Looking back on gender parity

Nunavut at 25. A quarter-century old. No longer an adolescent.

When I think back on the creation of Nunavut, I think of the gargantuan effort put in by so many Inuit leaders and their Qallunaat allies. It was a long, hard road they navigated, and perseverance and tenacity were required.

Division of the existing Northwest Territories and the creation of a Nunavut territory had long been a dream of Inuit. The creation of the distinctive territory was integrally tied to the settlement of the land claim.

But Inuit always insisted the government of the territory must be a public government, serving all of Nunavut’s residents and open to political participation by all of them.

Territory-wide plebiscites were required to show support for the concept of division and the determination of a boundary between the soon-to-be two territories.

Finally, in 1993 the Government of Canada passed two pieces of legislation, one ratifying the Nunavut land claim, the other ratifying the division of the Northwest Territories into two territories, to take place in 1999.

In 1993, it was a time to celebrate, but it was also a time to realize that a lot more hard work needed to be done.

The Nunavut Act mandated the creation of a commission — the Nunavut Implementation Commission — to provide advice “on matters pertaining to the setting up of the Nunavut government.”

That advice would be provided to the three main players who would need to co-operate in the next six years on the final stretch of the road to Nunavut: the federal government, the Government of the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.

The commission would comprise nine members and a chief commissioner, appointed by the federal minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The chief commissioner was John Amagoalik, long a champion of the Inuit land claim and a Nunavut territory.

I was honoured to be appointed one of the commissioners for the commission’s first three-year term. My colleagues from 1993 to 1996 were David Alagalak, Guy Alikut, Peter Ernerk, Meeka Kilabuk, Bill Lyall, Joe Ohokannoak, George Qulaut, and Mary Simon.

Other members were appointed over the years to fill vacancies.

Among the tasks the implementation commission was asked to advise on were: the administrative design of the Nunavut government, including personnel requirements; a process for the identification of a capital; and a process for the election of the first legislative assembly and the determination of electoral districts.

The federal government made it quite clear at the outset that it was not interested in hearing any radical suggestions, particularly on the organization of government. Canada follows the Westminster model of democracy, and we were not expected to recommend anything that would deviate from that.

When I think back on the myriad items we were asked to consider and advise on, I often think of what might have been if a certain recommendation we made had been accepted. I’m thinking of the commission’s advocacy for two-member constituencies.

This was often referred to at the time as the “gender parity” proposal.

The proposal was that each constituency of the legislature would be represented by two members, one male and one female. Each voter would vote for two slates of candidates — a slate of men and a slate of women.

This would result in there being an equal number of male and female members of the legislative assembly. That would solve a problem that many democracies throughout the world have wrestled with — how to secure better representation of women in the legislature, the
problem of “gender parity.”

The size of the legislature would have remained about the same as the size of the Nunavut caucus in the NWT legislature. That caucus had 10 members.

It was felt that Nunavut would not work as a government with so small a number of members. The implementation commission thought that, by keeping the existing constituency boundaries and having a separate constituency for Sanikiluaq, with two members per constituency, a total of 22 MLAs would be a workable number.

Some critics thought we were suggesting, simplistically, that men would vote for a male representative, and women for a female.

The commission’s proposal put forward the notion that “as groups, men and women have had different relationships with the laws and institutions created through public policy, and have had different life experiences. The call for balanced representation in politics is therefore more than a call for recognition of shared interest, it is a call for recognition for equality for a historically mistreated group in society.”

One criticism of our proposal was that it was “unCanadian.” But our research showed the contrary was true — dual-member constituencies had been used elsewhere in Canada, and successfully.

True, they had not been common, but the concept was not alien to Canada.

An information pamphlet was sent to all Nunavut homes. Called Building Our Future Together: Information About Gender Parity, it pointed out that “in traditional Inuit culture men and women were equal partners, each respected for their skills and knowledge.”

Our suggestion was controversial.

The Nunavut caucus of the NWT legislature opposed the suggestion and selected MLA Manitok Thompson, an influential cabinet minister, to advance their view “that the proposal was both discriminatory (against men) by reserving seats for women who may not be the best representatives, and discriminatory against women for assuming that women could not get elected without representational guarantees.”

Thompson worked aggressively to discredit the concept of gender parity. An academic study of the issue claimed she reduced the debate to “the equality of electoral competition, rather [than] an equality of outcome.”

Proponents of the idea argued gender parity would enhance the strength of families, while opponents argued just the opposite.

While most agreed traditional Inuit culture valued the contributions of men and women, opponents stressed that women as breadwinners threatened the traditional role of men as providers.

Because of the virulence of the debate within Nunavut, the federal minister decided the matter should go to a plebiscite. The question was simple enough: Should the first Nunavut legislative assembly have equal numbers of men and women MLAs, with one man and one
woman elected to represent each electoral district?

The vote was held in 1997 and the proposal was defeated, with 43 per cent of voters supporting the idea and 57 per cent opposed.

A dismal voter turnout in Nunavut may have been partly responsible for the defeat, since only 39 per cent of eligible voters in Nunavut cast their ballot.

In hindsight, some have called it an audacious proposal. I think it was eminently sensible.

I was an outspoken proponent of the idea and spoke publicly in support of the concept, at the behest of the chief commissioner, a number of times.

Taken by my perhaps unexpected advocacy, Nunatsiaq News, with tongue firmly planted in cheek, named me “Woman of the Year” for the year in which debate had been highest.

I still think it was an opportunity lost. Women are still not adequately represented in the legislature, and Nunavut society is the weaker for it.

Kenn Harper is a historian and author who usually writes the Taissumani column about Nunavut history that appears every other week.
This week, in honour of the 25th anniversary of the creation of Nunavut, he recounted his personal experience on a commission that considered how to set up the government of Nunavut.
He is the author of Minik: The New York Eskimo and Thou Shalt Do No Murder, among other books.
Feedback? Send your comments and questions to kennharper@hotmail.com.