Electoral Reform Committee on Oct. 6th, 2016

[Jane Ledwell]

Most things in electoral reform discussions in Prince Edward Island stem from things that we've witnessed and seen very directly in our small community and that affect people. There were specific incidents in the last election. There were women who were running who didn't fit into the traditional categories. They didn't look like politicians on P.E.I. Most politicians on P.E.I. have looked fairly white, fairly male, fairly middle-aged and older. This is not an unfamiliar scenario.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

It certainly doesn't apply to the four Liberal members of Parliament for P.E.I. at the moment, does it? No, never mind. Go ahead.

[Jane Ledwell]

No comment.

We had some really interesting things happen in the campaign. A really positive example was a woman with a disability who was running for the NDP, and she and a woman who was running for the Green Party held joint campaign events that people could come to, in accessible locations. They did some really interesting collaborative things on the campaign that first past the post discourages, or certainly doesn't incentivize. We also had specific racial and gendered slurs against a woman from the Mi'kmaq community who was running for the NDP, in this case for elected office.

Those individual stories and real experiences that affect real people as candidates focus our attention on the necessity to decrease negative campaigning. In addition, we know that negative campaigning for women looks different from negative campaigning for men. We can see this very clearly in the subtle dynamics, not to mention the less-than-subtle dynamics, in the presidential campaign in the United States where we have a very stark difference between a female presidential candidate and a male presidential candidate.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

This is is the nature of the debate that I'm having, and you'll probably find out soon who raises it most. But we know that statistically, empirically, there's no gainsaying that there's a higher proportion of women elected in countries that use proportional representation. But then you also get academics who say, which is true, “Well, we don't know there's any causality, it might be a coincidence”.

I always think the example of Australia is very helpful, because if it's cultural and societal that PR countries elect more women, then you look at Australia where for the house in Australia, which uses a majoritarian system of ranked ballots, they have 26.7% women. But in the same country, where they elect their senate using a single transferrable vote PR, they have 38% women.

How would you explain this? We don't have academic literature that says there's causality between moving to PR and electing more women. But what does your analysis tell you about these differences?

[Jane Ledwell]

I think our focus was on the nomination process, because we've seen the nomination process as the biggest barrier to women getting elected. Getting the nomination is harder than being elected. When women are elected, their fortunes rise and fall in measure with the parties that they represent, so it shows that people aren't discriminating against women at the polls.

However, there are some of the proportional systems, particularly those that have some process of creating a list, that take us beyond selecting candidates district by district without a quota that is imposed. It's very hard to kind of influence one district to the next to get a half and half split at the end, because each of those contests is independent, each of those decisions is based on independent factors. When you're creating a list, there's an opportunity for positive pressure to include more women, to include more diversity. The pressure is at the door. The whole party is going to have to account for it if you have only a few women on your list. The whole party is going to account for it if you don't have enough rural representatives on that list, or if you have too many from one language group. All of these create some positive pressure to create diversity.

We have lists now, under the first-past-the-post system. We don't write names on ballots. We create a list, one by one, district by district, and party by party, without having any structures that allow for a broader consideration without imposing quotas.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Romanado.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

I wasn't going to go there, but—

It's a real pleasure to have the three of you here. I'm going to preface my comments because every time I ask a question, Twitter goes crazy and they assume the worst, but I have to ask the question.

In Parliament, only 26% of members are women. I absolutely want to see more women run for office at all levels of government. I don't want barriers for those with disabilities or minority groups. I'm just prefacing all of that.

That said, as we mentioned, Ms. Ledwell, the biggest barrier for women is the nomination process. When we get that nomination, when we're one of the candidates, we win—I'm living proof of that—but it's getting that nomination. Getting that nomination has nothing to do with the electoral system, the way we vote; it has to do with parties. Right? You mentioned that. You talked about incentivizing parties to run more women candidates.

We talked a bit about legislated quota requirements, financial incentives, and direct supports to candidates. You mentioned something about day care expenses. Actually, day care expenses are an allowable expense through Elections Canada, as are expenses for those who have a disability. I just want to clarify that.

[Jane Ledwell]

But not Elections P.E.I.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

I don't control Elections PEI; I control elections federally. Well, I don't control them, but we're talking about elections federally. There are incentives to have more women run, so that's there.

In terms of getting more women elected, we talked about PR countries having more women elected. PR supports more smaller parties, smaller parties run more women as candidates, ergo there would be more women. What if we were to just have a quota system whereby all parties must run an equal amount of women or visible minorities? Wouldn't we then say we would increase our number of women in Parliament?

I'm playing devil's advocate because I'm trying to get women to run and I don't want them to think it's only an election system that's going to stop them, but that they can win.

[Jane Ledwell]

I'm going to let Marcia and Marie comment on this, because I think they have a lot of wisdom to share as well.

I'll just say, worldwide, the best practice is the legislated quota. If you can develop an appetite among your colleagues, among Canadians, and among Prince Edward Islanders for a legislated quota, go for it.

[Marcia Carroll]

If you only create incentives within the current system, Canada is still working within an archaic system that was created in medieval times, and I for one would like to believe we've evolved beyond that.

If we're just creating incentives, it's still a winner-loser mentality. We're not creating an atmosphere of collaboration.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

I'm going to ask you a question. If there are five candidates in a riding, all women, even in proportional representation not all five are going to win.

[Marcia Carroll]

No, not all five are going to win.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

There's going to be a loser there. I don't want to call them a loser, but someone will lose the election. Right?

[Marcia Carroll]

Not necessarily. Somebody will be the person chosen to represent the popular vote. We have to move away from winning and losing. We have to understand, and politicians need to understand, you're not there to win or lose, you're there to take—

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

We're there to represent.

[Marcia Carroll]

You're there to represent. If the majority of the popular vote says, “I don't want you to represent me”, then you have to accept that. It's semantics. I guess we could say “winning” or “losing”, but it really isn't about a win or lose mentality, it's about representation and a diversity of voices.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

I agree with diversity. I'm trying not to argue, but I want to make sure that we all understand, that we're all talking about the same thing.

For every single one of us who was elected, regardless of how many people voted for us or didn't vote for us, when a citizen walks through that door to talk to us, we represent them, regardless. We don't even ask, “Did you vote for me?” I don't want to know. Everyone is represented. It may not be the person who you voted for, but you do get represented.

[Marcia Carroll]

I would strongly argue with that.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

You would?

[Marcia Carroll]

Yes, I would.

[Marie Burge]

I would also.

[Marcia Carroll]

I think actually that's quite a naive notion.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Do you really feel that?

[Marcia Carroll]

I sincerely feel that.