Status of Women Committee on June 14th, 2018

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Pam Damoff]

Welcome to meeting 109 of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. We're continuing our study on barriers facing women in politics.

Before we start, I'm just going to let you know that our report on the economic security of women was tabled earlier in the House by our chair, Ms. Vecchio, who is not able to be here this afternoon.

I'm pleased to welcome from Groupe Femmes, Politique et Démocratie, Thérèse Mailloux, chair of the board of directors, and Esther Lapointe; and as individuals, we have the Honourable Joanne Bernard and the Honourable Deborah Grey.

I'd like to welcome you all.

I will now turn the floor over to you, Madame Mailloux, for your opening statement, for seven minutes.

[Thérèse Mailloux, Chair, Board of directors , Groupe Femmes, Politique et Démocratie]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Groupe femmes, politiques et democratie would like to thank the House Standing Committee on the Status of Women for this invitation.

The underrepresentation of women in positions of influence and power is at the very heart of our group's mission. In addition to its education and training mandate, the group has been actively working to promote parity among political parties and elected officials in Quebec for a few years. For the past three years in the month of April—the month that women won the right to vote in Quebec—, it has organized activities at the National Assembly. First, it launched the March for Parity movement, in 2016; then it formed a coalition of Partners for Parity, in 2017; met each party leader before the upcoming election; and lastly officially submitted a parity bill in 2018.

The March for Parity now brings together 20 Partners for Parity organizations, which represent close to 500 organizations and 1.3 million people who are committed to supporting all steps toward parity and who are calling for a law to guarantee parity between men and women in all public decision-making bodies.

These actions have borne fruit. In April 2018, the National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion affirming, roughly translated:

That the National Assembly is committed to making parity an objective in all sectors of society;

For the upcoming elections on October 1, 2018, the leaders of the political parties have also committed to nominating female candidates to achieve 40/60 parity or as close to that as possible. Public opinion has often come out in favour of parity among political candidates during these events. For example, in mid-April, 69% of respondents in a Léger-Le Devoir survey said they believed that political parties should have as many female candidates as male candidates.

Systemic and structural factors impede women's access to politics by creating invisible barriers. Chief among the barriers—the greatest, we think—are the political parties' recruitment and selection processes. The world of politics has always been dominated by men who tend to replicate the system by recruiting candidates from their networks, using methods that are not suited to women, and operating with bias and prejudices. In order for women to achieve full parity, the rules of the game have to be changed and room has to be made in an arena that is much sought after by men. Responsibility for this change cannot rest solely on women or on so-called natural progress.

We believe that the political parties should be required to deliver results: they should be legally required to field an equal number of female and male candidates. That way, after an election, the number of elected representatives would be in the parity zone, between 40% and 60%, or ideally between 45% and 55% for both sexes. To bring about this change and field a balanced candidate list, the political parties could temporarily be given additional financial resources in order to take concrete steps well in advance of election periods.

The first-past-the-post voting system is not a barrier to parity. Numerous experts have pointed out that several strategies can be used, and have been used effectively under the current voting system to increase the number of female candidates.

Just as important as parity in the legislative branch, women must also achieve parity in the government, the executive branch, in light of the important policy decisions made there, particularly in the choice, presentation, and implementation of laws, policies and programs.

While there have been cabinets with parity in Quebec, other provinces, and in the House of Commons, this of course is an individual decision that can be revoked at any time. We therefore recommend that the principle of parity in cabinet be immediately established in law.

In our opinion, substantially and quickly increasing the number of women in legislative assemblies is the most powerful driver in achieving true equality between men and women. This is the only way to bring about the other changes that are needed, such as a respectful culture, reducing harassment, hostile confrontations, and ultimately changing rules such as absolute party discipline. It is thanks to the few female MPs in office, with the help of some male allies, that some improvements to the schedule and the parliamentary calendar have been made.

Once women achieve parity, they will also implement or perfect policies and measures to create an environment that is conducive to their participation, in particular to promote their work-life balance.

In conclusion, experiences around the world show us that there are long-term solutions to the underrepresentation of women in politics. They involve restrictive measures, whether they are called quotas or parity legislation. The political parties hold the key to this transformation, however, since they are the ones that select and recruit female candidates, and also form governments and adopt laws.

Success depends on their commitment, and most of the time this does not occur without the impetus of and pressure from the public and the women's movement. That is our collective challenge, we maintain, for everyone, both women and men, from all backgrounds and all parts of society: to make parity between men and women an essential condition for the democratic exercise of power and governance.

Thank you.

We will be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Pam Damoff]

Thank you very much.

We're now going to turn to Ms. Bernard, for seven minutes.

[Joanne Bernard, As an Individual]

Thank you.

I don't have a word written down, because I've lived it for the last three and a half years.

I came into politics on the cusp of my 50th birthday. I had wanted to put my name on a ballot since the age of eight. At the age of eight, I wrote then-minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau to complain about the seal hunt. About three weeks later, I received a letter back, in my eight-year-old mind from him personally, but we all know it was from a staffer. However, at that point in time, I made a decision that some day, in some way, shape, or form, I was going to run politically. I didn't know what level of government it was going to be. I knew it was going to be more than the head girl status that I achieved at age 15.

I grew up and I went on and became a single mom for nine years, raising my son on income assistance while attending university: first, Mount Saint Vincent University, and then my master's at Acadia University. Both of those degrees were in political science because I still had that dream.

Then I moved on to the women's community and had a great career assisting women leaving domestic violence, helping young children who were witnesses to violence in the home, and gaining a reputation nationally through the Donner Foundation for my work in the non-profit sector.

At age 49, I ran for politics. I didn't know anyone in the riding association. I had not been approached. I had been sort of vetted by a couple of colleagues in the Liberal Party of Nova Scotia who were elected women at that time, two of the elected women in that party. I was mentored. I made a point of going out and speaking to Mary Clancy, and to Diana Whalen and Kelly Regan, and just getting their experiences. I tell you, the one that scared me the most, of course, was Mary's. Whether or not you agree with her politics, it was the first indication of what I might come up against as a woman in politics.

I won the nomination on February 2, 2012, and ran a campaign in September 2013. The first hint of what my life might be like if I won was founded on the campaign trail, because I had done tremendous work before that and I put it in my bio, as every one of us here has. I put in one sentence that caught the attention of someone in my riding. That sentence said, “married to Annette, mother of an adult son Taylor, and mother of five adopted cats”. It wasn't the cats and it wasn't Taylor that brought the ire of the piece of hate mail to my desk as a candidate in 2013, it was the fact that I was married to Annette.

I received a piece of mail, beautifully written in what I assumed was a feminine font but I can't be sure, and she or he told me quite clearly, “You had my vote until I read that sentence.” I took that piece of hate mail, which I had never really experienced before, although I certainly knew that homophobia was out there, and I did a positive tweet that night addressing it. Huffington Post picked it up, and I was able to turn something very negative into something very positive.

The night before October 8, 2013, I went to bed as a fine, upstanding leader in my community, and on October 8, 2013, went to bed as someone who was in it for myself, a thief, not there for the people. Overnight it changed. I wasn't the only one to experience it, but then I got appointed to a very volatile portfolio: community services. Any community services minister across Canada will tell you it is a very volatile portfolio, because you're dealing very intimately with people when they are at the very worst time of their lives. As someone who had taken advantages of the services of the department that I then led, the expectations for me were very high.

The sexism, misogyny, and homophobia that ensued over the months after coming into office took a tremendous toll on me. It took a tremendous toll on my partner and my son. My son at that time was 23. The first negative tweet that he saw, he took himself off social media, and then he stayed off and has stayed off because it still continues to this day. I will once in a while get a troll, but certainly not in the way it was.

I have been very vocal over the last three and a half or four years about what I've faced in homophobia, on which I took a very public stand in July 2015. I went very public on the six o'clock news about what I as a cabinet minister was experiencing. I can only imagine what's happening in our streets and our rural areas of Nova Scotia, if I was subjected to this. I was getting weekly calls in my constituency office, in my caucus office, and in my department office. The misogyny and the words that were directed at me....

Then you start to see it coming out in the Rachel Notleys of the world, in Kathleen Wynne, in Cathy Bennett, Rochelle Squires, in Saskatchewan. We all started talking to each other and saying we needed to tell our stories. So we did, and we started.

It's been well documented from one end of the country to the other, the cyber-bullying and the violence against women in the form of social media that has taken place in this country. It was to the point where, as a female minister, I was reticent in telling younger women to run for office. I quickly, thankfully, got over that, and just have said, “Eyes wide open, always. Do not ever let anyone tell you to get a thick skin, because that is condoning violence against women. The minute those attacks do not affect you in any way, shape, or form is the day to walk away from politics. It's as simple as that.”

I was not re-elected in May of 2017, but I'm free of the political and partisan chains that I had. I do come out and talk about my experiences, and in some way, shape, or form hope that it helps the next generation of women politicians behind me.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Pam Damoff]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Grey, we look forward to your presentation. You have seven minutes.

[Deborah Grey, As an Individual]

Thank you very much.

It's good to be back on the Hill. It seems pretty funny to be sitting on this side of the table. Rather than being the griller, I am the grilled. I want to congratulate all of you on your election. It's an incredible opportunity that few get to experience, that's for sure.

I was raised in Vancouver by a single mom in the sixties. My father was a drunk, so I understand that and the pain that goes with it. I appreciate having a fabulous role model in my mother. It's just so good.

As for barriers for women in politics, it's interesting. I probably don't see it the way many of you do. I will talk about my experiences, of course.

I was on the plane coming down here with a women who is a professional accountant. She had her eight-year-old boy with her and she was, as she said, “ditching him off” to her mother, because she had two weeks of work. She's a professional accountant and she travels.

I'd say that is a barrier for women but not necessarily in politics. There are professional women, as you know, on the planes all the time. It's difficult for them to look after their family and make sure they're all well cared for.

I was elected the first Reform Party member of Parliament on March 13, 1989. I made Canadian history. I served as Canada's first female leader of the official opposition in 2000 and made Canadian history again. It was a surprise to me for sure, and my mother was stunned by it as well.

Barriers? There were. But as someone told me also on the plane the other day, “I guess you broke through them, Deb, somehow.” And I did. That was what I knew. I spent almost 15 and a half years here as an MP. After four terms, I left on June 28, 2004, at the top of my game. I didn't want to be ushered out by the voters. That was the best way for me to go out.

I've now been out almost as long as I was in. Let me assure and comfort you all that there is life after politics, and it is good. I still do some speaking, but I'm happily semi-retired and living on Vancouver Island. I'm still riding my motorcycle, for those who want to know. I'm about to celebrate my 25th wedding anniversary in August.

I would like to tell you something about me as a woman today—what I am, what I am not—and about how I view barriers.

As to what I am, I am capable. I happen to be a woman, but I earned two university degrees. I taught school for a decade. I served here for a decade and a half. I juggled foster kids, marriage, stepchildren, and a career on the road. As you know, I was at the opposite end of the country.

I dealt with people who opposed me at every turn—Joanne, it is no fun—but as a capable woman, I learned to juggle, as many of you have. I don't do stress; I do life. That's what we call it.

Two, I'm competitive. If I play Scrabble or crib with you, I will play to the death.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Deborah Grey]

I will. I love to win.

I don't mind losing, either. That probably suits us fairly well in federal life. If you are competitive, you are able to handle these things of nominations and getting elected. Women are often criticized for being competitive or assertive. They—whoever “they” are—have a word for that, but I won't say it now.

My philosophy is DSI—“don't sweat it”—because you know what? If you get offended and spend your life offended, I don't think you'll accomplish a whole lot. Nellie McClung, one of the Famous Five, said, “Never retreat, never explain, never apologize. Get the thing done and let them howl.”

Three, I am committed. I am committed to serving, to encouraging, and to mentoring, a gift that we have been given as women. Yes, I believe men and women have different gifts and different strengths. You can't run and cry, because you know what they'll say, at the first sign of danger or defeat. My job as a woman is to see it through, get it done, help a constituent, fight for my marriage, and spoil my grandbabies.

Here is what I am not. I'm not a victim because I am a woman. I can stand on my own two feet. I have two feet. I can stand on them. I can fight my own battles and my own campaigns. Give me a playing field and I'll go toe to toe with anyone. Don't pity me, because if you do, I'll pity you for pitying me. We don't need pity as women.

Secondly, I am not a percentage or a number. Yes, I'm a woman. Yes, we happen to be 50% of the population, but I don't want to be on a quota system and have somebody say, “There's Deb Grey. She got elected because she was a woman.”

If anyone introduced me to someone and said, “Please vote for Deb because she's a woman”, they would see my south end going north. I actually don't want any part of that.

Let me tell you a real barrier to women—and some men—in politics: to be told by a man, no less, that I am unfit for public office because I happen to believe in religious freedom, because I happen to be pro-life. You know what? I am not unfit for public office, as a woman, clearly. I served four terms.

Do you know who should decide that, and the only ones who should decide whether I'm fit or unfit for public office? It's the voters. They should decide if I'm good enough to be in public office, and—you know what—I guess I was.

Thank you.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Pam Damoff]

Thank you very much to all of you.

We are going to start our round of questions.

Emmanuella, you have seven minutes.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

I'd like to thank the witnesses.

I will begin with you, Ms. Mailloux.

You said that the parties hold the key to achieving parity at all levels of government. You talked about quotas, but is there something else the political parties could do to achieve parity?

[Thérèse Mailloux]

Of course.

The Groupe femmes, politique et démocratie has been working on all kinds of other solutions for 20 years now. We conduct training, civic education, and general awareness activities. We have been doing that for 20 years, but the numbers have not changed.

In Quebec, the number of female representatives has not changed in 15 years. It climbed to 32%, but then fell back down to 27%. It is currently 29.6%, which is under the 30% mark. It seems we can never get over the 30% mark, despite the efforts of our group and other stakeholders in Quebec.

For several years, the government has invested in all kinds of programs. For instance, we have regional tables in each region that work hard to increase the representation of women in municipal elections. Grants are also provided to municipal groups to promote the election of more women in all municipal elections.

We are not the only ones saying this. It is documented in the literature, so stronger measures are needed, something with teeth, whether that means quotas, parity laws or financial incentives. I know this is not the case throughout Canada, but in Quebec, political parties are 75% publicly funded. The political parties are directly funded by taxpayers' dollars. So we can wonder whether fair or equal representation should not in turn be an obligation.

In short, we see a range of solutions, but the real driver is exerting pressure on the political parties. In Quebec, we are preparing for a general election to be held in early October. Our group has worked very hard to make the various political parties aware that parity is essential. The discussion about parity is quite lively in Quebec these days, I have to say. There were municipal elections. A woman was elected mayor of Montreal and several other women were elected mayors of major cities. There is parity on municipal council of major cities such as Quebec and Montreal.

The timing is very good to exert pressure on the political parties. According to the latest of figures, 48% of candidates are women. There is no law, but there has been tremendous pressure on the political parties. From now on, these parties will consider that they are missing out if they don't have enough women on their team.

What we are trying to say here is that exerting pressure on political parties can produce change.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Ms. Bernard and Ms. Grey, first of all, it was really inspiring to hear you speak, very motivational. As a young woman, the youngest one in my party, I face a lot of the things that you described, and I try to have the mentality that you have, although sometimes it's not that easy.

I know that each of you ran. You're more recent, but you were active in political life a while back, so things have changed, I guess, in society since then.

Do you find that women were as engaged as men at the ground level or the grassroots level, or do you find that men were really over-represented as volunteers, in organizing campaigns, and in political life?

[Joanne Bernard]

What I have found—and it hasn't changed much since I did a paper on that very topic back in the early 2000s—is that women are the envelope stuffers, the bakers, and the organizers of the events. When it comes to policy decisions, in a lot of the riding associations that I have seen, there are some women but predominantly it is men.

I believe that is slowly changing. I think that the more women get elected and end their careers, whether they want to or not, the more they will circle back, bring the next generation up with them, and really be able to affect change within the grassroots system, which one hopes will translate to the political system as well.

[Deborah Grey]

Yes, I was here a long time ago, from 1989 until 2004. You might think that was way long ago. It is way long ago, but I had the best woman campaign manager. I would set her against anybody and be scared of her. She was tremendous.

I think that if you have that confidence.... You said that it was easy. I can assure you it wasn't easy all the time. Lots of times it's very difficult, here especially.

I have to say, I sat in the House with Mary Clancy forever. She was vicious to me. Could I say that again? Women are vicious to other women. I liked Mary. I had no problem with her. I sat with Alexa from there, but boy, I'll tell you, girl fights are ugly.

I want the best people for the job, whether they're running my campaign or whatever. I pretty well don't see whether they're male or female, or say that I want a woman here or a man there. I think women are coming forward more. Again, I want them to be capable. We say that men will run the show a lot of the time. What I find is—

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Pam Damoff]

That is your time. I'm sorry.

[Deborah Grey]

Thank you.

You need to work with everyone.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Pam Damoff]

Thank you.

We're now going to go to our Conservative colleagues for seven minutes.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you so much to each and every one of you for being here.

Deb, I'm going to start with you. You won your first by-election in 1989, and then, of course, you served faithfully until 2004. That's quite the career. Then, of course, as you mentioned, you set some history along the way. Notably, you were the first female leader of the official opposition. I want to congratulate you on that and thank you for making an incredible path forward for those of us who get to follow in your footsteps.

In your opening remarks, you talked about quotas. One of the conversations that I've had with women, or one of the things that I've been told by them, is that when they get to the boardroom table, let's say, just to pick that as a scenario, the men don't wonder why they got there. They got there because of merit. The women around the table, however, wonder whether they got there because there was a quota put in place that allowed them to be there because of their gender or whether they got there based on merit. The quota actually breeds insecurity among the women at the table.

Further to this, the men are able to use this as an opportunity to attack the women or to question their credentials or why they are at the table. They're able to say to their female colleagues, “You're here because you're a woman. What do you actually know?”

There are these types of comments and festering that takes place, if you will. Can you comment further on why you believe quotas are actually to the disadvantage of women?

[Deborah Grey]

I think I addressed that briefly by saying that I'm not a number. I'm not a percentage, so if anybody sees me as somebody...they might always wonder whether I got there just because I'm a woman. I don't want any part of that.

I have worked with incredibly capable women over the years. It's not for me to ask how they got there. It's for them to show me how they got there. It doesn't take long to spot somebody who's competent.

I'd say that if there's anyone who has difficulties with that as a woman, she needs to show, not tell everyone that she got there because she is a woman, but show that she is competent and that's exactly why she is there. If she's not, she may not last long, but competence is for me the absolute bottom line on some things.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Deb, if we don't use quotas, then are there other mechanisms by which we as women can overcome the barriers that are presented?

[Deborah Grey]

I think they can do that by being confident and not being afraid to put their names forward. Joanne said that when she was eight years old she thought about doing this all the way. Shannon Stubbs, who worked in my constituency office ages ago, was somebody who knew what she was doing. I look at her, after mentoring her for years, and now she's a member of Parliament, and I'm grateful for that.

But what she needed to show me, and what everyone needs to show me, is that she's not a number, she's not a percentage, she's not a “woman” but she's really darned good at what she does. I want to be able to see that. People just have to put their names forward and have the confidence to say, “Do you know what? I'm going to put my name out.” It's scary for men and women. I think it is, because everyone's going to judge you and you're just public all the time.

So be confident, go for it, and the voters will decide.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Deb, you were in this place for quite some time and you were able to observe what took place here and what positive representation looked like and maybe what not such great representation looked like. Can you comment on diversity? Should this place, the House of Commons, be open to women who come from various points of view, various faiths, various backgrounds, and various socio-economic situations, or should it just be one type of woman who runs to be in this place, to represent her constituents?

[Deborah Grey]

I'd say the broader the base, the more fabulous it is, because of what Canada is. Joanne and I were just saying that I live at one ocean and she lives at the other. There's a whole lot of space in between and a whole lot of incredible people in between. I think we need to be able to say that we want all kinds of women, all kinds of very diverse backgrounds. Bring us your point of view, because that's what this place is. It's just nothing more than a great big place where we share everybody's points of view.

Through respect, I think it's wonderful to be able to reach out, but not put a number on it and to encourage people by saying, “Put your name on the list. Let's see what you can do and see if you have the backing of the people for nomination, and then in the general election.” Don't put them, as women, in some riding they don't have a hope of winning. That's pathetic to me, when they say, “Look at all the women we ran.” They didn't have a hope of getting elected, but we put them on there and we look virtuous. No. Put capable women in from all backgrounds, and then we're able to share and make this country a much better place.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Deb.

You opened up your remarks by saying, “This is what I am and this is what I am not.” That leads into my question. What are the qualifying factors for being a successful member of Parliament? If I need to qualify that by saying “successful female member of Parliament”, then so be it. I leave that to your discussion.