Chambers, Lori

English

Journals @ The Mount

29Atlantis, Volume 29.1, Fall/Winter 2004Interview with Annis May TimpsonLori ChambersINTRODUCTIONIt was recently my pleasure to conduct an onlineinterview with Annis May Timpson, recipient of theCanadian Women Studies Association / Associationcanadienne des études sur les femmes (CWSA/ACEF)Book Prize for 2003. Annis May Timpson is Director of theCentre of Canadian Studies at the University of Edinburgh.She studied at Bristol, Oxford and Toronto and came toCanada initially as a Commonwealth Scholar. Dr. Timpsonhas taught Politics and Canadian Studies at the universitiesof Birmingham, Nottingham and Sussex and Women'sStudies at the Open University. She has written on Britishpolitical culture, Canadian politics and public policy and iscurrently researching new forms of governance in Nunavut.Her book, Driven Apart: Women's Employment Equity andChild Care in Canadian Public Policy (UBC Press, 2001)won the inaugural CWSA/ACEF book prize in 2003 andwas designated as an "outstanding academic title" byChoice. It was also awarded the inaugural Pierre SavardAward by the International Council for Canadian Studies.LC What inspired you to pursue this important topic?AMT I had a long-established intellectual interest in therelationship between political participation and policyoutcomes. This developed as a graduate student in the late1970s when I was taught by people who were activelyengaged in the community power debate. I becameinterested in exploring why some issues raised incommunity politics became absorbed into public policyagendas while others were not. I wanted to consider thisquestion from a feminist perspective because I was awarehow much easier it had been for women to persuadegovernments to develop policies that were located in thepublic domain than those which spanned the public anddomestic spheres.  When I began thinking about this topic, in themid-1980s, I was aware that while feminist scholars hadbegun to address these policy questions in Britain, theUnited States and Scandinavia, there was very littlescholarship on the development of women's employmentequality or child care policies in Canada. Yet the reports ofthe Royal Commission on the Status of Women (1970) andthe Royal Commission on Equality in Employment (1984)had called on the federal government to address both policyissues.I think it is important to say that my interest inthis topic was not driven by scholarship alone. I had grownup in the 1960s absorbing messages about the difficulties ofcombining paid work and motherhood and I'm sure, at asubconscious level, my sense of injustice about thatmessage affected my choice of topic. Moreover, I was partof the generation of feminists who saw paid employment ascritical to women's fulfilment and actively campaigned inthe 1970s for the provision of twenty-four hour child careto support this goal. LCWhat was your greatest challenge in researching thisproject?AMT As in all research projects there were a number ofchallenges both intellectual and practical! At an intellectuallevel, although my interest in this topic had initially beenshaped by the community power debate, the literature onfeminist theory burgeoned as I worked on the project. Sowhile my initial inspiration for the project had beenissue-based and policy-oriented, I realised as I went alongthat I needed to ensure that the project was also informedby theoretical debates amongst feminist scholars. I foundthe discussions of female citizenship by scholars like RuthLister, Jane Jenson, Janine Brodie and Anna Shola Orloffparticularly helpful and was impressed by Joan Tronto'swriting on the ethics of care. Through reading their work Igradually developed my ideas about women asworker-citizens and mother-citizens. Nonetheless, it was achallenge that my theoretical interests shifted in the courseof the project, away from questions about how I mightcontribute to the community power literature by examiningthe fate of two policy issues raised in feminist campaigns toa broader interest in contributing to new feministscholarship on citizenship.The second big challenge was that although I ama Canadianist, I am not Canadian. I live and work in theUK and this meant that the periods in which I couldconcentrate on research in Canada were necessarilyintermittent (and, significantly, they were largely pre-Internet). I always felt that I had to cover all possible bases30 Chamberswhile I was in Canada. This meant that I would go toCanada and research frantically, feel very excited about thework, and then return to the UK with piles of researchmaterial that took a long time to digest within theconstraints of a full-time job. I don't think this is an unusualresearch experience (and there may have been someadvantages created by the trans-Atlantic distance) but Ioften wished that I had been able to have the researchmaterial immediately to hand so that I could absorb andreflect as I went along.The third challenge was practical and, as thosewho have been kind enough to get me to and from airportsknow well, the trans-Atlantic transportation of my researchmaterial presented certain challenges! There are quiteamusing stories of my spending the last night of researchtrips in friends' basements literally (je confesse) ripping theFrench sections out of federal government documents sothat I could keep within my baggage allowance. I remembertoo the alarm that set in when Air Canada mislaid thesuitcase filled with photocopies of women's submissions tothe Royal Commission on Equality in Employment (itturned up eventually). After that, I carried my interviewtapes on board and never put all the material relating to onechapter in a single suitcase!LCWhat was your greatest pleasure or accomplishment inwriting this book?AMT The day I finally settled on what the first sentence shouldbe! Indeed there was a great sense of relief when I wroteout the first and final sentences and came up with the title.It was a real pleasure to conduct the interviews.Indeed, this part of the research meant more to me thananything. I sense that not being Canadian played to myadvantage here: there was perhaps less fear on the part offederal officials and activists in talking to someone outsidethe country and a definite generosity in terms of their timeand willingness to talk to a foreign academic. Theinterviews brought the issues alive to me, made it possiblefor me to forge interpretations and connections that I wouldnot otherwise have made.It was also a delight to work in the PublicArchives in Ottawa. There is no place quite like thatreading room with its splendid view across the OttawaRiver to the federal buildings in Gatineau where many ofthe officials whom I interviewed actually work. And there'ssuch a rhythm to the place: the way it rocks around theclock with its rules and regulations. I loved the space andthat feeling of being at the hub of interdisciplinarity withresearchers working on such varied topics. Perhaps thehighlight was wading through the submissions womenmade to the Royal Commission on the Status of Women.You could almost feel those women burning the midnightoil as they pounded away on their erratic typewriters,frequently apologising to the commissioners that domesticcommitments had prevented their writing until just beforethe deadline (plus ça change). Buried in those boxes wereintriguing handwritten remarks at the bottom of formalletters between ministers and commissioners: they led tointerpretations I would not otherwise have made.The third pleasure was working with thelibrarians in the Child Care Resource Centre and theIndustrial Relations Unit at the University of Toronto:Martha Friendly, Michelle Turiano, Bruce Pearce and VickiSkelton. They had such a deep knowledge of theircollections and a real interest in their respective subjectsand they were all tremendously helpful.I guess the sense of accomplishment comes not atthe point of writing the book but later when the reviewscome out. It was then that I began to look back and realisethat I had sustained a major project that not only told animportant policy story but highlighted the significance ofroyal commissions as forums for exploring femalecitizenship. It is satisfying to realize that you havecontributed to knowledge and that your book becomes partof the literature that informs the next generation of students.LCThe reader leaves this work with a sense of frustration,not with the research but with the failure of governmentto consider employment equity and child care asinter-related issues, despite repeated assertions by RoyalCommissions and ordinary women that such a vision isnecessary. How did frustration impact on your researchand writing?AMT I guess there was a sense of frustration that the story wouldnever end but just alter as it went through various mutationsin different governments. While the connection betweengender equality in the workplace and the provision ofchildcare was articulated by a wider range of stakeholdersas time went on, policies to support the provision of childcare for working mothers changed relatively slowly. I think I also felt frustrated that (after all the workwomen put into campaigns) it was only when questionsabout child care and adult employment were disconnectedfrom a feminist agenda that the connection between thesetwo issues came to be clearly articulated by the federalgovernment, specifically in the Liberals' 1993 Red Bookpublished before the Chrétien government came to power.Even then the Liberals failed to secure provincialagreement for their national child care program.My other frustration was with Canadianfederalism. In theory, federalism is supposed to facilitatepolicy innovation by permitting regional variation. Inpractice, I found that federalism blocked policy innovationwith respect to women's employment because thejurisdictional tug-of-war between the Feds and theprovinces became a major force that prevented policy31Atlantis, Volume 29.1change with respect to child care.LCYou provide an excellent explanation of why there is adisconnect between employment equity and child carepolicies (jurisdictional politics, fiscal constraints,institutional issues, organization of social movementsand ideological forces). Given these conclusions, whatrecommendations do you have for activists who wish toovercome this disconnect?AMT That's a really good question. I guess my overall answer isto recognise these political and economic realities and takethem on board in planning political campaigns. Morespecifically, however, I would suggest that:1.     At the jurisdictional level it is crucial for child careactivists to coordinate federal, provincial, territorial andmunicipal campaigns to bring about national child careprovision. Problems of inter-jurisdictional coordination arenever straightforward for social movement actors in federalsystems. Technological advances in communication do helpbut linguistic and cultural differences in differentjurisdictions still make coordination complex.2.     At the fiscal level: keep lobbying for more federalchild care funding but recognise that whatever the talkabout a national child care strategy the Feds will probablybe more inclined to channel their dollars to individuals viatax credits or tax relief than through cost-shared programswhich make the federal government's fiscal contributionless obvious to the parent.3.  At the institutional level I think it is morestraightforward: identify the officials who are working inthe different policy arenas and find ways to bring themtogether so that they talk to each other and begin toconsider how the management of their own policy filescould be enhanced by forging connections acrossdepartments.4.     In terms of social movements: I think one of theimportant facets of the evidence I uncovered in my workwas that there have been elements of ambiguity within thewomen's movement in Canada about the pursuit of childcare policies. There have also been ambiguities amongstchild care advocates about locating child care campaignswithin the women's movement. Unless these ambiguitiesare addressed and solid connections maintained betweenactivisits in the women's movement and the child caremovement, the connection between gender equality inemployment and child care will not be sufficientlyreinforced.5.      On the ideological front, try to identify when and howgovernments have recognised the importance of developingpolicies which span the domestic/public divide. Build onthat knowledge if you want to develop campaigns whichconnect gender equality in the workplace with the provisionof child care.LCYou suggest that royal commissions can empowercitizens and engender public discourse. How can weensure that governments are more responsive to therecommendations of royal commissions?AMT Speaking as a Brit, I think Canadian governments arerelatively (and I emphasise relatively) good at respondingto the reports of royal commissions! Despite the fact thatthe idea of a royal commission is a British innovation, inmy opinion Canadians have used royal commissions withgreater effect over time. Nonetheless, your question touchesan important point. After all, royal commissions cost moneyand the public should expect the governments whichcommission these inquiries to respond effectively. I guessone thing that could happen is for a Public Inquiries Officeto be established. This could support (in bureaucraticterms) the process of setting up royal commissions (so thatthese inquiries could get up and running more efficientlythan they do at present) and take responsibility forcoordinating government responses to commission reports.The only reservation I have about this suggestion is that tobe effective as public inquiries, royal commissions have tobe independent from government, and such an institutioncould affect their autonomy.It seems to me that activists also have a role toplay in ensuring that governments respond to royalcommission reports. The fact that the National ActionCommittee on the Status of Women was founded to ensurethat the federal government responded to the report of theRoyal Commission on the Status of Women reinforces thepoint. Activists can be critical in ensuring that royalcommission reports become manuals for policy changerather than items to be shelved and ignored.However, going back to the first part of yourquestion, I do think it is important to recognise that royalcommissions have a value beyond their recommendationsand reports. They provide a variety of stakeholders with theopportunity to articulate their visions of a more effectivesociety, they provide a wealth of research material thatmight not otherwise be produced and they push theparameters of policy discourse in new directions. Theseprocesses are important and should not be  overlooked. LCHow, in the absence of a current commission, do we keepthe public redefining and questioning, as you call it, "thecontours of female citizenship."32 ChambersAMT I think there are all sorts of ways of redefining theboundaries of women's citizenship. The process does notrely on the existence of public inquiries: I was simplyarguing that royal commissions provide important civicforums in which new ways of thinking about women'sengagement in civil society can be explored. For me theprocess of questioning the contours of female citizenshiphas to operate on several levels at once: in privateconversations between women; in organizations concernedwith protecting women's interests, at the neighbourhoodlevel where women may, perhaps, transcend boundaries ofclass, race, religion, age or sexual orientation most easilywhen addressing local issues together; at the jurisdictionallevels be they municipal, territorial, provincial or federalwhere policy issues affecting women are decided; and,crucially, at the international level where cross-national andcross-cultural dialogue can help us re-evaluate theparameters within which our own sense of citizenship isconstructed.LCDo you have a new project that you are working on? Inwhat direction has this project led you for future study?AMT When I completed Driven Apart my research took whatappeared (at the time) to be a complete shift of direction. Ihad been planning to build on the research for the book andmove on to a broader project on gender and royalcommissions. However, while I was in the final stages ofundertaking the primary research for Driven Apart (in1998), I had the opportunity to interview officials inYellowknife and Iqaluit about the creation of Nunavut. Iwas completely riveted by what I heard and found. It is notoften in the career of a political scientist that a newjurisdiction is created in the country on which youspecialise, let alone a jurisdiction like Nunavut which seeksto address Aboriginal priorities within a model of publicgovernment. Since completing Driven Apart (in 2000) I havebeen looking at the complexities of developing newapproaches to government in Nunavut. Part of this workhas focused on the development of a population-reflectivepublic service which aims to adopt working practices thatare culturally relevant to the predominantly Inuit populationin the territory. Having looked at how the federalgovernment developed employment equity policies that didnot recognise women's need for child care, it is interestingfor me to consider how the Government of Nunavut istrying to develop culturally-relevant policies to promoteInuit employment. It is also concerning to see that althoughInuit women are finding it much easier to get jobs in thenew government than Inuit men, they are concentrated insupport positions at the bottom end of the bureaucratichierarchy.There are significant connections betweenstudying gender and working on the North: questions ofdealing with marginalization and doing politics differently.It has been fascinating to shift my research from the federalsphere to the arena of territorial politics. It has made merealize how limited our understanding of Canadian politicsremains when we focus on policy and politics at federal andprovincial levels.  LCIs there anything about the book that, in retrospect, youwould explore in a different way, or using othersources?AMT It would have been a much bigger project but the thing Iwould have most liked is to have looked in more detail athow the provinces handled child care. In some senses, Itook on board the feminist agenda as it emerged through theroyal commissions calling for national child care legislationand I focused on how the federal government addressed (orfailed to address) this question. However, that is only partof the story and it is incomplete in many senses without anunderstanding of how the provinces responded to theMulroney and Chrétien governments' initiatives to developnational strategies on child care (Trudeau refused tocontemplate such an inter-jurisdictional initiative). Sothere's a challenge for someone else to take up.  The other thing I would have loved would havebeen to have interviewed a range of the women whopresented submissions to the Royal Commission on theStatus of Women. I interviewed the key lobbyist for thecommission (the late Laura Sabia), the chief commissioner(the late Florence Bird) and the director of research(Monique Bégin) but I wished there had been theopportunity to talk to the women who took part in theinquiry. I would have liked to ask them to talk more abouthow they thought at the time about questions ofemployment equality and child care. Finally, I did worry sometimes that the book itselfwould reinforce the idea that women should be responsiblefor child care. I hope if someone reads my book in onehundred years time that the whole question of child carewill not be so gendered and will be seen as a policy issueshaping parents' employment, be they men or women.

Interview with Annis May Timpson

https://journals.msvu.ca/index.php/atlantis/article/download/1168/1102

Interview with Annis May Timpson

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Journals @ The Mount