HAFF Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, November 22, 1999

• 1536

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): Colleagues, I see a quorum. I call the meeting to order.

We are continuing our consideration of Bill C-2, the Canada Elections Act. Before we get into that, we have one minor business item, which I think we can knock off very quickly.

As you're aware, we are required to adopt a budget, which is forwarded on to the liaison budget subcommittee for approval by the House. You have in front of you our draft budget. You will see it is a budget totalling $14,300, the greatest part of which relates to witness expenses. There are other expenses, including meeting expenses, shown in there. The total is $14,300. Are there any questions or discussion? I see none.

I'll take a motion to adopt.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): I so move.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Bergeron?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Thank you for your boundless enthusiasm, Mr. Chairman. I'd simply like to know the reason why we have before us today this budget which hasn't even been examined yet by the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. Perhaps this is exceptional case. If so, I'd appreciate confirmation of that fact.

[English]

The Chairman: There's nothing unusual about the budget, unless you're interested in the travel costs of Canadians by normal means. It's a very small budget relative to other committees. Two-thirds of the budget is comprised of witness expenses.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): I'd just point out that $14,300 from now until March 31, 2000 is very small.

The Chairman: The point has been made. It's a very small budget.

Is there any other discussion?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, the issue isn't whether the budget is important or not. It's a question of principle. We could be talking about a $500 budget. It would make no difference.

Shouldn't the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure have had a look at this budget before it was presented to the standing committee? That's what I'm asking you.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Bergeron, you believe this routine budget should have been taken up at budget subcommittee. This is an annual exercise. There is nothing extraordinary, out of the ordinary, or out of routine in the budget. It is composed of two items.

I have no doubt that throughout the course of the year, there may be the need for us to go back to the budget subcommittee with requests for additional supplementary budget, but this is the... I can only describe it as a very basic budget that will take us to the end of the fiscal year. It's a short fiscal year because of the prorogation, so it's essentially five months' worth of budget.

• 1540

Mr. Bergeron, if you feel strongly about having the steering committee discuss the issue of whether or not we should proceed to adopt the budget, and if there's a consensus, we could refer it. I really strongly suggest to you, though, that it is a routine budget that can be passed in very short order here, and we can then get on with the rest of our business.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, as I see it, we've been presented this afternoon with a fait accompli. It would be rather complicated to take this budget, now that it is before the committee, and ask that it be referred back to the sub-committee which would then send it back to the standing committee. What's done is done. Let's review it and quickly move on to hear from our witnesses.

[English]

Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Call the question.

The Chairman: Mr. Bergeron, if you have an intervention, I've invited you to stake out your ground on this. If there is a matter of substance, colleagues might be prepared to hear it. In any event, the question has been called. I take your point that the steering committee of this committee has not discussed this, but the question has been put.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: We'll now get back to our main item of business, which is witnesses on Bill C-2.

Colleagues, we have a slightly out of the ordinary procedure here today. We have one witness who will be joining us by teleconference.

Madam Clerk, where is the witness located?

The Clerk of the Committee: She's located in Sudbury.

The Chairman: She's located in Sudbury, and she will be joining us by telephone line. We may therefore communicate with her through the telephone line. There's no video-conference, and there's no video. In order to pick her up, we would listen and communicate through the earpiece and with the microphone here.

Mr. Bonin.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Mr. Chair, I'd like to remind the committee and those who organized these sessions that Sudbury and its region are very well equipped with video-conferencing equipment. Contact North is established in Sudbury, and the local community college does the most distance education by video in Canada. I'd just like to remind the people of Ottawa that we do have the technology in northern Ontario, and we take a bit of offence at doing things by telephone when we have such excellent equipment to do it by video.

The Chairman: Yes, our colleagues are aware that Sudbury is a very high-tech, plugged-in city.

Madam Clerk, could you explain to Mr. Bonin and the good people of Sudbury why we're not able to use video-conferencing today?

The Clerk: We were simply unable to get it set up in the short period of time we had, Mr. Bonin. We would have gone with the video-conference except for that. It was on our end, not the Sudbury end.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: In the future, give me two hours and I'll set it up for you.

The Chairman: Yes, it just might be useful to check with the local MPs sometimes. They often know their way around locally a lot better than some of us do.

A voice: Hear, hear.

The Chairman: We regret that we believed we did not have sufficient time to arrange video-conferencing, but we won't make that mistake again.

Are there any other questions before we proceed? Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): I'd just like to make the observation that the fact that the member is embracing technology indicates to me he'll probably vote for my amendment to put electronic voting in the Elections Act.

A voice: Hear, hear.

The Chairman: Hope reigns supreme, Mr. White, and that is the order of the day.

Can we confirm that Miss Proulx is on-line?

Ms. Rachel Proulx (President, Canadian Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs): Yes, I am.

The Chairman: Hello, Miss Proulx.

[Translation]

Ms. Rachel Proulx: Good day.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, we'll now commence hearing submissions on the legislation, and we will begin with Miss Proulx. She is the president of the Canadian Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs.

Miss Proulx, we would allow you the usual ten minutes or so to make a representation. After your representation, we would allow the other witnesses present with us here in the room today to make their submissions. After all the submissions are made, we would then move to questions. Is that okay?

Ms. Rachel Proulx: That's perfect.

The Chairman: All right.

You appear to be bilingual, so you may address the meeting in whichever language suits you. My colleagues are ready, so you have the floor.

• 1545

Ms. Rachel Proulx: Thank you very much, members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, members of Parliament, and certainly a great ambassador for northern Ontario, Monsieur Bonin.

I would like to give you a bit of information on the Canadian federation, but also list a few of the motions that we have submitted in brief format to the government of the day since 1930.

Since 1930 the Canadian Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, further on referred to as BPW Canada, has worked to elevate the economic and social status of working women in Canada. Our members are women who are employed in the professions, in traditional and non-traditional work, and in business ownership that includes home-based enterprise.

BPW Canada is a member of BPW International, one of the world's most influential organizations. We are in 108 countries on five continents. BPW International is a non-partisan and non-sectarian network of business and professional women who share common objectives for all working women.

The Canadian Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs is pleased to present a submission covering the resolutions passed at a recent biannual convention in Lethbridge, Alberta, from July 13 to 18, 1998, and others dating as far back as early as 1930. The delegates of the more than seventy clubs that comprise our federation consider and approve these resolutions, which stay on our books until such time as the government acts upon and makes these resolutions law.

We are in eight provinces in this country, and we have a number of francophone clubs, specifically in the province of Quebec.

BPW Canada, which has its primary concern the improvement of the status of women employed in Canada, was incorporated on June 7, 1930. For just under seventy years, BPW Canada has worked to improve the economic, employment and social status, and conditions of working women; to stimulate interest in federal, provincial, and municipal affairs; to encourage women to participate in the business of government at all levels; and to assist women and girls to acquire education in preparation for employment.

As you are aware, BPW Canada has been accorded the privilege of meeting with the Prime Minister and other members of cabinet in years past. We are now pleased to submit and discuss our submission as it relates to Bill C-2, the Canada Elections Act. This is submitted by the Canadian federation, of course.

I'd like to recall one of the resolutions that we passed in 1935, actually, as it related to the Elections Act of Canada and electoral candidates. It states that BPWC—which is BPW Canada—urge the political parties of Canada, in particular the three main political parties, to put in place the necessary mechanisms and decrees to encourage them to ensure that an equal number of electoral candidates are women and therefore the candidates are more representative of the general population of Canada.

We have a number of them, and we consistently developed resolutions dealing with education and leadership opportunities for women. The federation gives leadership to the member clubs by providing extensive leadership programs. We also have a resolution dating back to 1992—it was submitted in brief format—that the BPWC issue a press release and send an urgent recommendation to the Prime Mister as it related to gender equality in the Senate by a system of proportional representation, proactive applications of gender equality and an equality proposal being discussed, and that recommendations made by the constitutional conferences be better applied throughout the proposed amendments.

• 1550

We have resolutions as they relate to women candidates. We urged and we sought support to promote, whenever possible, competent candidates who have established solid backgrounds in promoting the status of women. We've urged all parties to do that. We have a number of resolutions that relate to women in civic office. On women's appointments to UN committees, a request was sent by a convention to the federal government asking that qualified Canadian women be appointed to Canadian committees of the United Nations, especially the Commission for the Status of Women.

On women's appointments to the Department of Foreign Affairs, when the Department of Foreign Affairs is recruiting its future diplomats and ambassadorial staff, the most promising young men graduating from university are taken into the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, where they are trained after they have done some post-graduate work. There are women in the same superior positions. We are urging the government that when it is choosing candidates, the choice be made on merit alone, regardless of sex, so that in future those services would be staffed in some proportion by women.

On women's appointments to policy-making levels of government, the organization urges the Government of Canada to improve its present practice of mere token appointments of women, and to appoint qualified women in numbers to such offices so that the women of Canada will be adequately represented on policy-making bodies.

We have a number of other resolutions relating to the justice system, looking at gender equality. It would be very lengthy for me to read all of them, but I will be sending them to you in a written format.

On women's appointments by governments of Canada, we would like you to continue to strenuously press the appointment of a due proportion of qualified women to the Senate, the judiciary, the diplomatic corps, and to all government boards and commissions, and as representatives on United Nations commissions.

On women seeking nomination for public office, again this is an older resolution, dating to 1972. We appealed to all governments at all levels—the provinces and the national level—that women who are qualified and willing to be nominated for elections at all levels of government should be encouraged by the government of the day.

Certainly we have encouraged the government to look at nominating women to the Senate. One of our members, the Honourable Muriel McQueen Fergusson, was one of the first females appointed to the Senate, of course.

I believe my time is almost up, but we have a number of resolutions that deal with accessibility to decision-making. This is one of our most recent ones: that we continue to encourage women to become involved in the decision-making process at all levels of business, industry, and the political scene. We therefore urge the Government of Canada to unanimously pass the following measures: first, to support training and information initiatives aimed at demystifying the ways of access to decision-making positions in order to interest women; and second, to establish formal communication networks aimed at publishing on a large scale the decision-making positions available in different areas, including politics, business, communications, the civil service, and community service.

We further urge the Government of Canada to adopt precise policies aimed at increasing the presence of women within decision-making positions in the field of activities mentioned above by at least 10% in the next three years.

That would be the end of my formal presentation.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Your submission came through loud and clear.

• 1555

Mr. Ted White: On a point of information, Mr. Chair, because Ms. Proulx is coming in by telephone line, I don't know whether it's more practical for us to ask her questions and then allow her to get off the line, or whether it's more practical to keep her on for the whole time.

The Chairman: Let's try to keep it a happy family—unless you'd like to wrap up with us, Ms. Proulx. Or would you like to stay with us?

Ms. Rachel Proulx: I would like to stay on. I can tell you that I have a lot of experience in teleconferencing. Monsieur Bonin referred to Collège Boréal as the key high-tech facility in northern Ontario. I was chair of that college. We set it up greatly by telecommunication in order to facilitate our discussions, so I have no problem staying on the line.

The Chairman: Okay, thank you.

We'll proceed to our next witnesses, then. From the National Council of Women of Canada, we have Ms. Laidlaw-Sly and Ms. Brown, not necessarily in that order. It's in whatever order you wish to present.

Ms. Cathy Laidlaw-Sly (Vice-President, National Council of Women of Canada): Could I ask how much time we have, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: About ten minutes.

Ms. Cathy Laidlaw-Sly: About ten minutes? Fine. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, members of this standing committee of Parliament, I wish to speak on behalf of the National Council of Women of Canada, the oldest umbrella group for women, founded in 1893, before Canadian women had the vote. We appreciate and thank the committee for this opportunity to address some of the proposed changes to the Canada Elections Act.

I should say that the National Council of Women has long experience in attempting to advance women's current concerns through advocacy at the local, provincial, and national levels, and internationally through our historical membership in the International Council of Women. The national council became a non-governmental organization in consultative status with ECOSOC in 1997, adding an important new dimension to our work. I could add, too, that BPWC members in many communities belong to our organization locally.

We have a historical position asking all parties to seek the election of an equal number of women as members to the House of Commons. We want to stress again that it's only fair and just. Women are roughly 52% of the population, and we are presently woefully underrepresented in the House. For example, I believe only 12% of the elected members are women here in Canada. Some 30% are women in the Senate, but that's not the same thing. We understand that only 7.2% of the elected members in the Commonwealth are women. And 12% is hardly one-third, which is the critical mass that we would like to see this legislation facilitate achieving.

We therefore commend the proposed changes that are designed to overcome the impediments that make it difficult for women, particularly women of modest means or with children, to stand for election.

The proposal to have child care expenses considered in all cases as part of candidate expenses will be a positive factor. Males with young children have always counted on their wives, their spouses, to look after the children. It's just part of the uncounted, unpaid work women have always done. But women cannot be so sure that they will get the same support from a spouse, a husband, or a partner.

Also, we want to add that it is commendable and encouraging for a woman to stand for election if she knows she can recover the $1,000 deposit if she is unsuccessful. For a lot of women, that amount of money is a considerable cost. It has to be remembered that in spite of all of the advances women have made in the last 25 years, women across the board still only earn about 79% when compared to men's relative pay. They have less disposable income and fewer savings.

We wanted to note the reference to the Lortie commission's recommendation on rewarding parties for attracting a greater number of female candidates. In discussing this with some of our members, it was pointed out that this hardly achieves anything. Just nominating women to run is not guaranteeing that women are elected. They can be encouraged to run in ridings where they have no chance of election historically or traditionally. We therefore think that perhaps the reward for a party should be tied to the number of actually elected female members of the House. We think that would be a more realistic way of implementing that recommendation and we strongly urge it.

• 1600

The members of council that we consulted spoke very much about the real difficulty women have in seeking to be the nominee for a party in any riding, particularly in one where the nomination is hotly contested. It takes money, lots of it, and women, usually younger women with or without family care responsibility, simply don't have those financial resources. They don't have access to a relatively wealthy network of friends and associates, as do the men. In fact, unless the family of the would-be candidate has very deep pockets, the high costs of campaigning for a nomination in a winnable riding are far too costly for most women to assume. Therefore, the next paragraphs deal with this issue.

I want to inform the parliamentary committee that last month, in October, at the joint Canada-U.K. conference held at the Canadian high commission in London marking the 70th anniversary of the persons case and headed up under the title “Women's Equality and Participation in Public Life”, this very issue was addressed. The principal speaker on the issue was Baroness Crawley of Egbaston, who is the chair of the U.K. Women's National Commission, and she was speaking about the way different parties in the United Kingdom had changed their processes to ensure that women got an equal opportunity.

We wanted to also mention that, interestingly, the new Scottish Parliament has 37% elected female members. We thought that was a really good achievement.

We strongly urge that the committee look at some of our suggestions. For example, if the rewards to a party for electing women are not tied to the actual number of females elected, then we would like to suggest that they look at bringing in limits to the amount of spending for nomination contests that would be clearly set out and would be equally applicable in all ridings for all candidates. Failing that, we also suggested something a little less meaningful, but perhaps an increased tax receipt value for people who are making donations that are earmarked for a female candidate. These were just two of the suggestions that came up in our discussions in the last week.

We recognize this is a difficult issue, but we challenge the committee to address it. We think it is the real barrier to having more women elected and representing what is, after all, over 50% of the population.

When our members were questioned about receiving 75% of an increased political tax credit, they expressed general approval, but it was remarked that they wondered how many women this would really be relevant for, how many of them had enough money to make these political donations. They thought that probably a lot fewer than men did, which is maybe one reason why women don't get considered as often by political parties as possible candidates, because they're not known and they haven't paid their way, so to speak.

I'm putting that in, but it was one of the issues that was raised, and that was the way it was raised by somebody with experience.

In referring to the proposed limits on third-party spending, the national council commends the attempt to even the playing field during an election by limiting third-party expenditures.

Some of our members noted that as a women's advocacy group, we share with our sister groups a lack of financial resources to allow us to engage in third-party advocacy during an election. This was done on our behalf for a short time by the now defunct Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women. And I want to point out here that I was reminded that the Canadian advisory council never had the same financial resources as those available to some advocates for business coalitions, but it was the only access women had to an effective third-party advocacy group.

Per capita, it seems manifestly unjust that a relatively small number of citizens, namely those connected with the business community—who in effect are a real special interest group, not a designated special interest group but a real special interest group—have access to large amounts of money, some of which has been raised through donations to campaigns for which they got tax receipts, but women's groups like ours do not have that luxury or privilege. And we asked why they should enjoy such an advantage in putting forward their agenda when women are over 50% of the population and they simply don't have the equal means to advance their agenda as effectively or on as broad a basis. Therefore, we strongly urge that there be across-the-board limits to third-party spending.

• 1605

After consulting with member organizations, particularly our shelters working directly in the field with battered women, they approved the suggested changes to protect women electors, particularly the use of their previous address when registering to vote. However, it was pointed out that women who are in extreme danger would appreciate and, as our counsellors in shelters advised, should have the opportunity to elect to vote by mail. We know that Canadians learned last year, for example, that shelters in small or rural communities don't have the same anonymity as shelters in large cities, and everyone knows where the shelter is. Therefore the mail-in ballot would be the only option for a truly threatened woman in such a situation.

We have to remember that when a woman is leaving or has just left the family home and is re-establishing herself on her own, she is in maximum danger. We know if we followed the news over the years that this is when most of the women are either attacked or, sadly, killed. Most women who are killed are killed by someone to whom they were attached by a strong close emotional relationship.

This being the United Nations year of the older person, some members mentioned concerns about the present arrangements for facilitating the franchise of elderly citizens. They wondered, for those who are living in the home of their caregiver and have to be brought to a poll to vote, if it would be available to them to use a mail-in ballot as well, provided there was a notarized statement validating their condition.

They also—actually it was one person, but she had experience—wondered if it would be possible to have available in constituencies a person or persons trained and sworn to assist the handicapped in voting, in much the same way that a person can go into a voting booth with a blind person. This would apply to all the differently abled people, whether old or given physical handicaps of whatever nature and of whatever age.

I think my time is nearly up, but we wanted to just stress that we approve of the idea to permit canvassing and posting of signs in apartment buildings. Our members had no objection to bringing in new parameters governing the processing of small expense vouchers. You should understand we were talking to people who have some experience in elections. But the one issue they brought forward that we didn't see addressed at all was the inequalities presently tolerated between the number of electors in urban ridings and those in sparsely populated rural constituencies. It concerns some of our members because they feel that the urban voter has the vote devalued proportionately. They hope that redistribution will be brought in on a more compulsory basis with closer norms for differentials and population numbers.

Overall, Mr. Chairman, we commend the minister and this committee for addressing these issues. We felt the revision certainly has to be done. It is necessary for Canada to address this most basic of its national machineries and institutional mechanisms for facilitating greater equality of all Canadians. In particular, council members look forward to seeing changes that will make the Canada Elections Act gender neutral.

The National Council of Women of Canada hopes the suggestions brought forward will be accepted and considered positively, thereby maintaining Canada's reputation as an international leader in implementing the promises and programs devised since the first international conference on the status of women, which was held in Mexico in 1975, almost 25 years ago.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ms. Brown, you second the submission of Ms. Laidlaw-Sly?

Ms. Ruth Brown (Past President, National Council of Women of Canada): Yes, absolutely.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We'll go to Susan Russell, who is the executive director of the Canadian Federation of University Women. Ms. Russell, we would invite you to make a submission of approximately ten minutes and then we would engage in five-minute rounds of questions and answers.

Ms. Susan Russell (Executive Director, Canadian Federation of University Women): I understood that I had five minutes, so mine will be somewhat shorter.

The Chairman: You can take your time then.

• 1610

Ms. Susan Russell: Mr. Chair, members of the standing committee, the Canadian Federation of University Women welcomes the opportunity to appear before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with respect to Bill C-2, the Canada Elections Act.

I speak on behalf of 10,000 anglophone and francophone women, university graduates, from 125 clubs across Canada. We are a national non-partisan organization founded in 1919 and affiliated with the International Federation of University Women, working to improve the status of women in human rights, education, peace, justice, and the environment. Members actively promote the full participation of women in public affairs and work for equality rights.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the right to take part in the government of his or her country. The empowerment and autonomy of women and the improvement of women's social, economic, and political status is essential to the achievement of transparent and accountable government, administration, and sustainable development in all areas of life. The power relations that prevent women from leading fulfilling lives operate at many levels in our society, from the personal to the highly public. Equality in political decision-making performs leverage without which it is highly unlikely that a real integration of the equality dimension of government policy is possible.

In 1995, at the fourth United Nations world conference on women, the leaders of the world made commitments to take action for development, equality, and peace. The platform for action from this conference states that governments are committed to acknowledging the voices of all women, taking note of their diversity. As well, the platform for action outlines governments' commitments to integrate women's perspective and knowledge on an equal basis with men in decision-making.

Without the active participation of women and their incorporation of their perspectives at all levels in decision-making, the goals of equality, development, and peace cannot be achieved. It was not until 1928 that Canada realized the legal personhood of women, paving the way for their entry into the political arena. It is now time to consider how to further increase the participation of 52% of the population in the political process.

The dramatic increase in the number of two-income families indicates that women have indeed taken their place beside men in the workplace. Recent decisions with regard to pay equity show recognition of the need to increase their financial equality, yet in the House of Commons, where important decisions that affect all of our decisions are made daily, women occupy only 20.9% of the seats. I note that this is the best ever in history of Canada, but still a significant minority.

Without clear legislation to lead the way within the Elections Act, women will continue to lag behind in their ability to enter and to remain part of the political process. CFUW recognizes that there are many qualified women in Canada, and that there are significant barriers to their participation. For these reasons, we strongly support the following measures to assist women to level the playing field for women candidates.

Caregiving: The Lortie commission report revealed that one in five women has caregiving responsibilities for children, but also for other dependent family members. Some care for elderly parents, a disabled child, or a sibling. It is essential to recognize this and to make sure that this is an allowable expense for those on the campaign trail. Without this kind of assurance that their family commitments are being met, many qualified women will hesitate to put their talents at the service of their country.

• 1615

In addition to that, clothing represents an essential expense for women. In our conversations across the country, many women said a single business suit and a good few ties were enough for men. Women candidates need money for grooming expenses. These items come under clause 409, which deals with the personal expenses of the candidate. There are important items for clarification and inclusion as allowable expenses.

On housing, of particular concern to women in our federation is the disenfranchisement of persons in insecure housing situations. When these persons are in temporary accommodations because they have left an abusive family situation, it is important to provide for them so that they may vote. Where the disclosure of the address would endanger their safety, if for example their last place of residence were to be accepted as a domicile for the purposes of the election, such persons could exercise their citizen's responsibility to vote. This ties in with the provision in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 3, that provides every citizen with the right to vote in an election of the members of the House of Commons.

In addition to these practical measures, we support measures to encourage parties to field women candidates, not simply in unwinnable ridings but where they could become a sitting member. One such measure would be to reward the party in proportion to the numbers of women elected. This could be in the form of a rebate on the money spent by the party, starting, as suggested by Mr. Don Boudria, at 30% of the candidates and increasing until the critical mass is reached at about 45%. Such an increase would give parties a positive incentive to reach parity.

Clearly, other measures have only been somewhat successful. If we are to honour our commitments to the women of Canada, it is now time to look at innovative solutions. It can go a long way to breaking down the barriers within the party structure and to encouraging party workers to give their fullest support to women candidates as well as to men.

In closing, I wish to thank this committee for the opportunity to appear before them and to ask them to support those measures that will increase the numbers of women that enter Parliament, to follow in the illustrious footsteps of Cairine Wilson, Judy LaMarsh, Flora MacDonald, and all those other women who have led the way since women became persons under the law. I urge the members of this committee to consider these and other measures that will make our elections an open and transparent process in which all Canadians can participate.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

That completes the round of submissions. We'll now go five-minute rounds of questions and answers, starting with Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: Is Ms. Proulx still on the line?

The Chairman: On the subject of teleconferencing, Sudbury is up to speed, but I'm not so sure the House of Commons is. We're attempting to re-establish contact with Ms. Proulx.

Mr. Ted White: In the meantime, then, Ms. Laidlaw-Sly, I found the implication of your presentation was that male MPs cannot or will not represent the females or women in their community, and therefore we need women in Parliament in order to do that. Frankly, I find that a little insulting. And I think it should be insulting for the women here, because the implication also is that they can't represent the men in their riding.

• 1620

This place is about representation for the voters. Certainly the way I look at it and the way my party looks at it, this is a place where we represent the voters. If the male MPs are representing their communities properly, then what's the problem? If the female MPs are representing their communities properly, what's the problem? I'd like to know, are you implying that men cannot represent the voters in their ridings?

Ms. Cathy Laidlaw-Sly: No, I'm not, but I am stating that if 50% or more of the population is female, then 50% of the population should have the equal opportunity and be facilitated in standing to represent the citizens.

We know perfectly well, and those of us my age certainly remember, that the first time a female member, Margaret Mitchell, stood up in the House and spoke about the issue of violence against women, specifically wife battering, the males in the House burst into laughter. It's a matter of record. When we see incidents like that, we know it is sometimes difficult for each sex to understand what the other one's is.

I have to say that I think the men have had a very good long run in getting their issues out before the public and having them thoroughly well aired and addressed. I'm not sure women are satisfied that theirs have been addressed. In fact, I know they aren't.

Women are still not earning the same sort of money that men are. Women still do not have the same opportunity to save for their old age that men do, because they are expected to do, and very often do, the bulk of the caregiving in families. Whether it's caregiving of children, caregiving of older parents, caregiving of the handicapped, it is known and statistically measured—Statistics Canada has it on record—that most of that work is being done by women. Most of it is unpaid and uncounted. The system relies on that work. Nothing would work with that unpaid work and uncounted work not being done, yet we have failed to see enough of our male representatives standing up and speaking up and admitting that our whole system is erected on top of the unpaid, uncounted work that women do. Therefore, yes, we need an equal number of women.

Mr. Ted White: Ms. Laidlaw-Sly, for the record, female MPs here are paid exactly the same as male MPs. There's no distinction whatsoever.

Ms. Cathy Laidlaw-Sly: I know that.

Mr. Ted White: Have you ever run for Parliament? Have you ever tried to run for office yourself?

Ms. Cathy Laidlaw-Sly: I regret to say I have not.

Mr. Ted White: Why not?

Ms. Cathy Laidlaw-Sly: For two reasons: I had six children, and I had a husband who did not permit it. He was not willing to back me, and he felt that it would be harmful to his career if I spoke out in public.

Mr. Ted White: Okay. If the government had passed a law to give a bigger tax rebate to parties that ran more women or elected more women, would that have changed your mind about running?

Ms. Cathy Laidlaw-Sly: It certainly would have facilitated it.

Mr. Ted White: Okay, thank you.

I have one question of Ms. Russell. A very high-profile female candidate and well-known Liberal, Mobina Jaffer, ran against me in 1993 in my riding. The voters chose me. Is the implication of your presentation that you would take away the franchise of the voters in order to force them to elect women?

Ms. Susan Russell: That was not my implication. I'm saying that we require a critical mass to present women's issues within the House of Commons. We do not yet have a critical mass.

Mr. Ted White: Yes, and I agree with you. Unfortunately, a lot of women just don't come forward.

In the case of the Reform Party, for the record here, the leader of the Reform Party is not allowed to appoint candidates. The way our system works, the local riding associations choose the candidates. That's done by people running for candidacy role, and the members of the riding association vote for that candidate. So we couldn't do what you're proposing. All we can do is encourage at the local riding level those women to run.

Ms. Susan Russell: So you're indicating that if there were a cash incentive, you could not accept that cash incentive? If your woman candidate got in, you would refuse that incentive?

Mr. Ted White: If the government had such an incentive, of course we would take it, but I doubt that would make much difference in terms of the riding association members deciding who they're going to vote for.

You see, I make the distinction between the rights of the voters and trying to impose a program on those voters, forcing them to vote for people they may not necessarily want to vote for. I encourage equality, which is equality of opportunity for everybody to try to run for the position, and the best person wins, based on the voters' decision.

Ms. Susan Russell: I would say to you that the richest person runs, not the best person. Experience has proved that before.

Mr. Ted White: Ms. Russell, I would like to see some evidence to support that.

The Chairman: Ms. Brown, did you have something to add to that?

• 1625

Mr. Ted White: I did have questions of Ms. Proulx, but I guess she's not around.

Ms. Ruth Brown: I just want to underline the point that I think those of us from women's organizations feel it's really important that there be an equal playing field in order for women to be able to run for the nomination. Over and over again we've heard that this is the area where it's more difficult for women.

Mr. Ted White: We certainly appreciate that. Maybe I could ask you this: what is your organization doing, what are you doing, to try to encourage women? Do you have it on your website, to demystify the process the way Ms. Proulx has?

Ms. Ruth Brown: For over 100 years our organization has really been advocating that women be in decision-making processes, because we thought it was really important that women were there to look at issues from their point of view. After all, Parliament is probably the central decision-making process in Canada and it seems equally important that women be adequately represented there.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. White.

I'll just try to ascertain whether we have Ms. Proulx back on.

Ms. Proulx, are you on the line?

Ms. Rachel Proulx: Yes, I am.

The Chairman: That's great.

We're continuing with our round table now. We've heard from Ms. Laidlaw-Sly and Ms. Russell.

Although you weren't hearing us, I don't believe they said anything that opposes anything you said. That's not to say that you've agreed on everything, but I think you're having a fairly straight run at it.

We've finished with Mr. White's round of questions. We'll go to Caroline St-Hilaire for five minutes.

[Translation]

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): First of all, thank you for agreeing to testify before the committee today. My colleagues are already aware of this, but I think you should know that I have tabled in the House draft legislation which provides for incentive measures for registered political parties when 30 per cent of the candidates they elect are women. Mr. Boudria is quite intrigued by my bill. We'll see what happens to it.

I'd like to know your opinion of the proposed legislation. You said you wanted to see more women in politics, and most people would agree with you on that score. How do you feel about incentives like the one being proposed, namely reimbursement of a portion of the election expenses of a registered political party? You want some measures to be adopted, but are you comfortable with this particular one?

Ms. Cathy Laidlaw-Sly: Could I answer that question in English, because it deals with a fairly complex subject?

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: I realize that.

[English]

Ms. Cathy Laidlaw-Sly: Are you talking about all of the expenses, including the nomination ones?

[Translation]

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: At present, 22.5 per cent of the election expenses incurred by a political party are reimbursed. I'm proposing that legislation to amend the Elections Act provide for 30 per cent of election expenses to be reimbursed to political parties.

Ms. Cathy Laidlaw-Sly: I see.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: It's the political party, rather than the candidate, who is reimbursed. Personally, I think the problem lies with political parties.

[English]

Ms. Cathy Laidlaw-Sly: No, we didn't discuss that. I really would not want to take a position for our members when I did not have a chance to discuss it. You will understand that we did our sondage by phone. We simply did not have time to do anything else. I'm sorry we didn't, but I will make a note of it. I'll give you my card if you'd like to send us more information. If this is to be an ongoing process, I know that our members will be very happy to develop positions and to hear what is being considered.

Thank you very much.

Ms. Ruth Brown: Yes, I agree.

[Translation]

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Could we hear from Ms. Rachel Proulx and Ms. Russell on this subject?

Ms. Rachel Proulx: I'm wondering if your 30 per cent proposal conflicts with the 25 per cent recommended by Mr. Boudria?

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: I didn't understand the question. Mr. Boudria was suggesting that 30 per cent of election expenses be reimbursed to all parties fielding candidates, and not necessarily only to a party that manages to get its candidates elected.

Ms. Rachel Proulx: The point is, you're recommending that a political party have 30 per cent of its election expenses reimbursed, are you not?

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Yes.

Ms. Rachel Proulx: Right. Does your proposal conflict in some way with Mr. Boudria's recommendation, namely that 22.5 per cent of election expenses be reimbursed?

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: No. The percentage would increase from 22.5 per cent to 30 per cent.

Ms. Rachel Proulx: You're recommending 30 per cent rather than 22.5 per cent.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: That's correct.

Ms. Rachel Proulx: I understand.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: However, 30 per cent of the candidates elected by that party must be women.

Ms. Rachel Proulx: I see.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Do you understand what I'm saying?

• 1630

Ms. Rachel Proulx: Yes, I understand. If the objective is to get more women candidates elected, then we have no objections to that.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Fine, thank you.

[English]

Ms. Susan Russell: I understand the United Nations, in a document—I've read so many documents recently that I forget which one—set a target of one-third of the House, or wherever, being women. I would say 30% would be a good target to start with. I'm really looking at half, but I would be happy with 30% to start with.

[Translation]

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: In any event, I'll send you a copy of the proposed legislation which stipulates that a political party, where 30 per cent of the candidates elected are women, would be entitled to have 30 per cent of its election expenses reimbursed and so forth, up to a maximum of 50 per cent. The aim is to encourage political parties to get more women candidates elected to office. This mustn't be viewed as a punitive measure, but rather as an incentive.

Of course, if 50 per cent of the candidates elected by a particular party happen to be women, than that party would be entitled to have 50 per cent of its election expenses reimbursed. Naturally, some parties would be reimbursed a larger sum than others.

[English]

Ms. Cathy Laidlaw-Sly: As a matter of fact, when we were discussing this, we didn't discuss it in as concrete terms as you are putting it forward, but our suggestion was that it would be best to reward a party on a sliding scale to the proportion that they manage to succeed, which waves a big carrot. That way it would get around trying to impose rules on the nomination procedures; they could stay the same. But if they didn't eventualize an elected female representation, then the party would be out of pocket that amount. This was the way we got around it. We were looking at two or three different ways around to provide an incentive and to avoid excessive rule-making.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. St-Hilaire.

Now we'll go to Mr. Pickard for five minutes.

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I found some statements very, very positive. I believe exactly what Susan Russell has said: we must actively promote full participation of women in this society and political process. There's absolutely no question about that.

I believe in your statement, Ms. Russell, you must have said “equality” many, many, many times, and I certainly endorse that and support that without question. I believe other members as well expressed that. But I have a real problem when we start talking about legislation that promotes inequality. We may be here verging on inequality, from my viewpoint.

I'll point this out. As an individual, I spent 25 years in education, and that was without question a female-dominated area. I don't think that in the case of teaching younger people, anyone ever said there should be quotas about the number of men and women teaching in elementary school, or quotas for whatever they were doing. I always thought jobs in the main were from the neck up, not the neck down.

Quite frankly, I have a problem when we start saying we should put money in the coffers of parties that elect more women, or even if we take that in reverse and say if you elect 80% women, you should have your money taken away, because you have an imbalance. Historically, there are reasons we may have fewer women, and I dearly would love to see 50% of this House represented by men and 50% of the House represented by women. But I cannot in any way endorse things that upset the balance of fairness.

• 1635

Here in Ontario in 1967 I went to teach in a community. That community had a black restaurant and a white restaurant, and I was unaware of that. I walked into both restaurants, said hello to the proprietors and so on, and a young lady came to me, in 1967, here in southwestern Ontario, and said “You did a wrong thing. You went into the black restaurant. That's a taboo. That's something you don't do.”

When I talk about equality, I talk about fairness. I l listened very carefully to you, Ms. Laidlaw. You suggested that your husband would not allow you to be fair. Well, that certainly is not a partnership as I see marriage partnerships. I am very concerned about one of the earlier statements: women cannot be sure they will get the same support from their spouses. That's wrong. I would dearly support my spouse at any time, and I don't like to be categorized. “Men don't support spouses; women do.” Those kinds of statements are wrong.

A voice: She didn't say that, Jerry.

Ms. Cathy Laidlaw-Sly: Excuse me. I did not say that.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: I wrote down your words. You said women looked after children so that men could run for office, but women cannot be sure they will get the same support from their spouses. You said that.

Ms. Cathy Laidlaw-Sly: Yes, I said that.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: I am saying that's wrong.

Ms. Cathy Laidlaw-Sly: It is.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: That's dead wrong.

Ms. Cathy Laidlaw-Sly: These men are very mistaken—

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Women can get the same support from their spouses. I don't like to see that happening. I voiced my opinion, and I would like your response.

We have to move in those directions, but to make negative statements about males, about people who are serving society, to say “My husband wouldn't let me”, or to say men can't see things or they laughed at women, I do not condone that in any respect. As a matter of fact, I would be very strongly opposed to that. But I don't like the other side coming off in a direction that has been put out either.

Ms. Cathy Laidlaw-Sly: Having read some history, I'm reminded of the first responses to Nellie McClung when she proposed that women should have the vote. It sounds like much of the same arguments.

Mr. Pickard, you did mention specifically teaching. I would remind you that in the role of teaching, young women historically, since the turn of the last century—my grandmother was one of them—taught in the schools, then they got married and raised the children. Men do teach. Men predominate at the university level. Men are predominantly those teachers who have tenure at the university level. It is one profession where we have seen a segregation that affects not only ranking but also pay.

I'll leave that aside, because it's a bit of a red herring, since women also do many other jobs besides earn money when they can. I would point out that when I said a woman could not be sure her spouse could give her the same support she was expected to give in the case that he was running, this happens to be just the plain, cold, hard truth. If a man has a paid job, he usually cannot arrange flexible hours. He cannot arrange time off. He cannot arrange to leave the job so that he can give his wife the freedom she needs to campaign for a nomination. It's simply a fact of the way things are right now.

We don't have parental leaves or discretionary leaves written into the law or provided for. It is one of the measures we do need to look at. But this is not the place or the case. We are simply looking at what the situation is for women running for office. We are not discussing some of the wider issues of achieving gender equality and gender-neutral institutions, which have been addressed at some length and which the Commission on the Status of Women has done a great deal of research work to establish the necessity for.

I'll leave it at that. I just want to remind you that I'm simply talking about the situation as it exists now vis-à-vis this one issue of women running for a nomination. That's what we were talking about.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: What I'm trying to say to you is I really, strongly believe women need to have all kinds of opportunities to do things and function in society.

Ms. Cathy Laidlaw-Sly: I'm glad to hear it.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: But when people start to make statements that are in my opinion quite biased and erroneous, I do get concerned.

• 1640

In my relationship with my wife, I would support her in whatever she was doing, and I believe she would support me. I don't think it is fair to say men do this, women do this. That's not the way our society works, and that's not the way democratic people in our society operate.

Going one step further, I think we have to make certain. I was not the richest candidate in the election in which I ran, and I don't think most others were either. What is it? It's the electorate that decides who's going to be there.

I would challenge your organizations to get involved in election campaigns to help people, women in particular, get elected, and encourage other women to support women to be elected. That's the only way our society will function fairly, or we will segregate every group to say I need so many of these and so many of these in Parliament. No matter what the group is, they can always make a case for unfair representation.

Ms. Ruth Brown: Certainly our organization has worked in elections, for instance, at putting together information about what the issues are from women's point of view. We have worked on elections. We're non-partisan, so we haven't worked to elect one party or another.

As far as support is concerned, I'm sure you can't stereotype and say men do it and women don't. I totally agree with you. But I think the fact is still that not as many women work full-time. Women are home caring for children, and so on. It is harder for the majority of men to give the kind of support a woman candidate needs, because they're working full-time.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm an NDP member of Parliament from Saskatchewan, and over the years I've been involved with candidate recruitment for our party, both provincially and federally. I have personally approached a large number of different women to seek nominations in various constituencies. The biggest problem we had in recruiting women, and still do, is because of family commitments, whether they're caring for children or siblings or elder parents.

We established in Saskatchewan many years ago a fund that gave money to women who were seeking nominations. Our federal party as well has a fund, which we call the Agnes MacPhail fund, which contributes money to female candidates who are running for nomination. Once you get nominated, there's also some additional money to offset some of the family care costs you would have.

I think our fund has been reasonably successful. About half of our federal candidates in the last election were female. Right now, our caucus is 40% women. I think it has worked fairly well. I don't think it has worked as well as we'd like to see it work, but it's certainly an improvement over the ways we used to operate.

So I guess my question to all three of you, if you'd like, is what specific sorts of incentives would you like to see? You mentioned money for parties who elected female candidates, money for parties who would encourage women to run, and so on. Are there one or two key things we could do as a country that would clearly be a stimulus to having more women seek nomination for the various political parties? The funding is one part of it, but if you don't have a supportive spouse or you don't have the resources, or if you're at a certain age where you feel you just can't abandon or leave the home on a regular basis, which politicians do, what would really work, in your view?

The Chairman: I would suggest that Ms. Proulx answer first, and then we'll go to the others at the table.

Ms. Proulx.

Ms. Rachel Proulx: Certainly having been a candidate, I can tell you that the first step is to create a comfort level for women to pursue political office. I'm sure if you go around and ask your colleagues who are female members of Parliament, you can probably very quickly find out that they perhaps do not have any children, or their children are now at an age when they no longer are dependent, or they were able to pursue political office once the nurturing stage was over, or they were beyond a certain age group that allowed them to invest the time and energy required to hold a position in Parliament.

• 1645

Certainly creating the comfort level is the first thing—making women aware that the parties are interested in seeing female candidates or want all candidates who are going to put their foot forward and who are of the calibre you're looking for, whatever the gender is. Certainly there needs to be an emphasis on welcoming females to step into the ring.

Also, a mentorship program would allow women to connect with women who are either backroom politicians or members of Parliament, who would be willing to be accessible to women wanting to pursue political office. That may be one venue that would perhaps be a user-friendly kind of approach to encourage women to pursue.

As for the whole gamut of skill sets you need to pursue a campaign, women traditionally do not have the network of funding available and so on to put together a campaign, so certainly you need to have someone to mentor you through that process. It's all about connecting in the community with the party you're interested in pursuing, but making available the mentors to help groom you along the way. That could be perhaps a step forward for any of the political parties to groom qualified candidates.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Do any of the other witnesses wish to continue in that response?

Ms. Cathy Laidlaw-Sly: One of the issues discussed at this conference in the United Kingdom, on moving women into public life, was the fact that this comfort level is not there for women. They mentioned the fact that in the press, women are trivialized all the time. When a woman puts herself forward for office, they discuss what she wears, how she looks, and how many children she has. All of these things are very important. Does she have a husband? Is she divorced? Is she living with somebody? What are the arrangements of her life? These are not the first things they ask men. We just simply are not treated the same way.

It was argued at this convention that this is one of the forms of trivialization that makes women hesitate to expose themselves. You don't feel very good when you're made to feel you are less of a person than somebody whose genitals are different.

A comfort level implies a great deal of change in attitude all around. Naturally it won't happen overnight. We do know that in parties, there are also local party structures that tend to be male hierarchies. They tend to be male-dominated, because it is the males who usually combine their party activities with their business or work activities, and they have the disposable time, usually because some woman doing unpaid work is facilitating that participation. They tend to know other males better. They don't know the women who are available. They don't know their talents. They're not aware of them.

So a great deal of openness needs to be developed. You men are just going to have to try harder.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Referring generically to everyone in the room, all you persons out there.

Does anyone else want to speak on the same subject?

Thank you, Mr. Solomon.

We'll now go to Ms. Bakopanos for five minutes.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much for your comments. I certainly, as a female member of Parliament, have lived a lot of those experiences you have expressed within the body of your presentations, and many, many more. Perhaps someday I'll decide to tell the truth, as they say. But all that said, my experience is not unique.

I want to say I did have political experience when I ran, because I had worked a very long time behind the scenes in provincial politics. Because of my experience, I still feel—and you can comment on this—it is the nomination process that is the biggest hurdle a female has to get over, before she even takes a run at being a member of Parliament...be it on the municipal, provincial, or whatever level.

• 1650

Although to some extent Mr. White will find this unusual, I agree that the fight should be there in the first round. But if you look at some of the associations and how they're run, there are a lot of females in the associations. But in general they're not the presidents or vice-presidents.

If you look at the hierarchy of a political party, again the number of females there who are actually making decisions on the rules for the nomination process is very limited.

Maybe this is a difficult question. Maybe it's a question I shouldn't put to you, and maybe Madam St-Hilaire may misrepresent what I'm going to say, but if you had a choice, would you agree with me that a priority should be given to the first hurdle, which is the nomination process, and changing the rules within a political party, including my own? Then see if that has an effect on the results in the House of Commons. The second process would aim for one-third representation in the House of Commons, which is about 30% if you make the calculation. So that's my first question to all three of you. Then I'll just give my three questions.

I think what Mr. Boudria is trying to do in terms of expenses is an exceptionally good recommendation because I lived it. I had two young children and took a leave of absence from my job without pay. That meant I was without pay for two months. I was lucky I had a husband who worked and was able, but I still had to pay day care expenses for my daughters and I still had to make sure my house was cleaned.

I didn't have any dependents, and I would like to see an extension of the recommendation. I didn't have grandparents who needed my assistance, but I'm sure other possible women candidates in the future may have that as a burden also. I think that should be extended to include those expenses.

I included, as I said, housekeeping and other expenses. Maybe it's not as important but it is something you don't do. You don't do your laundry or clean your house if you're running an election campaign and going door to door. I didn't have time for it, in any case. So I don't know how you feel about that.

On my third question, I'm a member, Madam Proulx, of the Canadian Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs in Montreal and I've been a member for a long time. I haven't been to a lot of conferences, but there is still a lack of support from the business community. The women's business community somehow supports most of the women within that community, but outside of that community—I have never been in the business community; I've always been in politics—I had very little support, despite the fact I was a member of that club, from women in the business community.

People tend to know each other within the same fields, and I think the circle has to be enlarged. In each field lawyers know each other, engineers know each other, and business women know each other. A lot more networking needs to take place between the different organizations, like the Federation, the National Council and other women's organizations. I don't know how you feel about that.

Those are a lot of questions, I suppose, but take a crack at them.

The Chairman: Yes, we'll try to get those questions answered in 45 seconds. Okay.

Ms. Proulx, the last question was directed to you.

Ms. Rachel Proulx: Yes. I'm trying to remember all of the questions.

The Chairman: The last question related to more networking and promotion among women organizations of female candidacies.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: And also the business.

Ms. Rachel Proulx: I agree with the member there needs to be a lot more of that. I think the problem is we are non-partisan. However, the members sometimes get stuck on that and don't recognize that if we want women elected, we have to get involved.

I suggest you come to the Sudbury club and we'll show you how we do this. You can talk to Diane Marleau. She is a product of the Sudbury BPW.

There is definitely more work to be done in networking, and as it relates to the other women's organizations, we need to work closer toward that goal. We need to communicate that and develop a strategy to make it happen.

• 1655

The Chairman: Thank you.

Do other witnesses wish to answer any of the three questions? Ms. Laidlaw-Sly.

Ms. Cathy Laidlaw-Sly: On the nomination process, if you read our whole brief, you'll see we had a great deal to say, and there wasn't one person we consulted who didn't say it's the big hurdle. I agree with you: the big hurdle is the nominations process, not actually getting elected. The parties do an excellent job, as a rule, helping out. Nobody said the parties aren't doing a good job once you have the nomination, but getting a nomination is a horse of another colour. That's very difficult.

On your second question about expenses, yes, we've heard different elected women speaking to us, and they've all bemoaned the fact that their housekeeping jobs and responsibilities are not picked up by anybody else. They have to find a way of looking after it. They have expenses, in other words, that a male doesn't have, because he usually has a female partner who takes over the job—not necessarily female, but usually female, shall we say.

So yes, expenses are an issue that for women is different from men. There are different expenses and different ratios of expense. Until the day our husbands or our sons do 50% or more of the housework, why, it's not going to happen. I raised my sons to do housework, and I have wonderful sons-in-law and sons, but I can tell you they don't do 50%, although they carry a big load.

I have daughters who are professional women, and they are in the position of businesswomen who are juggling family responsibilities, caregiving responsibilities for which they get no pay, and the business of earning their portion or practising their profession, be it doctor, lawyer, dentist, or what have you. They do not have time to support other women. I've noticed in BPW meetings, Business and Professional Women's meetings, the women themselves are stressed out because they are trying to ride two horses at once. They're doing it, but it doesn't give them a great deal of disposable time.

And the nature of the work they're doing usually precludes, or they find they do not have the time for, the natural networking and just plain joshing around that the men seem to do. Somehow or other, when men are standing around yakking about something or other, it's seen as useful. When women are seen standing around, it's seen as gossiping. There's a derogatory connotation there.

So you're quite right: women aren't giving women the support they should. But in many cases it's because they don't have the time. I look at my daughters and daughters-in-law; they're stressed right out. We've trashed a whole generation of women, expecting them to do everything without building in support systems that would work for them. As women, we have to push the legislators of the world, whether they are male or female, to address this inequality.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ms. Russell, did you have something to add there?

Ms. Susan Russell: Yes, I did. I would like to point out that the Canadian Federation is a non-partisan organization and as such cannot support a particular political group. However, individual members do belong to riding associations and do support in the political process. So it is happening, but in not quite the way you outlined. The way in which we do help, or try to help, is through advocacy—for example, by being here today, by consulting our members, by passing resolutions, and by dealing with equality rights issues.

Getting back to the nomination process, which you mentioned, our members across the country said this was very difficult. They said within the riding associations there was systemic prejudice against women, because people thought maybe they would not make it, they might have a baby, or they might do something else.

They would support the tried and true. In other words, you perpetuate what you know, and if it has been a male candidate, why not get another one somewhat similar? The first one was good; why not have another one the same? That is a barrier we need to break down. There are qualified women out there. We should be supporting them, and they do need financial assistance during the campaign.

I agree with your comments on housekeeping and caregiving. They're both very, very important. Dress allowance is very, very important, because women do have different needs from men. That's it.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Now I'm going to go to three members as quickly as we can. We have Mr. Anders, Ms. Catterall, and Mr. Bergeron.

• 1700

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

My first question I'd like to direct to Cathy Laidlaw-Sly. Would you recommend and support that 50% of those involved in nursing, 50% of those involved in day care, 50% of those involved in elementary school teaching—and I'll leave it at that—should be male?

Ms. Cathy Laidlaw-Sly: We're back at that one?

No. We didn't address that and we didn't suggest that at all. Those are considerations that are under discussion in the professions themselves. We note with approval that there are more opportunities for males who want to be in nursing. We note with approval that there are more opportunities for females to practise what are seen as traditional male occupations. We think that's the way it should be. We're not talking about that, and we didn't ask for any legislation on it. And as far as I'm concerned, that's not part of the subject of the Canada Elections Act.

Ms. Susan Russell: Could I respond to that?

The Chairman: Ms. Russell.

Ms. Susan Russell: Yes, I did have a response. I have a son who is a nurse.

If men are willing to take the pay scale that women take in nursing, in teaching, and in those other professions, I don't see why they shouldn't do it. There is no barrier to them doing it. If they wish that pay scale, that will be fine by me.

Mr. Rob Anders: I pointed out, Mr. Chairman, that I find it somewhat ironic that in one particular occupation we have groups here, who in the name of equality, supposedly, are saying that a fixed percentage has to be female, and yet in other occupations, where there are known to be number differentials, where females are overrepresented in nursing, day care, and elementary school teaching, it is not kosher, according to their same ideology, to have 50% of the occupations and positions be male. I frankly think that's sexist. I think there's a real bias there, and I don't think it's fair.

I'd like to touch on a couple of other points, Mr. Chairman.

I get a general sense that the group here does not believe in equality of opportunity, but instead believes in equality of result. Does that carry across all of the presenters today?

Ms. Cathy Laidlaw-Sly: No. That is not what we said. I'm afraid you're putting words in our mouths.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mrs.—I don't if know if it's Mrs.—is it Mrs.?

Ms. Cathy Laidlaw-Sly: Yes.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mrs. Laidlaw-Sly, you did say that you thought the parties should be awarded based on not how many candidates they ran who were female, but instead how many were actually elected. And that implies to me that it doesn't really matter what the opportunities are, but instead what the actual results are.

Ms. Cathy Laidlaw-Sly: I see where you're basing your argument. First of all, I think it's a bit of a red herring. What we said was we were looking at a situation where the difficulty is, for women, perceived and real: getting the nomination. We said we therefore either somehow redress the difficulties in getting a nomination and provide an even playing field, a level playing field, so that both sexes have the same opportunities and a woman isn't required to climb a steeper mountain than a man is, or that the parties instigate whatever procedures they wish, as self-governing organizations, to ensure that more women are candidates.

To the degree that they manage to select or assist very capable women to come forward and stand for election, I've no doubt they will be successful. But we're not saying they have to. We are saying that we would like to see a critical mass of women, elected women, be in the House, and that's generally held to be one third of the elected members. That's the rule of thumb. And we would like to see this achieved as soon as possible. We would like to see the problems women such as ourselves—we're here telling you what the problems are for us—would like to see this committee address to redress the imbalances.

Thank you.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Chairman, because this is going to be the last opportunity—

The Chairman: You still have 20 seconds.

• 1705

Mr. Rob Anders: Good. I want to point out that I was not the richest person to run in my riding by a long stretch. I had three candidates who were far wealthier than I. And in terms of trivializing women, I have rarely seen men criticize women with regard to their clothing, their hair, their earrings, their ankles, their stockings, and their nails.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): You have to be kidding.

Mr. Rob Anders: It is more often women who criticize each other on these counts.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: We'll send you copies of some of the articles.

The Chairman: Ms. Brown, you had something to add.

Ms. Ruth Brown: To go back to the question of occupation, it seems to me you have two totally different things there. I think we're perfectly happy to have, as Susan says, men enter any of the female-dominated professions. They'll find the pay scale is not so good. But I do not think the Parliament of Canada is an occupation. I think it's a decision-making body and that it needs to have women as part of it, as half of it.

Ms. Susan Russell: Perhaps I should amend my own comments about the richest candidate, because I think I have led you astray. Generally speaking, men get more funding. The money may not be their own, but in general they get funded better. That was what I meant.

The Chairman: Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I wasn't here when Margaret Mitchell was, but I was here when one of the most prominent women in Parliament got called a slut on the floor of the House of Commons. So to think that the number of women and the regular presence of women doesn't make a difference in how this place functions, I think we're making a big mistake.

I've never heard the quality of men's voices referred to by the media, but I have heard one of the most prominent cabinet ministers—

Mr. Ted White: What about Preston Manning?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: —in this House criticized for her squeaky voice by the media.

Mr. White said “Let us boys look after you; we look after all the people we represent.” And that's fair, we do look after all the people we represent. But while we brag about this being the best country in the world in which to live, it is still the fact that if you look at the status of women around the world, we are only ninth. So you guys haven't done that great a job, and you have had the majority and you have had the decision-making for a very long time. Women in Parliament in decision-making roles make a difference.

I was surprised to hear my colleague refer to women teachers. Yes, they've predominated in elementary school education, but they've had a very small minority of the jobs as principals. Why? Are they less capable? No. It's because they don't get equal consideration, and that's exactly what we're talking about here.

We do want the best candidates. We want women to have an equal opportunity to demonstrate that they're the best candidates.

Let me tell you some of the things I see happening in the party process, the nomination process, that don't allow this to happen. The people looking for candidates, as one of you made the point very well, tend to look for who has succeeded in the past. And we only need to look at how many women there have been in Parliament, fewer than 120 in the whole history of the country, to know that there haven't been very many examples of women succeeding.

You're right, if you've had a good male candidate who has won elections for you and you need to choose a new candidate, you're more likely to go with somebody who has succeeded. The research of the Lortie commission is very enlightening, because it demonstrated, among other things, that where a local riding association that doesn't have a sitting member has a search committee charged with going out and seeking out the best candidate, they are more likely to have women candidates.

We also know that when women are nominated they have a slight edge in terms of getting elected, very slight. So it is the nomination process, but it is the process of the party and the whole history of the parties that have led to a situation where there have been so many fewer women candidates. It's not a marginal thing; it's a major difference between the number of women candidates and the number of men candidates. It's five to one, essentially.

• 1710

So while we can't change how parties operate, what we can do is identify in the Elections Act a mechanism for giving them the incentive to open up their eyes and look more fairly and more equally at the other half of the population—pardon me, the other 52% of the population—because the facts are simple: they haven't been doing it. I am one who believes in absolute fairness, and there has not been fairness or we would have a different House of Commons from what we have today. And whatever the disincentives are that there aren't more women, we have to overcome those disadvantages if we truly believe we want a democratic Parliament. It's that simple.

And what the minister has put forward is nothing that says you have to have so many, nothing that forces anybody to do anything, nothing that takes away, Ted, the right of your voters to choose you over Mobina Jaffer, or whoever else might run against you the next time. But it is something that does at least create a greater likelihood that the parties will not operate with the usual blinkers on but will try to look more fairly for the most qualified candidate, not the one most like the one they had before.

It's that simple. I guess that doesn't lead me to any questions, except maybe one specific one. We've talked about, as you know, how the minister has put forward the suggestion that child care expenses be allowed. I think I heard all three of you suggest that it should be more like dependant care, not simply—

Ms. Ruth Brown: Yes.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: —child care, because I think we know now that one in five women are looking after someone other than a child who is dependent on them for care.

That was the only really concrete thing I had, Mr. Chairman. I did have to get some comment on the record here.

The Chairman: You asked a very fine series of comments. Thank you, Ms. Catterall.

Is there any response from the witnesses, or Ms. Proulx? Is Ms. Proulx still there?

Ms. Rachel Proulx: Yes, I am.

The Chairman: Good.

I'll go from Ms. Catterall to Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, this has been a very interesting and informative session. I watched the reactions of my Reform Party colleagues closely. I also observed that Mr. Pickard was quick to take offence with the idea of awarding incentives to political parties that encourage women to run for elected office.

Mr. Pickard has probably forgotten that in recent years, that is during the 1970s and 1980s, the Government of Canada brought in a number of initiatives, which were referred to at the time as positive discrimination initiatives, in an effort to correct certain structural imbalances within the public service in representation by women, members of cultural communities, aboriginals and other groups. Therefore, it's not at all surprising to see people react adversely or negatively to the idea of bringing in incentives or positive discrimination measures.

Ms. St-Hilaire made a point during her presentation which in my view is very important. To those who are concerned that a measure designed to encourage women to become active in politics might be extended to ethnic groups, persons with disabilities and so forth, an important distinction must be drawn. The issue here is not whether a person is a member of a cultural community, an aboriginal or a person with a disability. The issue is whether the candidate is a man or a woman.

• 1715

Gender representation must be recognized in our institutions. One would have to be blind not to see that the economic and political structures in which we operate today as a society were created in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries by men, for men. The system was not designed in a way that would allow for the integration of women. The structures as such have never been altered. If we want women to contribute, along with men, to the process of making structural changes to existing institutions, they must be allowed to take their place within the system. If this means that the state must enact legislation to encourage women to be actively involved in politics, then so be it.

Mr. Anders' earlier attempt to draw a comparison between women's involvement in politics and their representation within other professional groups was off the mark. If we want to encourage women to enter non-traditional fields and if we want to take steps to encourage men to consider non-traditional jobs as well, then our legislative framers must ensure that changes are made to our social and economic structures.

It will never be possible for us to achieve these changes through conventional channels, so as to ensure that women make a contribution—not necessarily a better contribution than men, but a different one. I think this could make all the difference.

If legislation is needed to bring about these changes and to ensure much sooner a more equitable representation in the political arena by men and women, than that's what we must do. If we sit back and wait for nature to take its course, we may have to wait another 50, 60, 100 or 125 years before we see an equal number of men and women in politics. Our colleagues described the problem very well. The problem lies with the way political conventions are organized and these conventions are run by political parties.

The New Democratic Party has, of course, established a fund to encourage women to become high-ranking party officials, and that's a fine initiative on its part. Unfortunately, however, not all political parties have gone this far. In order to get political parties to simplify the way they run conventions and to encourage greater participation by women in the process, the state must award parties incentives to continue moving in this direction.

Of course, certain structural changes are warranted because some people are uncomfortable with the idea of giving money to encourage women's involvement in politics. This may be only a transitional or temporary measure, one that will lead to more fundamental changes. The Canadian Labour Congress has suggested that proportional representation might not only correct any inequities within the current system in terms of party representation and ideologies in the House of Commons, but might also correct certain imbalances in gender representation in the House. Proportional representation would also prevent a situation where—one can always dream—eventually, 60 per cent of all MPs would be women, and 40 per cent, men. Currently, we have the reverse situation, more or less. There are too few women in politics and we need to change that. Obviously, with this bill, we do not foresee the inclusion in the Elections Act of a proportional representation provision. Therefore, some transitional or temporary measures are needed. One such positive measure is the bill sponsored by my colleague for Longueuil and supported by the minister himself.

This is merely my personal opinion. Perhaps our witnesses would like to respond to my comments about financial incentives.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Bergeron, you've made a very fine intervention, but I wanted to let you know that we're at six and a half minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I have a technical question for Ms. Proulx. Is there an official French designation for the Canadian Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs? I see here on the agenda that the name appears in English only. I was wondering what your federation was officially called in French.

Ms. Rachel Proulx: In French, we're known as the Fédération canadienne des clubs de femmes de carrières commerciales et professionnelles. That's not a very good translation and that's why, at the national level, we refer to ourselves as BPW Canada, in both languages.

• 1720

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Thank you very much.

Ms. Rachel Proulx: I greatly appreciated your comments. I think you painted a fairly accurate picture of the situation.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chairman: Now, if I don't see any further requests for interventions—

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I'm restraining myself today.

The Chairman: Of course.

Well, it being 22 minutes after the hour...but I will recognize Ms. Laidlaw-Sly.

Ms. Cathy Laidlaw-Sly: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted to return to the issue of third-party funding and putting limits on it, which we espoused. We want to see it limited, controlled, because, as we see it right now, there is a great inequality in the means for third parties to raise funds.

I want to draw it to your attention and have it noted here in the minutes. This is a verbal interjection. We didn't put it in our report. The fact is, the Fraser Institute—admittedly—is able to give receipts for donations to support it. The Fraser Institute exists as a research and advocacy group, for business interests in particular, which, I repeat, is a special interest group. It's certainly not a general one.

Women's organizations like the National Council of Women of Canada are not allowed to have a tax number. We cannot raise money by donation because we are told that we don't just do research and education work but advocacy. I submit that there is a gross injustice there, an apparent injustice, and that this is perhaps one of the corollary issues when it comes to the funding of the political process.

I would hope that this committee will take a very close look at how different third-party groups are funded. Is it on an equal basis? If not, why not? And can it be made equal?

I thank you.

The Chairman: I will just note that I'm advised that the Department of Finance and the Department of National Revenue are looking at the issue of charitable numbers, tax numbers, and deductibility of contributions from the general perspective, not just from the women's issues perspective. But we do take your point, and our researcher here has taken note of your verbal representation on this.

Ms. Cathy Laidlaw-Sly: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you for being here.

Thank you, Ms. Proulx, for joining us by teleconference.

Ms. Rachel Proulx: Thank you.

The Chairman: I'll now adjourn.