social issues

I almost didn’t post anything for Blog Action Day 2009. I had a lot to say about last years theme – Poverty [READ] but Climate Change is an issue that I have very little to say on despite having worked for years on the science and technology policy side of clean tech. I believe that we need to get our act together in terms of how we use energy and resources. That’s clear. There are a number of reasons for doing so. To highlight the point, I want to illustrate the curious case of Israel and its clean tech mecca.

A recent article in Business Week [READ] talked about how Israel has garnered a lot of international attention for its environmentally sustainable technologies. They have entrepreneurs there who have found ways to squeeze every joule of energy out of the sun, the environment and the non-renewable resources that they use. Why? Because there is a siege mentality there that has driven them since the country was founded. I don’t believe that they conserve and get innovative with clean tech in Israel because they care all that much about the environment. I believe they do so because they must.

We are in a priviledged position here in Canada because there are not wolves at the gates trying to take our land and our lives. When we make decisions to be more environmentally conscious here its because we feel morally obligated to do so. In Canada, if you choose to drive a gas-guzzling SUV and drink bottled water and run your furnace with the windows open, there are few penalties. Some disapproving looks from your neighbours, perhaps and some financial hits but at the end of the day, if you want to be a jerk and do these things, you can.

In Israel, if people did these things, the country would be falling apart. They barely have enough resources to go around as it is. As a results, greywater systems, solar collector technology and other innovative solutions to mitigate scarce resources are flourishing there. In this way, Israel is showing us what it takes to achieve mass change in consumption and behaviour – the ever looming threat of ruin if you do not do it.

Sure, climate scientists have been saying for over a decade that doom is knocking at our back door but it’s too abstract for most people. I firmly believe that the only way people will behave resposibly with their energy consumption is if it hurts to not do so. The only way to hurt people here in Canada is by hitting them in the wallet. Look what happened when fuel prices went through the roof last year! People were using transit more, they were buying more fuel efficient cars, they were finding ways to save energy. As soon as gas prices went back down a bit, people are right back to their old, bad habits.

Last year, I wrote a lengthy piece of the BC Government’s Gas Tax [READ]. The gist of it is that I didn’t think the gas tax was high enough. It didn’t affect my finances in a noticeable way and as a result, I didn’t end up driving less. Maybe sin taxes on wasteful energy use is the best solution. I don’t know. What I do know is that Israel has found a way to effectively do more with less and while their main goal probably isn’t to save the environment, they’re doing it anyway.

Today, I had the pleasure of viewing Mike Rowe’s TED talk on what he’s learned from doing the Discovery Channel show “Dirty Jobs” [LINK]. TED Talks, if you haven’t seen them, are often inspirational [LINK]. I’ve embedded the Mike Rowe talk below and I want to summarize his main argument on how he feels “we” have declared war on blue collar jobs:

1. Hollywood portrays tradespeople as undesirable. The stereotypical sexist steel worker, the fat plumber whose butt crack hangs out, the silent and stoic construction worker, etc…
2. Madison avenue (advertising companies) who try to sell people that working hard for a living is undesirable
3. Washington (or your equivalent seat of government) who create policies that make it difficult for tradespeople
4. Silicon Valley (as the representative of high tech) who glorifies gadgets over hand tools

I am not going to say that these arguments are flawless but the point is clear – Western societies don’t respect trades jobs like we used to. No big deal, right? Back in January of this year, I wrote a piece on how a looming labour shortage in BC is going to cripple our efforts to maintain and upgrade our infrastructure in this province – a point that Mike Rowe raises in his talk as well [READ]. Enrolment in trades programs at post-secondary institutions are down across the board. Here’s a quote from the TED talk:

Barack wants to create two and a half million jobs. The infrastructure is a huge deal. This war on work, that I suppose exists, has casualties like any other war. The infrastructure’s the first one Declining trade school enrolments are the second one. Every single year, fewer electricians, fewer carpenters, fewer plumbers, fewer welders, fewer pipefitters, fewer steamfitters. The infrastructure jobs that everybody is talking about creating are those guys. The ones that have been in decline, over and over. In the meanwhile, we got two trillion dollars, at a minimum, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers, that we need to expend to even make a dent in the infrastructure which is currently rated at a D minus.

Our situation in Canada is no different. We’re spending money on infrastructure right now but our capacity to supply the labour needed to do the work is diminishing rapidly and, as I am suggesting, will be almost non-existent by 2015. All of these issues gave me pause to think about why I left the trades at a young age and turned to “creative class” work (to borrow the Richard Florida term). Here’s my background:

I come from a large, mostly blue collar family that has given me a healthy respect for the trades. My father is a welder. Several of my uncles work in the wood finishing business. Another uncle owns a landscaping business. Many of my cousins, my brother-in-law and my sister are in the trades. It should come as no surprise that I did my stint in the trades as well. Between the ages of 13 (yes, 13) and 21, I worked as a signmaker. If you’re not familiar with this trade, I’ll forgive you but it’s essentially people who manufacture, maintain and install signs. Those real estate development signs? We did those. Restaurant signs? We did those. We even made signs for The X Files to turn local libraries and college buildings into “FBI Headquarters”.

The work I did was mostly with metal, plastic and wood. I used fairly simple tools like band saws, drills, nail guns and table saws to make these signs. We painted them, we finished them, we applied vinyl lettering to them. Every sign was a unique work of art in its own right. Later, as the company I worked with grew, I learned how to weld to help them expand the business into display cases. By the time I was 20, I was the de facto foreman. In the end, I left the business because they went through a rough financial period and were having trouble making payroll.

That was my last blue collar job and I never really looked back. I didn’t think that the work I did was beneath me. Far from it – I enjoyed the work and was often whistling while I worked. What changed was that I went to university to study social science instead of going to trades school. Why? Because at the time, I wanted to be a cop and knew that I needed a university degree under my belt if I was going to get that job. That’s the only reason. I thought law enforcement would be a better job for me. In the end, I was wrong but I never went back to the trades.

Everything that Mike Rowe said is true. There are forces that conspire to make the trades seem undesirable. I took a lot of heat from my classmates during my undergrad when I would come to school after working at the sign company and I was “dirty”. I smelled like sawdust and welding flux. Nobody wanted to sit anywhere near me. I had a few people ask me if I was in some kind of government program for “the disadvantaged”. What they didn’t realize was that I was paying for my university degree with cash and they were accumulating huge student loans.

So why didn’t I go back to the trades? I think it was a few things:

1. At that time, pay for tradespeople was far below what I could make as a creative class individual. My job at the sign company paid $12/hr in 1996. By 1998, I was making $18/hr working in PR.
2. As someone with a newly minted university degree, it didn’t seem to make much sense to go back into the trades – why had I just spent five years at school if I was going back to a job where I didn’t need any training?
3. I was told by many people that my skills would be put to best use in creative class jobs – not in the trades.

It was only in the last few years that I’ve started to partially regret not sticking with the trades. Pre-2010 Olympic fever in Vancouver saw tradespeople making amazing money – more than me and usually with less experience. I think some effective PR here has also alleviated some of the stigma attached to the trades. In BC at least, we’ve returned to a time when students can choose to specialize in a trade in grades 11 and 12 and fast track their career. The kid next door is doing it and he’s doing great. At the end of the day, I have settled into the role of the entrepreneur but my roots in the trades will always be there.

I agree with Mike Rowe that there is a “civil war” in North America between tradespeople and everyone else. As someone who has walked in both worlds, the tension in palpable to me. Just some food for thought.

I had the pleasure of attending the SFU Alumni Association Annual General meeting this past Tuesday night at the Segal School of Business. Business in Vancouver (BIV) was a major sponsor as were some of the banks. The panel discussion featured four SFU Alumni who are also BIV “Top 40 under 40″ award recipients in years past. These excellent speakers (including my friend Stacey Cerniuk) were talking about their secrets of success. There were some real nuggets in there but I think some of the audience members weren’t ready to hear them.

The extremely rude eye-rolling and snorting that some of the audience members were dishing out in addition to the ridiculously loaded questions about the environment and “profits” over social responsibility was disappointing. I’m going to assume that these snot remarks were coming from Arts and Social Science alumni and I’d like to call you guys out on your rude behaviour:

1. Only two of the four panellists have a business degree. The other two are Arts and Computing Science majors respectively.
2. The talk was not called “How to Rape and Plunder the Planet” – the theme was “secrets to success”.
3. The advice was not directed at business people specifically – it was directed at those who want to build something and be successful. That could be someone building a dance studio or a non-profit association.
4. Questions about how businesses can be socially/environmentally responsible could have been good ones if they weren’t asked like accusations.
5. When someone asked what motivates these business people, people were snorting when these business people denied that they were motivated by profit alone. What’s so hard to believe about that?

I’m a business owner and I’m not a business grad. I studied Communications and Public Policy at SFU and I fell into being an entrepreneur. That doesn’t mean I lubricate my bank vault door with baby harp seal oil. Here are some hard truths:

Being successful and being socially/environmentally responsible are not mutually exclusive.

Social and environmental responsibility is a core consideration for most businesses these days. It’s not always talked about in terms of the social good that is done but for most companies, being socially/environmentally responsible generates revenue. It makes no sense these days to be unethical.

Not everyone who starts a business is some kind of Donald Trump wannabe

A lot of people (like me) who start businesses and try to be successful do so because it seems like the path of least resistance. This is not to say that starting a business is easy but for some of us – it’s a far better option that being an employee. I care about people and I care about the environment. I take issue with people assuming that I don’t because I need to make money to live.

Money isn’t everything

When you don’t have money – money is everything. When you have money, it’s less important. I heard a lot of scoffing when all four panellists denied that their primary motivation is money. I understood it perfectly. I’m fortunate to be in a position where I don’t need to worry about money and my big driver is success and the feeling I get when I help someone do something amazing. I spend a lot of time mentoring and volunteering and those are the things that bring me joy (aside from my work). I also have three little kids and a mortgage to pay so if my business makes no money, they don’t eat. I’m sorry if that offends some of you.

My own story

When I was in my undergrad, I took a lot of heat in my social science degree from people who perceived me to be “right wing”. Anyone who knows me knows that I’m almost apolitical – I go for the useful bits of policy wherever they come from. I worked through my undergrad to pay for school as a tradesperson. I was looked down upon by my peers for showing up to class smelling like welding flux, sawdust or varnish and when I spoke up about economic realities from the perspective of small business, I was decried as an elitist and a “right wingnut”.

One of my peers (who shall remain unnamed) took great pride in the fact that he never worked and spent a lot of time in developing nations helping the working people “fight for their rights”. Clearly, I didn’t understand the plight of these people. I asked him point blank one day “you say you don’t work – how did you afford all of these vacations to go down there to fight the man?” His answer – his Dad bought him the tickets. My question – what does your Dad do? “He’s an investment banker.”

I just about fell out of my chair. This punk, this trust-fund kid was calling me out for being out of touch with the working people when I actually was a “working” person and he was flying down to protest unfair economic policies on the dime of the very people who likely caused some of these problems. The irony just about struck me down.

The take home message

Don’t assume that everyone who runs a business is a bad person. Show them some respect for walking a very hard road and when they volunteer their time to come and try to share some very valuable pointers about success that are applicable to any field – shut your mouth and listen, asshole.

The results of the 2009 BC Election are in – Gordon Campbell’s Liberals are in for a third straight term (albeit with a smaller majority – something that does not shock me). What did shock me was how badly the BC STV electoral reform proposal got beaten in the referendum. Last time this issue was up for discussion, it garnered 57.7% of voters’ support. It needed 60% to pass. Because the vote was so close last time and many voters had expressed confusion about the option at a technical level, it was decided to run the referendum again.

The initial results on STV this year is 39% in favour of the change. Because of this substantial drop, the issue is effectively dead in BC and is unlikely to go to referendum again in the next few elections. Some pundits are claiming that this result has killed STV for a generation in BC and probably in the rest of Canada as well.

My theory as to why STV died at the polls is that voters never really understood how the process works and when they did, they had some fears about how it would affect the political balance in this province. I imagine that a good number of Liberal supporters voted “no” on the issue because they felt it would lead to NDP majority governments. I also heard some folks with concerns about coalition governments that “wouldn’t be able to get anything done”.

Other pundits have suggested that the way the question was framed this time impacted the results. Last time, voters were told that a group of citizens had recommended STV and they were asked to vote for or against it. This time, voters were simply asked to vote for the existing system (first past the post) or for STV. This could have scared some voters off because it put things in terms of “abandon the current system”.

In any case, it was an interesting election. Voter turnout was down to 47.6% this year (compared to 62% in the 2005 BC election). The NDP gained three seats and still no special interest parties represented.

I want to start by saying that I neither advocate for or against BC-STV but I do believe that people should educate themselves before going to the polls. Tomorrow, in conjunction with the British Columbia General Election, voters in BC will have another chance to vote for or against and new election system called Single Transferrable Vote (STV). There are groups campaigning for and against this issue and there are some relatively neutral groups that are trying to provide unbiased information. I wanted to share some of the better resources that I’ve found while trying to educate myself:

1. Understanding STV
   

   This site has an excellent lay-persons description of how the system would work at a technical level and shows an example of how election outcomes would change from previous elections if this system was in place. There’s also some great information in there about how this proposal came before BC voters and a reminder that the last time this issue went to the referendum, more than half of the voters were in favour of it but the threshold was set at 60%. Check out the very detailed section where this person outlines how the 2005 election might have played out under this system with various scenarios [READ].

2. Ireland’s STV System
   

   In terms of use cases, one only needs to look to Ireland to see what an STV system in action looks like. They’ve been using it since 1922. As you can see from the above link, Ireland has debated doing away with the STV system on a number of occasions but when put to a referendum, people voted to keep the system. Obviously, the system works well enough for Ireland. How readily this would translate to BC is another matter and I leave that interpretation to you.

   Malta also uses the STV system as does Australia for its senate. There are many countries that use proportional representation as their voting system but these systems are slightly different that what is on the referendum. You can read up on Proportional Representation on Wikipedia with a full list of countries that use this system. [READ]

3. Advantages of Proportional Representation Systems
   

   The Electoral Knowledge Network has a good summary of the advantages of a proportional representation system (STV is a PR system). The main arguments for it seem to be that it translates the popular vote more accurately into seats won, provides more seats to minority parties and reduces wasted votes. There’s a strong campaign for BC STV that you can read up on if you’re interested. [LINK]

4. Disadvantages of Proportional Representation Systems
   

   Thanks again to the Electoral Knowledge Network, here’s a good summary of the downsides of PR systems like STV. The main arguments against it seem to be that it can lead to coalition governments (which have a bad reputation for lacking the power to push legislation through), it can lead to party fragmentation and it can give a platform to extremist parties. There’s an equally strong campaign against BC STV that you can read up on as well. [LINK]

Again, I see valid arguments on both sides of this argument and I do not advocate either side. I do advocate that everyone read some of these resources before going to the poll tomorrow so that you can make a more informed decision.

The media in BC has tried to make hay out of an incident at a school in Port Hardy, BC [map] where a high school principal bought an illegal cell phone jamming device to prevent students from texting and surfing the web on their phones during class. [READ] After discovering why their cell phones suddenly stopped working at school, the students at this school confronted the school administration and informed them that cell phone jamming is in violation of Federal telecommunication regs. The principal of the school explained his reasoning for the jamming – he felt his confiscation campaign was not successful in discouraging students from using cell phones in class and felt that the school was suffering. In my opinion, he did the right thing. Federal regulations be damned. It leads to a bigger discussion about the role of technology in public education. Technology provides amazing new ways for kids to not pay attention in school.

1. Cell Phones
   

    

   I have heard some horror stories from colleagues of mine who teach about kids using cell phones to cheat. The kids’ excuse: they use their cellphone as a calculator. I’ll concede that but anyone who is tech savvy knows that a modern smart phone can save and display documents (think cheat sheets) and look stuff up online in the middle of a test. Is that fair? No. I think it’s completely reasonable to ask students to not use cellphones in class. Academic honesty needs to be a foundation in public education. Cell phones are also distracting. Just as my adult colleagues get distracted by their BlackBerries when they are supposed to be paying attention in meetings, young learners can be distracted by mobile games on their phones, texting their friends or using MSN Messenger on their phone.

    

2. The Web
   

   There are two issues with the web: academic shortcuts and the role of social media. There are plenty of ways to shortcut research for a school paper online. You can pay someone in a developing country to write it for you. You can cut and paste vast tracts from other peoples’ published work, Wikipedia and/or blogs. Cheating on term papers with the assistance of the Internet is a trend as old as the Internet itself. There are businesses that thrive on exposing plagiarism from the web for teachers marking assignments.

   Then there’s social media. High school had enough drama when I was young but social media has made it easier than ever for teenagers to do shitty things to one another. Find a scandalous picture of the head cheerleader? Publish it online so everyone in the school gets to see it. Think someone is a jerk? Twitter about it. It used to be that the high school drama soapbox was limited to the number of people in your personal network. Social media allows angry teens to broadcast grief with the click of a button.

    

3. MP3 Players
   

    

   Many of the things you can say about cell phones can be said about MP3 players. I have an iPod Touch, for example. Yes, it’s an MP3 player but it essentially does everything the iPhone does except make calls. That means I can embed text file cheat sheets onto it and check them out while pretending to browse my track listings during an exam. I also don’t buy the fact that kids can pay full attention to what’s going on in class while they’ve got a headphone in one ear.

Cell Phone Jamming Technology

To loop back around on this cell phone jamming issue. The technology works by broadcasting on a frequency that cancels out cell phone signals. It’s a form of radio jamming, to put it simply. HowStuffWorks.com has a good article explaining the technology. You can pick up these devices on the Internet for between $150 and $400. The specific regulations regarding cellphone jamming are from the Radiocommunication Act of Canada.

My name is Aaron and I am not an eco terrorist. However, I didn’t shut off my lights at 8:30pm on Saturday for a number of reasons. First and foremost, the campaign didn’t catch my attention. I don’t watch a lot of TV (a big energy drain) and I don’t read the paper (wasteful from an environmental perspective). I caught dribs and drabs on the radio about Earth Hour but to be frank, the coverage of this three year-old event has been pretty sparse. Second, I wasn’t home during Earth Hour – I was at a restaurant for my friends’ birthday party. I can assure you that they didn’t turn off the hockey game and turn out all the lights for an hour. Third, in my opinion, this campaign is weak sauce when compared to other initiatives out there. Earth Day is a much better, more focused and well messaged event. People actually leave their cars at home on Earth Day and they try to keep the lights off and they use public transit.

There are some real areas to focus on the Climate Change but they’re harder for us as consumers and voters to digest:

1. Agricultural emissions
   

    

   A big source of greenhouse gasses (GHGs) is cow farts. Cow farts are methane (a.k.a. Natural Gas – the same kind that your furnace or cooking range uses). If we stopped maintaining massive herds of grazing cattle, we could cut a large percentage of our GHG emissions globally. Are we ready to do that? It doesn’t seem like it. Giving up meat and dairy products is a non-starter for many people. Instead of turning off the lights for an hour, how about a whole day where we don’t eat meat?
   

2. Power Stations
   

   Power stations in many jurisdictions (not mine, thankfully) are thermal electric systems where natural gas or coal is burned to generate electricity. This is a big area where we could cut our emissions. Many utilities have begun the long road to completely renewable and clean power but there’s a cost – a premium over traditional energy. In many jurisdictions, this translates to between 2 and 5 cents per kWh. There’s a great resource out there where you can see how much the premium for “green” or alternative power is in some US jurisdictions. [READ] Again, I think the general population’s unwillingness to pay a premium for clean power is part of the problem. Sure, there are the few among us who spend the extra money on hybrid cars and buy carbon offset credits but most people just want the most bang for their buck and don’t see the hidden environmental costs.

3. Industrial Processes
   

   This is a really tricky one because most companies could save money long-term by going green but don’t do so because it involves an initial capital outlay with the return on investment coming 5-15 years down the road. Sure, dirty energy and processes aren’t cheap but at the end of the day, they can write off those costs. Capital investments, however, have to be amortized over a number of tax years so it’s a harder decision to go this route.

   I did some work for our local gas company (Terasen) recently where I was reviewing some of their commercial energy assessment programs. A lot of companies like Terasen are trying really hard to incentivize industrial customers to use their gas more efficiently to cut down on emissions. I applaud them for this but these programs still run into resistance because no matter how big a subsidy a company like Terasen offers, if it’s not free, there are some companies that will still balk at it. BC Hydro (our local electric utility and a former employer of mine) has a program where they’ll replace the low-efficiency tube lighting for industrial customers with high-efficiency lighting – many times, for free. Who’s going to say “no” to that?

4. Transportation
   

   Commercial transportation is an area where we could also do a lot more but, again, in a lot of cases the cost of upgrading equipment to maximize efficiency is a capital expenditure for transportation companies and something that isn’t easily absorbed unless than company has large cash reserves. In some cases, like sea shipping, the big efficiency loss is that fact that there is no efficient way to push a million-tonne cargo ship through water. Powered boats are notoriously inefficient. It’s hard to see a way around that. However, if we could decrease wait times and traffic congestion as we move goods and people through our waterways, roads and rail – we might be able to reduce the environmental impact of these activities.

Natural Selection – the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common (source: Wikipedia) – is commonly understood to apply to genes in reproducing organisms. The ability to speak (driven in part by the FOXP2 gene) is an evolved trait. Language – a natural byproduct of our ability to speak – could also be said to evolve. If one can accept this concept, is it not also possible that languages (and by extension ideas) can become less common like undesireable genes? A recent article in The Economist suggests that nearly 1/3rd of all the languages on Earth are at risk of extinction. [READ]. The question I ask is whether or not we should worry about it. If a language is worth saving, wouldn’t we instinctually preserve it?

Languages, like species, come and go. Wikipedia has an interesting list of extinct languages [READ]. Some efforts have been made to bring specific languages back from the brink of extinction (eg. Hebrew, Welsh and Hawaiian) but for the most part, when speakers of a language decide to change to another language (for a variety of reasons), the language withers and dies. In the past, I suspect that colonialism drove much of this change in parts of North America, Africa and Asia but in modern times, the three most popular languages in the world (English, Spanish and Mandrin) are the language of business. Many Germans, for example, speak fluent English. I don’t think German is on the brink of extinction but another 100 years of fluent English speaking within Germany and it might end up on the endangered list.

There’s two things to consider then:

1. Why should we save a dying language?
2. How can we save a dying language?

To address the first point, I think there are cultural merits for saving a language but beyond that – I don’t see the point. For practical purposes, the more we narrow the language spoken worldwide, the easier it will be to communicate. Now before you accuse me of justifying my own cultural imperialism – keep in mind that my children’s ancestors spoke German, English, Celt, Punjabi and Urdu. These days, we just speak English at home. Why? Because it’s easier to communicate. My wife would like our kids to speak Punjabi because she has living relatives that speak Punjabi and its her first tongue. In contrast, I am not worried about our kids learning German because I never learned to speak it myself despite being half German.

This is not to say that other languages aren’t beautiful and have merit in their own right, I’m not going someone who would ever support putting massive amounts of tax dollars into keeping a language alive when its own native speakers have abandoned it. For example, Welsh. Welsh is spoken by some 750,000 people worldwide. Only about 20% of the population of Wales can speak it. Welsh as a language just about died in the late 1800s. It took until the 1940s for the language to be taught in schools in Wales again. These days, Welsh is considered a “living language” in that it is adapting to the times and adding new vocabulary.

While not all languages can remain living languages forever, I think we can use modern technology to preserve dying languages. Like an electronic Rosetta Stone, we could record the grammar and vocabulary of languages on the endangered languages list along with some recordings of native speakers. At a later date, this could allow for the recovery of dead languages when interest in them re-emerges. It’s not unlike preserving the DNA of a species that you know is going to die off.

Several articles that I’ve read in recent times have led me to the conclusion that one pillar of North America’s long-term economic viability needs to be treating women in the workplace better. An article from last summer in the New York Times Magazine entitled “No Babies?” [READ] got me thinking about this issue because it links birth rates (and the accompanying economic hardships that causes) to the flexibility and social acceptability of some countries of women re-entering the workforce after having children. This, contrasted with a Slate article I read this afternoon which tells the story of a woman who was fired from her job for pumping breast milk in the washroom every few hours [READ]. That is the kind of bullshit we cannot tolerate and will not be able to once the economy recovers. I believe that demographers have correctly predicted massive labour shortages starting in 2015 and that when that time comes, we’ll need to effectively utilize every able-bodied adult in society regardless of gender and that long-term, our society will wither without an adequate supply of children.

Here are some specific policies that I think Canada should adopt to ensure that women are treated better in the workplace:

Equal Pay for Equal Work

The wage gap between the sexes has been closing but not nearly fast enough. Take into consideration that most women put their salary advancement on hold when they take time off to have children and raise them, women do not get equal pay for equal work. A recent infographic in the New York Times shows how widespread this problem is. [READ] What’s the incentive for women to have kids when they will lose doubly? Leaving the workforce for years at a time will not help women close the wage gap any sooner.

Men Need to Help Around the House

A study by Letizia Mencarini quoted in “No Babies?” article found that working women were more likely to have more than one child if their husbands did a bigger share of the housework.

They found that a greater percentage of Dutch women than Italian women are in the work force but that, at the same time, the fertility rate in the Netherlands is significantly higher (1.73 compared to 1.33). In both countries, people tend to have traditional views about gender roles, but Italian society is considerably more conservative in this regard, and this seems to be a decisive difference. The hypothesis the sociologists set out to test was borne out by the data: women who do more than 75 percent of the housework and child care are less likely to want to have another child than women whose husbands or partners share the load.

I don’t know what happened at my house because I just asked my wife if I do 25% of the housework and she said “no” and laughed heartily but we have three kids. Go figure! However, my wife said that she’s fine with this arrangement because I work nearly 70 hours per week so don’t use this case as evidence that this theory is bunk. I think it makes sense that when women aren’t saddled with all the housework, they’re more willing to have kids.

Better State-Sponsored Maternity Leave and Post-Partum Benefits

One of the areas where Canada drops the ball is in how much maternity leave benefits women get and how the state helps women with their babies as they re-enter the workforce. Granted, Canada has a Universal Childcare Benefit but it only adds up to $1,200/year per child. That only covers two months of full-time daycare where I live. In major urban centres like Vancouver, it barely covers one month of childcare. Norway, in my opinion, has better benefits and services for women: 54 weeks of maternity leave, as well as 6 weeks of paternity leave, a new child nets a family a one-time payment of about 4,000 euros, state-subsidized day care is standard and during maternity leave a woman is paid 80 percent of her salary. In Norway, the birth rate is 20% higher than it is in Canada but still short of the amount needed to replace the population.

Who Cares?

By this point, if you haven’t stopped reading, you might be saying to yourself “who cares if people aren’t having babies because mothers aren’t treated very well in society in terms of their career?” It is a big deal because, as Japan is learning, when the youth population disappears from underneath your aging population, your society starts to crumble and you have to turn to some pretty extreme measures to make ends meet. The following 24-minute documentary really opened my eyes as to how bad it can get:

That’s more than enough alliteration for one post. Last night I had the great pleasure and honour to be one of many hosts at the 25^th Simon Fraser University Outstanding Alumni Awards. The event went off very smoothly thanks to the hard work of a handful of SFU staff including Holli Redekop, Julie Saito, Nicol Lishka and too many other people to name. My job last night was to escort the lovely and talented Evaleen Jaager Roy (of Electronic Arts fame) who was receiving an award for professional achievement last night. I was on the committee that selected these winners so it was personally gratifying for me to see them up there and hear all the lovely things that were said about them. I just want to make a few comments here about each of the winners:

Dr. Richard Bruskiewich – Academic Achievement

Richard is an accomplished scientist in his own right having worked on the human genome project (amongst other things) and when David Baillie introduced him, he emphasized the significance of the achievements that Richard has made over the years. I was very, very impressed. What I was more impressed though when pushing for him to receive an award at the committee level was his own personal sacrifices to work overseas for the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines. I believe that he passed on more lucrative positions her in North America or the EU to do work that he felt was important for the world. It’s obvious that he cares deeply about his family too. I had a chance to speak with him briefly after the awards and his family was one of the things that we talked about. The presenter that introduced him was obviously very emotional about him winning the award and I was a bit choked up myself.

Ms. Evaleen Jaager Roy – Professional Achievement

As I mentioned, I got to escort Evaleen and her family throughout the event and what a delight it was. Evaleen’s son, Steffan, was a lot of fun and a good sport throughout the event despite having just come out of a major volleyball competition that day. Everyone speaks very highly of Evaleen. Her professional achievements are clearly superior. However, I was thrilled to learn that she also has a serious philanthropic streak as well. Dr. Gerri Sinclair (a very well known player in BC’s science and technology community) introduced her and spent a lot of time talking about the contributions that Evaleen made to the formation of the Master of Digital Media program at the Great Northern Way campus in Vancouver [link].

In addition to helping push through the development of this program and this campus, Evaleen also ensured that young women and the disadvantaged would have the opportunity to learn at this new high tech centre. In one case, they gave a scholarship to a young homeless person who was living under a bridge and that person now has a budding career as a digital art director here in Vancouver. This earned her the unofficial title “VP of Angels”. She’s a great person and I was honoured to have met her.

Dr. Gabor Mate – Service to the Community

Dr. Mate is an intimidating, sharp-witting and sharp-tongued guy. He’s authored many books on the topic of the psychology of addiction and is currently working on a new book. I most appreciated his comments about his experience at SFU in the late 1960s (when the school was brand new) and how radical it was. In an age where I fear a dilution of that raw spirit that gives SFU its distinct character, it was nice to harken back to what makes SFU special. While SFU President Michael Stevenson seemed apologetic about our new Fine Arts campus going into the old Woodwards site [link], Dr. Mate – a long-standing champion of the Downtown East Side – applauded the project which will include 200 units of social housing for the impoverished residents of the area. I wish I’d had a chance to talk with Gabor but he was surrounded by a throng of admirers after the event.

Dr. Jennifer Allen Simons – Service to the Community

Jennifer Simons was introduced as a “kickboxer”, a patron of the arts and a passionate advocate for nuclear disarmament. My good friend Shauna Sylvester from Canada’s World [link] gave a lovely, glowing introduction and emphasized the kind of magnetism that Dr. Simons has when she attends these international summits to discuss nuclear weapon proliferation. Dr. Simons was clearly moved by receiving the award and took time to talk about the progress of her fight against nuclear proliferation. She also mentioned that she has a new initiative under way. You can check it out at at globalzero.org. I wish, like Shuana, that I’d had the benefit of knowing Dr. Simons all these years. It’s also reminded me that I need to spend more time with Shauna since I’ve always valued her friendship and advice.

Click here to read the award profiles of all the winners last night.