Hear, hear!
Evidence of meeting #27 for Electoral Reform in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was women.
Evidence of meeting #27 for Electoral Reform in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was women.
4:30 p.m.
Voices
Hear, hear!
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Having said all that, I have listened in to some of what you've said, and I just have a question for Professor Stephenson in particular.
You made reference to a study. Have you submitted that study to the clerks?
4:35 p.m.
As an Individual
I have not. It is not yet fully accepted for publication. It's in the second stage of things. It's out there in working paper form.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Does that mean that the evidence is there? You've been referring to it, so I assume it is. Are you able to share any part of the working paper with us? Is that permissible under your publication rules?
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
In that case, could I ask you to submit it? It sounds like very interesting evidence.
I have, personally speaking, a prejudice in favour of open lists and against closed lists for other reasons. I don't like the idea of party bosses having control, however good their motivations may be, over who gets chosen. I think it's better to have a system that is more free and open. Therefore, anything that moves us in that direction, as we look for some sort of list system as a possible partial replacement for the current system, is something that I want to encourage. Your evidence would help in that regard.
I did hear reference as well—again, I apologize for not knowing the whole context—to a model that had been proposed, I gather, by former Prime Minister Campbell. Is that right? I have not heard of this before. But I gather that each riding under this model would have one female and one male member of Parliament.
4:35 p.m.
Fellow, School of Public Policy and Governance, University of Toronto
Correct.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Is the idea that they would run as male-female teams, or is the idea that you would have a male-only candidates' race and then a separate female-only candidates' race? Those are the only two alternatives I can think of that would actually guarantee you'd have an outcome where there's one female and one male candidate. There's no way of doing it otherwise, at least that I can think of.
4:35 p.m.
Fellow, School of Public Policy and Governance, University of Toronto
Correct. I think the idea is that there is a male list and there is a female list and that all citizens vote for someone on the male list and someone on the female list. So all citizens have two votes.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Sorry, are they lists? The impression I got was that it's not really a list system, but that it's ridings, each with two members of Parliament. Effectively, they're either on tickets or they're separate races and two ballots.
4:35 p.m.
Fellow, School of Public Policy and Governance, University of Toronto
They're separate races. There is a race for the female candidate, and there is a race for the male candidate. People vote for both. You have two votes and you have two representatives elected: you have a male representative and a female representative. I'm pretty confident that's the model that she has described.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Thank you very much. I am delighted to have an all-female panel, and I just have to highlight that the government side of this committee did name two women MPs to this committee.
I hear a lot of testimony where folks claim that it is the electoral system that prevents women from running. No one has ever asked me, “Why did you run? How did you win?” I can guarantee that first past the post, MMP, or whatever had nothing to do with my decision to run for office, nor did it have anything to do with my winning. It was hard work; it was grit. I ran in my home riding, which was never going to go Anglo-Liberal, but I did it. I proved them wrong. I worked hard, and I did it.
As for the comment about the military, well, as the mother of two sons currently serving in the Canadian Armed Forces, I am also sitting on the national defence committee, so I can guarantee you that military spending is top of mind for me as well.
My point is that I really do not believe that our electoral system, the way we vote, has anything to do with women pursuing public office or winning. If we want to have more people, regardless of whether it is women or families with young children...we heard testimony that it is geography, location. If you live in B.C., flying 10 hours to get to Ottawa, twice a week, back and forth, has a huge impact on work-life balance. The fact that there is no maternity leave for women serving in the House of Commons is a problem. The fact that we only now have put in a day care is a problem. It has nothing to do with first past the post. In fact, I loved the competition: bring it.
I want to make sure we clarify that it has nothing to do with the voting system. I firmly believe that. If we keep trying to blame the voting system for it, we are never going to address the real problems.
I would like to get your ideas on this, because we heard testimony from Melanee Thomas that it has nothing to do with it. I would love to hear your feedback on that.
4:40 p.m.
Fellow, School of Public Policy and Governance, University of Toronto
I think the research is pretty convincing. If you look at the top countries in the world, they don't have our system. Almost all of them have some sort of PR or mixed system.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
[Inaudible—Editor] mentioned that 25% of seats are held by women in PR systems. We are at 26%. We are not doing too bad then.
4:40 p.m.
Fellow, School of Public Policy and Governance, University of Toronto
Well, look at the countries at the top of the list. They are all PR or mixed systems.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
What are their social programs? How is their House of Representatives? Do they have maternity leave? Do they have all those other things that motivate or support women in politics? We need to look at all the factors, and I don't want to put a pair of blinders on for that.
4:40 p.m.
Fellow, School of Public Policy and Governance, University of Toronto
You are making a good point, but I always go back to the research, which shows that these systems tend to do better, and also—
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Did you check with Canadian women politicians here in Canada? Did you ask us? No one has ever asked me.
4:40 p.m.
Fellow, School of Public Policy and Governance, University of Toronto
You are talking about geography. Women don't actually do any better in the small provinces. If you look at P.E.I., Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick, women don't do well, and the distances are like small compared to travelling to Ottawa. I don't think it is related to travel.
I think women are there, and they are interested in running. So many political scientists have talked about the importance of the characteristics of the system as being a factor in this. I mentioned quotas earlier, and they are also a factor. They encourage women, because they set numbers for women to take spots in their Parliament.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
—so the quota system.... We had enough women running. The fact that they didn't win is another issue, but we had enough women running.
4:40 p.m.
Fellow, School of Public Policy and Governance, University of Toronto
They didn't win because they weren't running for parties in winnable ridings.
