Government absurdities are like dandelions in the summer. They are everywhere and there are so many to choose from. But while dandelions are generally uniform, some government policies are so preposterous they stand out from all the rest. The Liberal government in Ottawa has just served up a splendid example. “A lack of access to menstrual products in men’s toilet rooms,” it says, “has raised concerns regarding washroom equity.” Thus the need for a regulatory proposal — stretching over 10,000 words and sponsored by no fewer than four government departments (Employment and Social Development, Indigenous Services, Natural Resources, and Transport) — to improve hygiene and accommodate trans-gender individuals in federally regulated workplaces.

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

Try refreshing your browser, or
tap here to see other videos from our team.

Matthew Lau: Ottawa’s woke plan for washroom equity Back to video

Under the proposed regulations, employers would be required to provide menstrual products “in each toilet room.” One product dispenser “is assumed to be purchased for each toilet room, regardless of gender, across all work sites under the control of large business employers in the federal jurisdiction,” the government’s proposal states. In addition to the dispensers the government would also “require one covered container for the disposal of menstrual products to be installed in every toilet compartment, in women’s, men’s, and gender-neutral toilet rooms. Therefore, these covered containers would be added to all toilet compartments (stalls) in men’s toilet rooms across the federal jurisdiction.”

The government claims its proposed regulations will not only improve sanitation but also help “build a more inclusive Canada,” address systemic inequities, make workers more productive, increase workplace safety, improve employees’ physical and psychological health, reduce discrimination against 2SLGBTQI+ communities, positively impact Indigenous workers, disproportionately benefit the poor, reduce gender-based discrimination and increase fairness and equality. Whether forcing federally regulated employers to put menstrual product dispensers in men’s washrooms will also serve to slow the pace of global warming, the government did not say. But you never know.

The government estimates the full cost of the regulations would be $116.6 million from 2024 to 2033. Included in the calculation are estimates of how much it would cost employers to purchase the products and provide and install containers for their disposal (which involves estimates of how long it takes to mark drill holes with a pencil, drill the holes and then fix the dispensers to the wall) and so on. Clearly, some significant effort went into producing the cost estimate. Nowhere in the calculation, however, was there mention of the cost to taxpayers of the bureaucrats, apparently spanning four government departments, who are paid to write 10,000 words of this stuff.

In drafting the regulations, the government has also provided an attempted accounting of the benefits. The regulations are supposed to yield monetary benefits to employees of $73.5 million, which actually implies a net loss of $43.1 million. However, on top of the monetary benefits, the government claims there would be qualitative benefits, such as reduced employee anxiety. That is certainly possible. On the other hand, it has not been widely documented that men employed at federally regulated workplaces would experience material reductions in anxiety from the installation of menstrual product dispensers and containers in their washrooms. More likely, they would wonder, upon seeing those things, whether they had misread the sign on the door. The regulations may therefore provoke more anxiety than they abate.

In reality, except as a make-work exercise for bureaucrats, cost-benefit analyses of workplace regulations such as this are of little value. Economics tells us a priori the regulations are a net loss. The standard economic assumption in competitive markets (such as the labour market) is that both parties to a transaction structure their agreements to maximize their joint surplus, and the competitive process ensures the gains are distributed to both sides. By distorting the compensation mix, government regulations requiring employers to provide certain amenities to employees reduce economic surplus and make both employers and employees worse off. That is especially so when the required amenities are products many employees do not value and cannot use.

There is, at bottom, no accounting for regulations compelling employers to put women’s products in men’s washrooms, except that the federal government is flamboyantly committed to demonstrating its wokeness and wasting everyone’s money. I read somewhere that dandelions, unsightly as they are, at least have lots of vitamins and can be used in salads and to make teas. Too bad woke government regulations, unlike the dandelions, have no saving graces.

Matthew Lau is a Toronto writer.