l services, and who has observed the evolution of childcare needs, commented: I've noticed for the l a s t four years that more men are involved. More fathers are looking for daycare. They're eager to learn... and they're also more vocal than women (SIC). Getting the childcare issue debated openly and acted on depends to a c e r t a i n degree on the involvement of people who have economic or p o l i t i c a l power and who see childcare as an important issue. I t has not been advantageous for childcare advocates to connect the issue with women ( i . e . , to make childcare a 'women's issue'). 115 Summary Several major themes emerged during interviews with those involved with the childcare issue i n Greater Vancouver, and they help to explain why childcare has received more attention i n Vancouver than i n the four m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . These factors include the p o l i t i c a l climate, access to government, the cohesiveness of a group, pat r i a r c h a l ideology, and ownership of the issue. Access to government includes more than one aspect: municipal j u r i s d i c t i o n , key p o l i t i c i a n s , and basic lobbying s k i l l s . Municipal government i s much more accessible to people than either the p r o v i n c i a l or federal governments. At the same time, major po l i c y decisions are made outside council and childcare advocates must work alongside p o l i t i c i a n s to see e f f e c t i v e p o l i c y brought forward. In Vancouver, key p o l i t i c i a n s who have f e l t strongly about childcare have been important i n carrying the issue along. They have vocalized the ideas of childcare advocates and have done the behind the scenes work. These 'bulldog' p o l i t i c i a n s have most often been women. However, the mere presence of women on council does not guarantee that a women's issue, such as childcare, w i l l get addressed. </^Understanding the p o l i t i c a l process i s fundamental to any advocacy work. This includes knowing how to lobby, who to target, and when to actT? The Vancouver childcare community has acted as a established a support network, now centered i n the Westcoast f a c i l i t y . The action on c h i l d c a r e ^ w h i c h has taken place i n cohesive unit, though not a bureaucracy. Its members have 116 Vancouver over the past two decades ,__has occurred in_s_ey.eral_small cumulative steps. Patriarchal ideology has been much stronger i n the four municipalities than i n Vancouver. Suburbs tend to be more homogeneous and hold more conservative attitudes. The p r e v a i l i n g attitude i n some areas i s that women should stay home and look a f t e r the children: others aim at an i d e a l i z e d way of r a i s i n g c h i l d r e n . P o l i t i c a l w i l l i s important i n getting past t h i s i d e o l o g i c a l hold. In Vancouver, childcare has not been viewed as a women's issue by either those doing advocacy work or the p o l i t i c i a n s . Instead, childcare has been seen as a family issue, a community need, or a s o c i a l issue. The women's movement has not been involved. Ownership of the issue includes not only being affected by the issue, but being i n a position to have influence on decision making. Chapter Five Conclusion While my research has focused on one p a r t i c u l a r women's issue (the childcare issue) at one p a r t i c u l a r l e v e l of government (the municipal l e v e l ) , I have made an e f f o r t to t i e these findings into a broader picture of the p o l i t i c s of women's issues. I think that there i s much overlap not only i n j u r i s d i c t i o n but i n perception of the issue and problems surrounding the issue. The a b i l i t y of childcare advocates to lobby e f f e c t i v e l y includes having access to government decision makers. This has previously been argued by Pross (1986), Burt (1988), and others. Many of those I interviewed indicated that the municipal l e v e l i s the easiest of the three l e v e l s of government to access. Not only are l o c a l p o l i t i c i a n s easier to contact, i t i s r e l a t i v e l y s traight forward to make a presentation to council: on the other hand, M.L.A.'s and M.P.'s are often absent from t h e i r constituencies and private c i t i z e n presentations are not possible i n the Legislature or House of Commons. However, many major decisions on childcare (e.g., funding and o v e r a l l p o l i c y formation) occur at the senior l e v e l s of government. Therefore, using l o c a l p o l i t i c i a n s to your best advantage means not only convincing them that childcare relates to t h e i r municipal mandate, but using them as l i a i s o n s with senior government o f f i c i a l s . The Vancouver childcare community has maintained contact with l o c a l p o l i t i c i a n s and has also used them as intermediaries with the p r o v i n c i a l government. Another aspect of access to government concerns the support of 117 118 i n d i v i d u a l p o l i t i c i a n s who w i l l vocalize your concerns and i n general f a c i l i t a t e the p o l i t i c a l process. In Vancouver's case, i t has been female p o l i t i c i a n s who have ca r r i e d the childcare issue along. Since the presence of female p o l i t i c i a n s i s an important consideration i n lobbying e f f e c t i v e l y , i t i s relevant that the representation of women i n l o c a l government i s greater o v e r a l l than at either the pr o v i n c i a l or federal l e v e l s of government (Brodie, 1985; M a i l l e , 1990). Currently, the average number of seats held by women on Greater Vancouver councils i s about 23 percent, while at the same time women represent only 13.2 percent of Members of Parliament and 14.4 percent of B r i t i s h Columbia's M.L.A.'s (Maille, 1990). While those c o u n c i l l o r s who have c a r r i e d the childcare issue along have almost invariably been women, the presence of women does not ensure action. Overall, the average percentage of seats held by female c o u n c i l l o r s i n Vancouver has been greater than i n the municip a l i t i e s , but not s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater than two of the munici p a l i t i e s . We must also consider that i n only 10 of the past 21 years has the percentage of women on council been greater i n Vancouver than i n the muni c i p a l i t i e s . Also, during the mid-1970's when Vancouver council responded more emphatically to pr o v i n c i a l government childcare incentives, three municipal councils had a greater female representation than Vancouver. These findings suggest that other variables need also to be considered. Several researchers suggest that basic lobbying s k i l l s (e.g., professionalism, well prepared b r i e f s and presentations, and the 119 a b i l i t y to i d e n t i f y the proper j u r i s d i c t i o n ) are esse n t i a l i n order to be heard by government (Pross, 1986; Costain, 1988; Boneparth and Stoper, 1988; Gelb and Palley, 1979; Kome, 1989). Being a cohesive, organized, and i d e n t i f i a b l e group makes i t easier to be part of negotiations, to receive grants, to counter external pressures, and to make incremental changes. At the same time, having a support group helps make a community more cohesive. The Vancouver childcare community has many of these lobbying s k i l l s , while those involved with childcare i n the municipalities do not. The Vancouver community i s cohesive and operates under an umbrella organization which places those involved i n the childcare community not only i n close physical proximity, but also the problems and ideas of one sector of the community i n close contact with other sectors. Many of them have been involved with the two task forces and have worked together on b r i e f s and brought forward ideas for public discussion. Communication between the childcare community and s p e c i f i c members of council has been ongoing; t h i s has helped to es t a b l i s h a steady process of incremental change. However, these are not s u f f i c i e n t conditions to see the issue get addressed. While Pross (1986) argues that organizational capacity i s the primary measure of e f f e c t i v e lobbying ( p o l i t i c a l success), these findings only p a r t i a l l y support that premise. He suggests that both i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n and bureaucratization are important determinants of e f f e c t i v e lobbying. The Vancouver childcare 120 community has become i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d : a Children's Advocate position has been created, childcare services have been organized from a central f a c i l i t y , and continuous contact i s maintained between members of the childcare community and members of council. However, bureaucratization does not appear to be a primary consideration i n measuring the success of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r lobby. Certainly, good organization i s important and an understanding of the p o l i t i c a l process i s es s e n t i a l , but 'Westcoast', the foc a l point of the Vancouver childcare community, i s not a bureaucracy. Several researchers suggest that p o l i c y which challenges accepted gender roles or which d i f f e r s from basic values finds l i t t l e success on government agendas (Burt, 1988, 1990; Boneparth and Stoper, 1988; Gelb and Palley, 1979). The demands of women have the potential of undermining the ide o l o g i c a l hold of t r a d i t i o n a l family values, accepted gender r o l e s , and c a p i t a l i s t economics. As a r e s u l t , they often meet with strong resistance not only from p o l i t i c i a n s but also from government bureaucrats, as suggested by Findlay (1987). Childcare i s one of those issues which challenge the status quo. The discussion i n my interviews suggests that Vancouver women are less expected to be at-home mothers than i n the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . This i s not to say that women's employment rate i s greater i n Vancouver; indeed i t i s not. However, much less emphasis i s placed on the argument that at-home mothering i s esse n t i a l for the well-being of children or that childcare i s s t r i c t l y a 'family' r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . In the municipalities, those arguments carry more 121 weight. Of course, we must then ask ourselves: how often i s 'family' r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a euphemism for 'women's' r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n much the same way that 'family' violence i s a euphemism fo r wife battery? The language we use frequently obscures the issue we are t r y i n g to address. In the case of childcare being a family r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , much more evidence exists to suggest that i t i s the woman's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to care for children, to a l t e r her career or job plans to accommodate children, and to do most of the work to maintain the household. Rather than confronting the id e o l o g i c a l problems, advocates for women's issues often f i n d greater success by following a cir c u i t o u s route. For example, i n abortion p o l i t i c s i n Canada, United States, and Western Europe, government delaying t a c t i c s , redefining of the issue, and 'free' votes i n Parliament are common. To circumvent these problems, abortion advocates have used private members b i l l s and challenges at the Supreme Court l e v e l . With childcare, arguments for government involvement have generally centered around c h i l d welfare or ( e a r l i e r t h i s century) lowering infant mortality rates. This research supports the argument that claims which f i t into the parameters of welfare state ideology f i n d more success on p o l i t i c a l agendas (Peattie and Rein, 1983). When the established p o l i c y of both federal and p r o v i n c i a l governments (which provide the bulk of funding) has been to a s s i s t i n the provision of childcare primarily i n situations of severe economic need or 122 parental neglect, or to 'enable' single mothers to get off welfare assistance, i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t that more poverty exists i n Vancouver ( i . e . , a higher percentage of low income families and single parent f a m i l i e s ) . This i s not to say that no poverty exists elsewhere: indeed, Surrey c l o s e l y follows Vancouver i n i t s percentage of low income f a m i l i e s . Involvement i n the welfare of children has been a well-established concern of government since the nineteenth century i n Canada, B r i t a i n , and other Western European countries. I t f i t s well with welfare state programs. However, the welfare of women has not yet found such a good f i t . This becomes p a r t i c u l a r l y relevant when considering how the childcare issue has been argued. In Vancouver's case, the childcare issue i s seen as a children's issue, a family issue, or a community issue: i t i s not a women's issue. Arguing for the welfare of children and keeping women out of the picture i s an e f f e c t i v e and pragmatic p o l i t i c a l decision. I t keeps the issue from being controversial and brings i t into the realm of what co u n c i l l o r s and the public more re a d i l y i d e n t i f y as an issue to be dealt with i n the public world. I t i s no longer the problem of the private i n d i v i d u a l i n the family s e t t i n g . This t i e s i n with other findings that show that l e g i s l a t i o n on women's issues more often focuses on children or family needs, not women's needs (Burt, Code, and Dorney, 1988). Promoting childcare based on the welfare of children and famili e s , while sidestepping i t s connection with women, has been quite e f f e c t i v e to date. This i s the same pattern adopted by the Day Nurseries and Daycare Parents Association i n Toronto following World War I I . However, the Toronto lobby became vulnerable to redbaiting and id e o l o g i c a l attack against aberrant family forms (against those outside the t r a d i t i o n a l nuclear family of male breadwinner and female home provider). Women who were employed out of choice, rather than from being destitute, were not e l i g i b l e f o r any government assistance and became accused of being c h i s e l e r s (Prentice, 1989). This l i n e of argument has been more prominent i n the municipalities (that childcare should not be provided f or the chi s e l e r s who want to be employed for fr i v o l o u s m a t e r i a l i s t i c reasons). Government assistance i n the provision of childcare should only be .for those who need i t , not for those who want i t . Of course, who are 'those' people? Women — and no-one (in the municipalities or Vancouver) i s suggesting that the family and employers reorganize so that fathers stay home to look a f t e r the children. 'Family' r e s p o n s i b i l i t y has a p a r t i c u l a r implication for women. Quality affordable childcare does d i r e c t l y benefit the children whose parents are employed, as reports and publications by childcare advocates have pointed out (e.g. Gallagher Ross, 1978; P h i l l i p s , 1987). I t also reduces community problems emanating from a lack of proper care for children. Government response to t h i s l i n e of argument, which c a l l s for public involvement with childcare to a l l e v i a t e extreme poverty or to reduce parental neglect, has been more favorable. 124 Besides tying i n with c h i l d protection laws and welfare state ideology, the childcare issue i n Vancouver has also f i t well with the l o c a l p o l i t i c a l climate which has addressed other s o c i a l issues with respect to l i v e a b l e c i t i e s (e.g., poverty, housing, and neighbourhoods). The Vancouver childcare community has been able to b u i l d onto an established t r a d i t i o n . This i s not to say that no s o c i a l issues e x i s t i n the municipalities, but that s o c i a l issues have for some time been within the acceptable parameters of government i n Vancouver. Vancouver's timing with respect to the childcare issue has also been more favourable. Vancouver opted into a cost sharing program with the p r o v i n c i a l government between 1972-1975 — the most optimum funding time i n the past 20 years. This covered c a p i t a l costs i n establishing several daycare centers (which comprise a large portion of childcare expenditures). Since then, p r o v i n c i a l funding for childcare has plummetted i n terms of the purchasing power of the funds available (see Chapter Three). None of the l o c a l governments examined, including Vancouver and the four d i s t r i c t m u nicipalities, have the mandate for the o v e r a l l provision of s o c i a l services, as was repeatedly pointed out in interviews. However, both the Vancouver Charter and the Municipal Act (under which the municipalities are governed) provide s u f f i c i e n t leeway for at least some involvement of l o c a l government in s o c i a l issues, and the issue of childcare i n p a r t i c u l a r , i f they wish to do so (see Chapter Three). Not having the mandate (which was often c i t e d during interviews as a reason for municipalities 125 not to become involved) i s at lea s t p a r t i a l l y a scapegoat. I suggest that the decision to become involved has much more to do with p o l i t i c a l w i l l than i t has to do with the l e g i s l a t i v e guidelines. While the pattern followed i n Vancouver, where children have become the focus, has pragmatic value, i t does not challenge the t r a d i t i o n a l d i v i s i o n of labour. That d i v i s i o n i s p a r t i c u l a r l y problematic and unfortunately has not become part of the debate. While women benefit from the a v a i l a b i l i t y of qu a l i t y childcare services during t h e i r hours of employment (through r e l i e f from anxiety, g u i l t , and t o t a l economic r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ) , t h e i r reproductive r o l e has become weakness rather than resource, as suggested by Armstrong and Armstrong (1986). The expectation that women w i l l continue to take r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for childcare, i n spite of t h e i r increased labour force p a r t i c i p a t i o n , puts them at a disadvantage i n terms of employment and p o l i t i c a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Women are not f u l l functioning members of society with the s o c i a l , economic, and p o l i t i c a l power to determine the d i r e c t i o n of t h e i r own l i v e s . Because of economic dependence, a heavy workload, pa t r i a r c h a l ideology, and a mysogynist environment, women (as a group) have very l i t t l e p o l i t i c a l weight. Getting women's issues out into the formal p o l i t i c a l world, where they can be addressed by government, involves confronting the same b a r r i e r s . Because those b a r r i e r s (such as pa t r i a r c h a l ideology) are quite formidable, i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g when a p a r t i c u l a r lobby uses a less confrontational approach when one i s available. The Vancouver childcare community 126 (following long established welfare state patterns) has argued the childcare issue based on the welfare of children, while c a r e f u l l y avoiding i t s association with women. To date, t h i s has been an e f f e c t i v e p o l i t i c a l decision. Suggestions f o r future research Theories about the condition of women's l i v e s have tended to argue about the parts of women's l i v e s — t h e i r employment status, or t h e i r domestic work, or t h e i r p o l i t i c a l l i v e s . What we need at t h i s point i s research which incorportes the various aspects of women's l i v e s and which views women i n t h e i r t o t a l i t y . W i t h respect to p o l i t i c s , t h i s means incorporating more research on women's issues which are central to the problem of women's subordinate position v i s - a - v i s men, and which a f f e c t the entry of women themselves onto the p o l i t i c a l stage. Understanding why so many fewer women hold p o l i t i c a l o f f i c e than men has a l o t to do with understanding the childcare issue, reproductive freedom, pay equity, and p a t r i a r c h a l ideology. "~ Putting the childcare issue onto the p o l i t i c a l agenda at the l o c a l l e v e l i s important: t h i s i s the grassroots l e v e l from which the problems of childcare emanate. Municipal governments are much more accessible to most people. However, the major decisions concerning government involvement and government funding occur at the p r o v i n c i a l and federal l e v e l s of government. This research suggests that more understanding i s needed concerning putting the issue onto the p o l i t i c a l agendas of senior governments. While those groups which advocate childcare within the t r a d i t i o n a l family s e t t i n g are large l y absent at the l o c a l l e v e l , they are much more strongly present at the p r o v i n c i a l and federal l e v e l s (e.g., R.E.A.L. Women). Connecting the grassroots problems of childcare to senior l e v e l s of government i n order to put the childcare issue onto those p o l i t i c a l agendas i s a major challenge for the future. While the presence of women i n p o l i t i c s decreases as the l e v e l of government increases, the importance of women's issues increases with l e v e l of government: i t i s the senior l e v e l s of government where the major decisions and most far-reaching impacts are made. That i s where the major lobbying e f f o r t on childcare and other women's issues w i l l have to take place. Footnotes Chapter One 1. S t a t i s t i c s Canada: Catalogue 11-008E, i n Canadian Social Trends 19, Winter, 1990. Chapter Four 1. Annual Report, 1974-1975: Department of Human Resources. V i c t o r i a : B.C.Government Publication, R34. 2. Annual Report, 1975-1976: Department of Human Resources. V i c t o r i a : B.C. Government Publication, M37. 3. Mayor's Task Force on Child Care: Report of the Daycare Committee, A p r i l 1988, 1. 4. (Report of the) Mayor's Task Force on Children, May 24, 1988, 1. 5. Ibid., 4. 128 Bibliography ABBOTT, Ruth K., and R.A. YOUNG. 1989 Cynical and Deliberate Manipulation? Ch i l d Care and the Reserve Army of Labour i n Canada, Journal of Canadian Studies 24(2), Summer, 22-38. ARIES, Philippe. 1965 Centuries of Childhood: A Social History of Family  L i f e . New York: Vintage. ARMSTRONG, Pat, and Hugh ARMSTRONG. 1986 "Beyond Sexless Class and Classless Sex: Towards Feminist Marxism," i n Roberta Hamilton and Michele Barrett, eds., The P o l i t i c s of D i v e r s i t y : Feminism,  Marxism and Nationalism. Montreal: Book Center, 208-237 (reprinted from Studies i n P o l i t i c a l Economy 10, Winter, 1983). BARRETT, Michele, and Mary MCINTOSH. 1980 The 'Family Wage': Some Problems for S o c i a l i s t s and Feminists, Capital and Class 11, Summer, 51-72. BENSTON, Margaret. 1969 The P o l i t i c a l Economy of Women's Liberation, Monthly Review 21, September, 13-27. BISH, Robert L. 1987 Local Government i n B r i t i s h Columbia. V i c t o r i a : Union of B.C. Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s and the University of V i c t o r i a School of Public Administration. BLACK, Dawn. 1990 20 Years Later: An Assessment of the Implementation  of the Recommendations of the Royal Commission on the  Status of Women. Ottawa: Library of Parliament. BLACK, Naomi. 1980 Of Lions and Mice: Making Womens' P o l i t i c s E f f e c t i v e . Canadian Women's Studies 2(4), 62-64. BONEPARTH, E l l e n , ed. 1982 Women. Power, and Policy. New York: Pergamon Press. BONEPARTH, E l l e n , and Emily STOPER, eds. 1988 Women, Power, and Poli c y : Toward the Year 2000. 2nd ed. New York: Pergamon Press. BRODIE, M. Janine. 1985 Women and P o l i t i c s i n Canada. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson. 129 130 BRUEGEL, Irene. 1979 Women as a Reserve Army of Labour: A Note on the Recent B r i t i s h Experience, Feminist Review 3, 12-23. BURT, Sandra. 1990 Women's Groups and the Pross Continuum: The Need for More Discourse, Canadian Public Policy 16(3), 339-340. 1990 Canadian Women's Groups i n the 1980's: Organizational Development and Policy Influence, Canadian Public Policy 16(1), 17-28. 1988 The Charter of Rights and the Ad Hoc Lobby: The Limits of Success, A t l a n t i s 14(1), F a l l , 74-81. 1987 Different Democracies? A Preliminary Examination of the P o l i t i c a l Worlds of Canadian Men and Women. Women and P o l i t i c s 6(4), 57-79. BURT, Sandra, Lorraine CODE, and Lindsay DORNEY, ed. 1988 Changing Patterns: Women i n Canada. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. (In p a r t i c u l a r Chap. 5 "Legislators, Women, and Public Policy".) COHAN, A l v i n . 1986 "Abortion as a Marginal Issue: the Use of Peripheral Mechanisms i n B r i t a i n and the United States," i n Joni Lovenduski and Joyce Outshoorn, eds., The New P o l i t i c s  of Abortion, London: Sage Publications, 27-48. COHEN, Yolande, ed. 1989 Women and Counter Power. Montreal: Black Rose Books. COHEN, Yolande, and Michela De Giorgio. 1989 Introduction i n Women and Counter Power. Montreal: Black Rose Books. CONNELLY, P a t r i c i a . 1978 Last Hired. F i r s t Fired: Women and the Canadian Work  Force. Toronto: Women's Educational Press. COOK, Katie. 1986 Report of the Task Force on Childcare. Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services. 131 COSTAIN, Anne N. 1988 "Representing Women: the Transition from Social Movement to Interest Group," i n E l l e n Boneparth and Emily Stoper, eds., Women. Power, and Polic y : Toward  the Year 2000, 2nd ed., New York: Pergamon Press, 26-47. DONOVAN, Josephine. 1986 Traditions of American Feminism. New York: Ungar. DE BEAUVOIR, Simone. 1963 The Second Sex. New York: Bantam. EICHLER, Margrit. 1983 Families i n Canada Today: Recent Changes and Their  P o l i c y Consequences. Toronto: Gage Publishing. ENGELS, Frederick. 1972 The Origin of the Family. Private Property, and the  State. New York: International Publishers. FERGUSON, Kathy E. 1984 The Feminist Case Against Bureaucracy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. FINDLAY, Sue. 1987 "Facing the State: The P o l i t i c s of the Women's Movement Reconsidered", i n Heather Jon Maroney and Meg Luxton, eds., Feminism and P o l i t i c a l Economy: Women's  Work, Women's Struggles. Toronto: Methuen. FIRESTONE, Shulamith. 1970 The D i a l e c t i c of Sex: The Case for Feminist  Revolution. New York: William Morrow. FOX, Bonnie 1986 "Never Done: The Struggle to Understand Domestic Labour and Women's Oppression," i n Roberta Hamilton and Michele Barrett, eds., The P o l i t i c s of Divers i t y :  Feminism. Marxism, and Nationalism. Montreal: Book Center. FREEMAN, Jo. 1975 The P o l i t i c s of Women's Liberation: A Case Study of  an Emerging Social Movement and i t s Relation to the  Policy Process. New York: David McKay Co. GALLAGHER-ROSS, Kathleen, ed. 1978 Good Day Care: Fighting For I t , Getting I t , Keeping I t . Toronto: The Women's Press. 132 GELB, Joyce, and Marion PALLEY. 1979 Women and Interest Group P o l i t i c s : A Comparative Analysis of Federal Decision-Making, Journal of P o l i t i c s 41, May, 362-392. GUPPY, N e i l , Sabrina FREEMAN, and Shari BUCHAN. 1987 Representing Canadians: Changes i n the Economic Backgrounds of Federal P o l i t i c i a n s , 1965-1984. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 24(3), 417-430. HAMILTON, Roberta, and Michele BARRETT, eds. 1986 The P o l i t i c s of Divers i t y : Feminism. Marxism, and  Nationalism. Montreal: Book Center. HOOKS, B e l l . 1984 Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. Boston: South End Press. JAGGAR, Alison M. 1983 Feminist P o l i t i c s and Human Nature. Sussex: The Harvester Press. JENSON, Jane. 1986 Gender and Reproduction: Or, Babies and the State, Studies i n P o l i t i c a l Economy 20, Summer, 9-46. KAY, Barry J . , Ronald D. LAMBERT, Steven D. BROWN, and James E. CURTIS. 1987 Gender and P o l i t i c a l A c t i v i t y i n Canada, 1965-1984. Canadian Journal of P o l i t i c a l Science 20(4), 851-863. KOME, Penney. 1989 Every Voice Counts: A Guide to Personal and P o l i t i c a l  Action. Ottawa: Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women. KEALEY, Linda, and Joan SANGSTER. 1989 Beyond the Vote: Canadian Women and P o l i t i c s . Toronto: University of Toronto Press. KOPINAK, Kathryn M. 1985 Women i n Canadian Municipal P o l i t i c s : Two Steps Forward, One Step Back. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 22(3), 394-410. LEE, Marcia Manning. 1976 Why Few Women Hold Public O f f i c e : Democracy and Sexual Roles. P o l i t i c a l Science Quarterly 91(2), 297-314. 133 LOVENDUSKI, Joni. 1986 "Parliament, Pressure Groups, Networks, and the Women's Movement: the P o l i t i c s of Abortion Law Reform i n B r i t a i n (1967-1983)," i n Joni Lovenduski and Joyce Outshoorn, eds., The New P o l i t i c s of Abortion. London: Sage Publications, 49-66. LOVENDUSKI, Joni, and Joyce OUTSHOORN, eds. 1986 The New P o l i t i c s of Abortion. London: Sage Publications. LUXTON, Meg. 1986 "Two Hands for the Clock: Changing Patterns i n the Gendered D i v i s i o n of Labour i n the Home," i n Roberta Hamilton and Michele Barrett, eds., The P o l i t i c s of  Dive r s i t y : Feminism. Marxism, and Nationalism. Montreal: Book Center, 35-52. 1982 "The Home: A Contested Terrain," i n Maureen Fit z g e r a l d , Connie Guberman, and Margie Wolfe, eds., S t i l l Ain't S a t i s f i e d : Canadian Feminism Today. Toronto: Women's Press, 112-122. 1980 More Than a Labour of Love: Three Generations of Women's Work i n the Home. Toronto: Women's Educational Press. MAILLE, Chantal 1990 Primed for Power: Women i n Canadian P o l i t i c s . Ottawa: Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women. MARSH, David, and Joanna CHAMBERS. 1981 Abortion P o l i t i c s . London: Junction Books. MARONEY, Heather Jon, and Meg LUXTON. 1987 Feminism and P o l i t i c a l Economy: Women's Work. Women's  Struggles. Toronto: Methuen. MCLAREN, Angus, and Arlene Tigar MCLAREN. 1986 The Bedroom and the State: the Changing Practices and P o l i t i c s of Contraception and Abortion i n Canada,  1880-1980. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. MCLAREN, Arlene Tigar. 1988 Gender and Society: Creating a Canadian Women's  Sociology. Toronto: Copp Clark Pitman. MEISSNER, Martin, E.W. HUMPHREYS, S.M. MEIS, and W.J. SCHEU. 1975 No Exi t for Wives: Sexual D i v i s i o n of Labour and the Cumulation of Household Demands. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 12, 424-439. 134 MEISSNER, Martin. 1977 "Sexual Divi s i o n of Labour and Inequality: Labour and Leisure," i n Marylee Stephenson, ed., Women i n  Canada. Don M i l l s : General Publishing. MERRITT, Sharyne. 1977 Winners and Losers: Sex Differences i n Municipal Elections. American Journal of P o l i t i c a l Science 21(4), 731-743.x NORGREN, J i l l . 1988 "In Search of a National C h i l d Care P o l i c y , " i n El l e n Boneparth and Emily Stoper, eds., Women, Power.  Policy: Toward the Year 2000. 2nd ed., New York: Pergamon Press, 168-189. Joyce. "The Rules of the Game: Abortion P o l i t i c s i n the Netherlands, 1 1 i n Joni Lovenduski and Joyce Outshoorn, eds., The New P o l i t i c s of Abortion, London: Sage Publications, 5-26. PATEMAN, Carole. 1979 "Hierarchical Organizations and Democratic P a r t i c i p a t i o n : The Problem of Sex." (Paper for) Conference on Hierarchical and Non-Hierarchical Systems and Conditions for Democratic P a r t i c i p a t i o n , Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia. PEATTIE, L i s a , and Martin REIN. 1983 Women's Claims: A Study i n P o l i t i c a l Economy. New York: Oxford University Press. PHILLIPS, Deborah, ed. 1987 Quality i n Childcare: What Does Research T e l l Us? Washington D.C: National Association for the Education of Young Children. PIERSON, Ruth Roach. 1986 'They're S t i l l Women After A l l ' : The Second World War  and Canadian Womanhood. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. PIERSON, Ruth Roach and Marjorie COHEN. 1986 "Government Job-Training Programs for Women, 1937-1947", i n Ruth Roach Pierson, 'They're S t i l l  Women After A l l ' : The Second World War and Canadian  Womanhood. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, Ch.2. OUTSHOORN, 1986 135 POWER, Marilyn. 1983 From Home Production to Wage Labour: Women as a Reserve Army of Labour, Review of Radical P o l i t i c a l Economics 15, 71-91. PRENTICE, Susan. 1989 Workers, Mothers, Reds: Toronto's Postwar Daycare Fight, Studies i n P o l i t i c a l Economy 30, Autumn, 115-141. PROSS, A. Paul. 1990 Typologies, Claims, I n s t i t u t i o n s and the Capacity for Discourse: A Reply, Canadian Public Policy 16(2), 209-213. 1986 Group P o l i t i c s and Public Policy. Toronto: Oxford University Press. SCHULZ, Pat. 1982 "Minding the Children," i n Maureen Fi t z g e r a l d , Connie Guberman, and Margie Wolfe, eds., S t i l l Ain't  S a t i s f i e d : Canadian Feminism Today. Toronto: Women's Press, 123-131. SCHWARTZ COWAN, Ruth. 1983 More Work For Mother: The Ironies of Household  Technology from the Open Hearth to the Microwave. New York: Basic Books. SECCOMBE, Wally. 1986 "Reflections on the Domestic Labour Debate and Prospects for Marxist-feminist Synthesis," i n Roberta Hamilton and Michele Barrett, eds., The  P o l i t i c s of Diversity: Feminism. Marxism, and  Nationalism. Montreal: Book Center, 190-207. SILTANEN, Janet, and Michelle STANWORTH. 1984 Women and the Public Sphere: A Critique of Sociology  and P o l i t i c s . London: Hutchinson. SMITH, Dorothy. 1987 The Everyday World as Problematic: A Feminist  Sociology. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. STAUDT, Kathleen. 1982 "Bureaucratic Resistance to Women's Programs: The Case of Women i n Development," i n E l l e n Boneparth, ed., Women. Power, and Policy. New York: Pergamon Press, 263-281. 136 STAUDT, Kathleen, and Jane JAQUETTE. 1988 "Women's Programs, Bureaucratic Resistance, and Feminist Organizations," i n E l l e n Boneparth and Emily Stoper, eds., Women, Power, and Policy; Toward the Year 2000. 2nd ed. New York: Pergamon Press, 263-281. TILLY, Louise A., and Joan W. SCOTT. 1978 Women, Work, and Family. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. URSEL, E. Jane. 1984 Toward a Theory of Reproduction, Contemporary Crises 8, 265-292. VICKERS, J i l l McCalla. 1989 "Feminist Approaches to Women i n P o l i t i c s , " i n L. Kealey and J. Sangster, eds., Beyond the Vote:  Canadian Women and P o l i t i c s . Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1980 Coming Up For A i r : Feminist View of Power Reconsidered. Canadian Women's Studies 2(4), 66-69. WALKER, Kathryn, and Margaret WOODS. 1976 Time Use: A Measure of Household Production of Family  Goods and Services. Washington DC: WILK, Jorun. 1986 "The Abortion Issue, P o l i t i c a l Cleavage and the P o l i t i c a l Agenda i n Norway," i n Joni Lovenduski and Joyce Outshoorn, eds., The New P o l i t i c s of Abortion, London: Sage Publications, 139-153. WILSON, S.J. 1986 Women, the Family, and the Economy. 2nd ed. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson. WOLFE, D. 1984 "The Rise and Demise of the Keynesian Era i n Canada: Economic Policy 1930-1982," i n G. Kealey and M. Cross, eds., Modern Canada: 1930-1980. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 54-55. YANZ, Linda, and David SMITH. 1983 Women as a Reserve Army of Labour: A Crit i q u e , Review of Radical P o l i t i c a l Economics 15, 92-106. 137 Journals, Reports of Government and Community Organizations.  Unpublished Papers ALPEROVITZ, Cath. 1977 "Overview of Child Care i n B.C., 1971-1977." Vancouver: The Women's Research Center. CAMPBELL, Marie. 1978 " H i s t o r i c a l Perspective on Daycare Policy, 1920-1938 and 1972-1978." Vancouver. CHISHOLM, Ruth. 1976 "Report on Daycare: Vancouver Resources Board." November, 1976. COHEN, Marcy, Nancy DUGGAN, Carol SAYRE, Barbara TODD, and Nikki WRIGHT. 1973 "Cuz There Ain't No Daycare (Or Almost None She Said)." Vancouver: Press Gang Publishers. DUFFY HUTCHEON, Pat. 1981 "Vancouver Council of Women Study on Daycare and Nursery School Needs and Services i n Vancouver C i t y . " Vancouver Council of Women. EBNER, Carol. 1990 "The UBC/Douglas College J o i n t Research Project: Employer-Supported C h i l d Care." Vancouver. GOLDBERG, Dianne. 1989 "Vancouver Daycare Support Services Project: F e a s i b i l i t y Study." Vancouver, October, 1989. HLINA, Norma. 1986 "A History of Daycare i n B r i t i s h Columbia from 1975 to 1985." Vancouver: March, 1986. 1986 "Effects of Government Policy on Early Childhood Education i n B r i t i s h Columbia from 1975 to 1985." Vancouver: February, 1986. LEE, Janet. 1988 "Child Care F a c i l i t i e s and Services i n the City of North Vancouver." Development Services for the City of North Vancouver, August, 1988. WHITEBOOK, Marcy, Carollee HOWES, and Deborah PHILLIPS. 1989 "Who Cares? Child Care Teachers and the Quality of Care i n America." Executive Summary, National C h i l d Care S t a f f i n g Study. University of C a l i f o r n i a at Los Angeles and University of V i r g i n i a . 138 1970-1988 "Annual Reports" of the B.C. Pro v i n c i a l Government, Ministry of Social Services and Housing, Ministry of Human Resources, Department of Human Resources, Department of Rehabil i t a t i o n and Social Improvement. 1986 "Brief to Parliamentary Task Force on Child Care." Alderman May Brown on behalf of Vancouver City Council, March, 1986. 1966 Canada Assistance Plan. Ottawa. 1990 Canadian Social Trends 19, Winter. 1990 "Childcare i n the City of Vancouver." Prepared by the Children's Advocate, August, 1990. 1990 "Child Care Needs i n the D i s t r i c t of North Vancouver." D i s t r i c t of North Vancouver: Social Planning Department. 1989 "Childcare: What Role Can Mun i c i p a l i t i e s Play? A Discussion Paper." Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t Social Issues Sub-Committee, Document 4686K, October, 1989. 1990 "Children i n the Community: A Proposed Policy for Child Care Centres i n Surrey." Surrey Planning and Development Services Department, March, 1990. 1986 "Licensed Child Care Services and F a c i l i t i e s i n Richmond." Richmond Planning Department, December, 1986. 1990 "Manager's Report to Vancouver City Council: C i v i c Childcare Strategy." September, 1990. 1989 "Ontario C o a l i t i o n for Better Child Care." Discussion Paper, F a l l Policy Forum, November, 1989. 1986 Reality: "Women's Rights but not at the Expense of Human Rights". REAL Women, 4(4), Summer, 1986. 1986 "Brief to the Special Committee on Childcare, Ottawa." REAL Women of Canada, B.C. Chapter, March, 1986. 1988 "Report of the Mayor's Task Force on Children." Vancouver, May, 1988. "Mayor's Task Force on Child Care: Report of the Daycare Committee." Vancouver, A p r i l , 1988. 139 1984 "Report to Council of the Mayor's Task Force On Daycare." Vancouver, October, 1984. 1970 "Report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women i n Canada." Ottawa: Information Canada. 1981 "Responsible Daycare: The Coming of Age of an Essential Community Service." United Way of the Lower Mainland: Social Planning and Research, January, 1981. 1982 "Richmond Child Care Study: Needs and Resources." Richmond Planning Department, October, 1982. 1989 "Township of Langley: Population and Growth." Community Development Department, June, 1989. 1988 "A Vi s i o n of Information Daycare." From Information Daycare Advisory Committee to Information Services Vancouver Board, February, 1988. 1990 "Westcoast Child Care Resource Centre: Second Annual Report, 1989-1990." Vancouver. APPENDIX A TABLES 140 141 Table 1 Women's Labour Force P a r t i c i p a t i o n Rates i n Canada, 1901-1989 * Year Labour Force P a r t i c i p a t i o n Rate 1901 14.4 % 1911 16.6 % 1921 17.7 % 1931 19.4 % 1941 22.9 % 1951 24.4 % 1961 29.3 % 1971 39.9 % 1981 51.8 % 1989 57.9 % * Sources: F.H. Leacy, H i s t o r i c a l S t a t i s t i c s of Canada. Second Edi t i o n . Ottawa: S t a t i s t i c s Canada, Series D107-122 (in S.J. Wilson, 1986, 77); Pat Armstrong and Hugh Armstrong, "Women's Work i n the Labour Force", (in Arlene T. McLaren, Gender and Society: Creating a Canadian Women's Sociology. Mississauga: Copp Clark Pitman, 1988, 276); and Canadian Social Trends, Supply and Services Canada, No. 18, Autumn, 1990, 35. 142 Table 2 Licensed Childcare Spaces, 1990, by City/Municipality C i t y / D i s t r i c t Number of Licensed Children 14 Ave. Number Municipality Childcare Spaces * and under ** of Children per space Vancouver 8,180 60,225 7.36 (City of) North Vancouver 1,660 13,495 8.13 DM Richmond DM 1,786 22,145 12.40 Surrey DM 2,105 44,005 20.09 Langley DM 729 13,740 18.80 * Figures are obtained from the Community Care F a c i l i t i e s Licensing Board i n Vancouver and the Licensing O f f i c e r s of the Health Departments i n North Vancouver, Richmond, Surrey, and Langley. ** Figures are taken from the 1986 Canadian Census data. Although licensed childcare spaces are generally applicable to ages 12 and under, the closest applicable census category i s 14 and under. Therefore, average number of spaces per c h i l d are approximate. 143 Table 3 Pr o v i n c i a l Government Childcare Expenditures, 1970-1988 Year Childcare Subsidies Current $ Other Expenditures Current $ * Total Expend. Current $ Total Expend. 1970 Constant $ 1987/88 28,935,749 7,587,877 36,523,626 10,718,336 1986/87 21,772,586 6,216,544 27,989,130 8,546,607 1985/86 19,598,295 5,868,278 25,466,573 8,116,989 1984/85 18,665,316 5,928,126 24,593,442 8,159,145 1983/84 19,287,794 5,847,093 25,134,887 8,672,872 1982/83 19,986,295 5,309,487 25,295,782 9,108,208 1981/82 16,684,275 4,397,593 21,081,868 8,029,376 1980/81 16,903,220 16,903,220 7,133,159 1979/80 14,884,153 14,884,153 7,065,368 1978/79 12,612,677 + 12,612,677 6,595,477 1977/78 11,011,945 + 11,011,945 6,288,288 1976/77 10,308,265 + 10,308,265 6,406,609 1975/76 10,854,971 36,865+ 10,891,836 7,307,400 1974/75 12,865,779 882,567+ 13,748,346 9,917,610 1973/74 10,198,000 1,259,256 11,457,256 9,157,125 1972/73 4,267,000 509,724 4,776,724 4,234,827 1971/72 1,534,000 1,534,000 1,469,588 1970/71 1,194,000 1,194,000 1,194,000 Source: B.C. Pr o v i n c i a l Government Reports * Other Expenditures include c a p i t a l and equipment grants (72-73 to 75-76); daycare support programs (83-84 to 87-88) which varied from $180.8 thousand to $209.6 thousand; special needs daycare (1981-82 to 1987-88) which varied from $4.4 m i l l i o n to $7.2 m i l l i o n ; and emergency repair/relocation/start-up/&expan-sion grants which varied from $86.9 thousand to $395 thousand. + The Annual Report notes expenditures under Special Needs Care but no amounts are given. 144 Table 4 1984 Per Capita Revenues by City/Municipality * Total Revenue Population Per Capita $ Revenue $ C i t y / D i s t r i c t Municipality Vancouver 314,097,375 414,281 755.86 (City of) North Vancouver 28,320,174 65,367 433.25 DM Richmond DM 55,688,829 96,154 579.16 Surrey DM 66,984,784 147,138 455.25 Langley DM 18,981,475 44,617 425.43 * Revenue Figures are taken from Municipal S t a t i s t i c s , Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s , V i c t o r i a , 1984. Population figures are taken from 1981 Canadian Census Data. Therefore, 1984 per capita revenue figures are approximate. 145 Table 5 Women's Labour Force P a r t i c i p a t i o n Rates By Year and City\Municipality * 1971 1976 1981 1986 C i t y / D i s t r i c t Municipality Vancouver 47.6% 49.9% 57.3% 60.1% (City of) North Vancouver 41.9% - 49.6% 60.4% 63.5% DM Richmond DM 44.1% 49.9% 60.2% 63.0% Surrey DM 35.3% 42.2% 52.8% 55.7% Langley DM 36.1% 44.0% 51.0% 56.3% * Canadian Census Data figures. Table 6 Family Median Incomes by Year and City/Municipality * Ci t y / D i s t r i c t Municipality Vancouver (City of) North Vancouver DM Richmond DM Surrey DM Langley DM 1971 1981 1986 $ $ $ 9,029 25,525 32,428 12,479 36,567 48,153 10,231 30,922 40,506 8,785 26,229 33,861 8,093 27,711 36,463 * Canadian Census Data figures. 'Family' refers to husband-wife or single parent families with children at home. 147 C i t y / D i s t r i c t Municipality Table 7 Incidence of Low Income Families by Year and City/Municipality * 1971 1981 1986 Vancouver (City of) ** 14.3% 19.4% North Vancouver DM ** 6.3% 7.55 Richmond DM ** 7.9? 11.1% Surrey DM ** 12.6% 16.5? Langley DM ** 7.2% 10.4% * Canadian Census Data figures. 'Families' r e f e r to husband-wife or single parent families with children at home. ** Data not available for 1971. 148 Table 8 Family Composition: Single Parent Families as a Percentage of Total Number of Families by Year and City/Municipality * C i t y / D i s t r i c t Municipality 1971 1981 1986 Vancouver (City of) ** 31.9? 35.3% North Vancouver DM ** 17.8% 19.4% Richmond DM ** 17.8% 20.6% Surrey DM ** 20.3? 23.75 Langley DM ** 12.0? 14.6% * Figures derived from Canadian Census Data using figures given for number of Single Parent Families and number of Husband/Wife Families with children at home. ** Data not available for 1971. Table 9 Age Composition: Children 14 years and Under as a Percentage of the Total Population by Year and City/Municipality * 1971 1981 1986 C i t y / D i s t r i c t Municipality Vancouver 19.5% 14.4% 14.0% (City of) North Vancouver 31.6% 21.2% 19.8? DM Richmond DM 32.0% 22.0% 20.4% Surrey DM 32.1% 24.7% 24.3% Langley DM 31.5% 26.8% 25.7? * Figures derived from Canadian Census Data. 150 Table 10 Composition of Councils by Sex, Year, and C i t y \Mun i c i pa l i t y , Showing Seats Held by Female Counc i l lor s as a Percentage of the Tota l Number of Seats Ava i l ab le Year Vancouver N. Vancouver Richmond Surrey Langle' C i t y DM DM DM DM 1990 27.3 28.6 11.1 33.3 14.3 1989 27.3 28.6 11.1 33.3 14.3 1988 27.3 28.6 11.1 22.2 14.3 1987 27.3 42.9 22.2 33.3 14.3 1986 27.3 42.9 22 .2 33.3 28.6 1985 27 . 3 42.9 11.1 22.2 28.6 1984 27.3 42.9 11.1 22.2 28.6 1983 27.3 42.9 . 11.1 22.2 28.6 1982 27.3 28 . 6 11.1 11.1 28.6 1981 27.3 14.3 22.2 11.1 14.3 1980 36.4 14 . 3 22.2 11.1 14 . 3 1979 36.4 28 . 6 22.2 22.2 0 1978 36.4 14. 3 22.2 11.1 0 1977 36.4 14.3 22.2 11.1 0 1976 36.4 14 . 3 22.2 22.2 0 1975 18.2 14.3 22.2 22.2 0 1974 18.2 28.6 22.2 22.2 0 1973 18.2 14.3 11.1 11. 1 0 1972 9.1 0 0 11. 1 0 1971 9.1 0 0 9.1 0 1970 9.1 0 0 9.1 0 Ave. % Seats Held by Female Councillors 1970-1990 25.5% 23 .1% 14.8% 19.2% 10.9 Current : (1990) Ave. % Seats Held by Female Councillors 22.9 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0098735/manifest

Comment

Related Items