One of them is definitely that if you impose a quota, without question it sends an important message as to the importance of gender equity and makes it clear that the government is committed to this particular issue.
I would also say quotas don't have to last forever. They could be short-lived depending on how effective they become and how quickly they become effective.
I would get to another element of your question, which was why it has taken so long. I would argue one of the reasons why it has taken so long is that the responsibility for improving it has fallen on a very small number of parties that are committed to gender equity but at many levels of government tend not to be the strongest parties, and so tend not to get elected, and so that is one of the consequences of it.
I think it's also the case that we've relied for the most part on those individuals who have structural and situational barriers to their actually getting to the position of election. We're relying on women to do it as opposed to the demanders of nominees. We're relying on the supply, which is the women and the very ones who have those barriers in place. We're waiting for them to somehow magically come forward when we know it's not a level playing field for women and men in politics. This is the problem.
When you have riding presidents saying we have one woman who's the leader of the party and we don't really need any others, this isn't true. This is an issue, and I think adopting a quota, while it is strong and might be easier to implement than some other things like changing our electoral system, which we know is not going to happen—we've tried a number of times—could potentially have a great impact in sending that message, but also in helping all parties see that this is an important thing to be doing.
Although I respect your point, I don't think we should be foisting that responsibility on third parties. I think political parties have the responsibility to ensure women are elected, to ensure a good diversity of individuals are elected. I think it's parties that can, as we've seen in the past. When they desire it, they can get it done, so I think it's parties that should have this responsibility. But, again, I don't think it needs to be punitive. I think it can be a financial incentive that's put in place to help parties.
I know Sarah Childs and Rosie Campbell gave you the example in the U.K., and I think that's an important one to look to. It does have some possibilities here, but it has to be a Canadian quota, something that works here. We don't have to call it a quota. The Abella report called it employment equity, didn't want to call it affirmative action. So give it a different name, but make it clear that it's a priority.