An Effective Player in the Parliamentary Process: The Liberal Women’s Caucus, 1993 – 2001
By Jackie F. Steele Winner of the Alf Hales Research Award October 2001
Paper written for the Institute On Governance’s 2001 Alf Hales Research award
Institute On Governance Ottawa, Canada www.iog.ca Ó 2001 All rights reserved
An Effective Player in the Parliamentary Process: The Liberal Women’s Caucus, 1993 - 2001
ISBN 1-894443-08-X
Published and distributed by: The Institute On Governance Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Phone: (1-613) 562-0090 Fax: (1-613) 562-0097 Web Site: www.iog.ca The views expressed in this publication are the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Institute On Governance or its Board of Directors.
The Institute On Governance (IOG) is a non-profit organization founded in 1990 to promote effective governance. From our perspective, governance comprises the traditions, institutions and processes that determine how power is exercised, how citizens are given a voice, and how decisions are made on issues of public concern.
Our current activities fall within these broad themes: building policy capacity; Aboriginal governance; accountability and performance measurement; youth and governance; citizen participation; governance and the voluntary sector; and technology and governance.
In pursuing these themes, we work in Canada and internationally. We provide advice on governance matters to organizations in the public, private and non-profit sectors. We bring people together in a variety of settings, events and professional development activities to promote learning and dialogue on governance issues. We undertake policy-relevant research, and publish results in the form of policy briefs and research papers.
You will find additional information on our themes and current activities on our web site, at www.iog.ca.
For further information, please contact:
Institute On Governance 122 Clarence Street Ottawa, Ontario K1N 5P6 Canada tel: (613) 562-0090 fax: (613) 562-0097 [email protected] www.iog.ca Table of Contents
Introduction 1
The Historic Context of the LWC 2
The Political Participation of Women 2
Gender Balance and Participation in Parliament 3
Structure and Composition of the LWC 4
Membership 4
Attendance and Participation 4
The LWC under the Current Chair 4
Allegiances and Alliances 5
Shifting Relationships 5
Goals and Objectives of Current Members 5
The Current Role of the LWC 6
I. A Personal Support Network for Women 6
II. A Professional Support Network for Women 8
Symbolic and Practical Gains 9
Key Positions within the Party 10
Reforming Liberal Party Regulations 11
The Defining Role of the LWC 13
III. A Feminist Policy Generator 13
A) Critical Input to Ministers 14
B) Collaborating with Other Caucuses 15
C) Playing Hardball 16
D) Resistance is Futile 17
Conclusions 19
Bibliography 22
Jackie F. Steele
Jackie served as a Parliamentary Intern in the Canadian House of Commons in the 2000- 2001 academic year. Originally from Delta, British Columbia, Jackie completed a Joint Honours in Political Science and East Asian Studies at McGill University. Jackie lived in Nagano, Japan, for three years where she promoted community development and human rights education and worked with local citizens to found a grassroots International Exchange Association that would facilitate their development projects. She is now pursuing a Masters in Legal Studies at Carleton University in Ottawa. Her thesis focuses on a comparative study of the effects of the law upon women’s citizenship rights in both Canada and Japan. Other research interests include women and politics, electoral reform, and comparative Canadian federalism. Jackie is on the Board of UNIFEM Canada and is working to build partnerships with UNIFEM Japan around common challenges in women’s development. Jackie can be reached with comments at: [email protected].
Alf Hales Research Award
The Institute On Governance (IOG) created the Alf Hales Research Award in 1999 to recognise the valuable educational experience that the Parliamentary Internship Programme provides in Canada.
The award seeks to promote research excellence and young people’s understanding of governance issues. It is handed out annually to the best Intern essay on a particular aspect of the Parliamentary system.
This year's winning paper reflects the originality and spirit that Alf Hales demonstrated when he created the Internship Programme 30 years ago. Introduction Many groups, both formal and informal, affect the parliamentary process and the generation of public policy. Prior to a bill being introduced, extensive consultations take place. The bill is drafted by the public service, advice is obtained from the legal clerks, and feedback is sought through in-house briefing of cabinet and the National Caucus. After the piece of legislation is introduced in the House of Commons, it is dissected and changed in committee, and perhaps amended again at the report stage. Finally, it is sent for sober review in the Senate. Given all of these opportunities for amendment, one would be tempted to conclude that no one group truly impacts all that profoundly on the bill or on public policy in general.
However, after five months of witnessing meetings firsthand as a parliamentary intern, and studying the interaction of the Liberal Women’s Caucus (hereafter LWC) within the parliamentary process, I have come to the conclusion that the LWC exerts significant influence in ensuring that women-friendly policies and practices are increasingly adopted on Parliament Hill. Moreover, the LWC has been able to use its unique status to provide a voice for an underrepresented majority demographic in Canadian society, namely women. For the past eight years, the Liberal Women’s Caucus has promoted important changes in the representation of women in public policy initiatives and within the Liberal Party of Canada.
Before I describe how and in what ways the Liberal Women’s Caucus has made an important impact on public policy, I will discuss the challenges that studying such a caucus presents to the researcher. Caucuses by nature are exclusive to elected Members of Parliament. In certain circumstances, Members’ staff are allowed access to meetings to provide a supportive role, but the private nature of the caucus is critical. It provides its members with an opportunity to exchange views and offer frank assessments of events, policies and party dynamics. Using a football metaphor to represent political parties in action, Professor Paul Thomas observed, teams “huddle” in secret caucuses before and during the game to reach agreement on “play selection”.1 Consequently, the presence of a non-member can perceivably destroy the “off the record” nature of all in-house discussions, and therefore lead to the censoring of one’s opinions for fear they may be repeated to those not loyal to caucus and party goals. When I began my study of the LWC, I had assumed that I would be gaining any and all of my information from interviews with caucus members. Little public documentation is available to explain the role of the fairly recent women’s caucus, and records of the proceedings are maintained for internal purposes alone, if they are kept at all. I was honoured and surprised when the current chair of the LWC, Carolyn Bennett, Member of Parliament for St. Paul’s, allowed me to sit in on a caucus meeting in the Parliamentary Restaurant one Wednesday at noon. From that point
1 Party Caucuses: Behind Closed Doors, Ottawa November 21-22, 1997, Conference organized by the Canadian Study of Parliament Group (CSPG), website accessed 29/03/2001 www.studyparliament.ca/english/publications_1997_fall_conference.htm, p. 2
An Effective Player in the Parliamentary Process Institute On Governance 1 on, my fly-on-the-wall presence was gradually accepted among caucus members. 2 Moreover, after an earlier than predicted rising of the House, the members nonetheless reserved a time when I could interview them about their experiences with the LWC since its founding in 1993. My observations of the caucus meetings, as well as the comments and reflections of the various members of the Liberal Women’s Caucus have provided me with invaluable insight into the tremendous impact the caucus has had on the inclusion and importance of women’s voices in the parliamentary process.3
The Historical Context of the LWC
In order to show how the Liberal Women’s Caucus has been effective in representing Canadian women in public policy and parliamentary roles, I will briefly outline the background of women’s participation in Canadian politics, clarify some of the political terminology, and illustrate my use of it.
The Political Participation of Women Traditional political science literature on political participation and recruitment has long asserted that citizen politics or mass politics4 is the only prerequisite to participation in elite politics.5 In other words, if women vote, they should be able to advance up the ladder and become involved in elite politics on par with men. Although studies show that women and men participate in mass politics fairly equally, the absence of women in elite politics in numbers equal to men suggests another variable at work. Robert Putnam calls this the law of increasing disproportion — the higher up one goes in the party hierarchy, the fewer women are to be found.6 If one looks at the participation of women in major Canadian party organizations in 1992, it becomes clear that this law holds true.7 Challenging the traditional theories that ignore important factors which prevent the participation of women in elite politics, British political scientist Pippa Norris outlines three factors which impede women’s equal participation in politics: cultural, socio-economic and political. The
2 Understanding the notion that an oath of secrecy is critical to assure openness and frankness of debate within caucus discussions, I would therefore like to extend my most sincere thanks to the Chair and current Members of the Caucus for trusting me to witness their most private of meetings. 3 Realizing the potential conflict surrounding research based on personal interviews and my firsthand interpretations of the successes of the Liberal Women’s Caucus, I attempted to contact key Ministers who had been in dialogue with the Caucus concerning certain key policy areas. Interviews with Ministers were not feasible due to the time and access constraints. Moreover, there are certain political factors that would make it difficult for a Minister to make comments
Gender Balance and Participation in Parliament Many would argue that the numerical under-representation of women is problematic for Canada, not only from a democratic perspective, but also because the impact on public policy is potentially negative. If the life experiences of most Canadian women are absent from political debate, then the realities used to inform the debates and decisions on policy initiatives are lacking in credibility.9 The fact that over 50% of the Canadian population is female, and that our federal parliament has yet to attain even 25% representation of women is troublesome; the highest percentage of women elected was in the federal election of 2000 where 20.6% or 62 female MPs were among the 301 individuals selected to represent the Canadian population.10 Lamenting the classic understanding of political participation achieved through voting as simplistic, Manon Tremblay asserts, “La théorie classique de la représentation repose sur l’idée d’une participation large et active des citoyens à la vie politique; établit un lien entre démocratie et suffrage universel, laissant dans l’ombre la dimension de la composition du Parlement.”11 In order to redress the issue of under- representation, one must consider what is meant by “representation”. Hanna Pitkin and Manon Tremblay highlight two ways in which women may be represented: descriptive representation12 or mirror representation13, meaning a numerical reflection of society’s male-female composition; and substantive representation14 or representation on the basis of
8 Pippa Norris, Politics and Sexual Equality: The Comparative Position of Women in Western Democracies, 1987, pp. 120/131 9 MacIvor, p. 307-319 10 Elections Canada data, Table 7: Distribution of seats, by political affiliation and sex, http://www.elections.ca/gen/rep/37g/table7_e.html, accessed 07/01/02 11 Tremblay and Pelletier, Que font-elles en politique?, Les Presses de l’Université Laval, Sainte-Foy, 1995, p. 129 12 Hanna Fenichel Pitkin, The Concept of Representation, 1967, p. 11 13 Tremblay and Pelletier, p. 130 14 Pitkin, p. 11 An Effective Player in the Parliamentary Process 3 Institute On Governance one’s “prises de position”15, meaning the representation of a feminist ideology and the pursuit of policy areas that improve the lives and promote the interests of women. The presence of women in numbers roughly equal to men makes a substantive difference even if not all of the elected women are feminists. Women’s representation in party organizations is directly relevant to public policy outcomes due to the reality that their views inform the debates at hand.16
Structure and Composition of the LWC
Membership The activities of the Liberal Women’s Caucus are largely defined by the individuals who form the group. Since its founding in 1993, the LWC has been understood to include all female Liberal parliamentarians from both the House and Senate. Over the course of the past eight years of Liberal government, the active members of the LWC have ebbed and flowed according to the issues being tackled at any given time, and other competing responsibilities. The LWC is recognized as an official organ of the party structure, reporting to the National Caucus weekly, holding a seat on the National Executive, and working in collaboration with other organizations, such as the Liberal Women’s Commission and the Judy LaMarsh Fund. It meets in a private room of the Parliamentary Restaurant on Wednesdays between 12:00-1:30pm, which is the timeslot immediately following the National Caucus which all Liberals are expected to attend. As with other caucuses, a nominal caucus fee is contributed by active members; however, all of the Liberal women and one man considered a part of the women’s caucus receive the information about caucus meetings and activities.
Attendance and Participation An interesting difference with other descriptive caucuses (such as regional caucuses based on province of origin) is that members who neglect to attend regional caucuses are often frowned upon and questioned by their peers for their lack of involvement. Similar coercive measures are less prevalent among women’s caucus members; women who fail to participate are not placed under comparable levels of scrutiny, nor do they feel a sense of disloyalty for failing to attend with their fellow women parliamentarians.17
The LWC under the Current Chair The LWC under Chair Carolyn Bennett communicates almost exclusively via electronic mail. The caucus chair's legislative assistant, Leanne Maidment, sends out weekly invitations to all caucus members, highlighting the guest speaker.18 A subsequent reminder is sent out on the Tuesday prior to the Wednesday caucus meetings. The range of caucus
15 Tremblay and Pelletier, p. 130-131 16 Bashevkin, p. 67-8 17 Phone interview with Leanne Maidment, Legislative Assistant to Carolyn Bennett, January 8th, 2002 18 Phone interview with Leanne Maidment An Effective Player in the Parliamentary Process Institute On Governance 4 meetings within the Liberal party are all coordinated through the office of the National Caucus chair, Paul DeVillers. His office ensures that each of the respective schedules of caucus meetings is respected by Liberal members; concurrent meetings are rarely allowed. In this way, all caucuses are able to draw from a broader membership and function more successfully.
Allegiances and Alliances
Shifting Relationships As I studied the LWC, it became evident that the caucus had deeper roots in the House of Parliament, and attracted more Members of Parliament to its Wednesday meetings than it did Senators. Other differences and trends arise according to the priorities and vision of the respective caucus chairs. Manon Tremblay notes that during the 35th parliament, the Liberal Women’s Caucus was not open to men, and quotes the chair, “Ils peuvent demander d’y assister et ils peuvent venir nous parler des questions sur lesquelles ils veulent travailler. Par contre, nous avons dit aux hommes qui s’interrogeaient là-dessus (le caractère exclusivement féminin du Caucus), « Écoutez, cet endroit a été fondé par des hommes, pour des hommes et, traditionellement, les femmes y ont été fort peu nombreuses. Pourriez-vous nous laisser discuter entre nous une fois par semaine? »”.19 Over the course of the past eight years, the function and focus of the caucus has evolved according to the interests and needs of the membership, as will be described in the sections below. The current LWC is open to all Liberal parliamentarians, male and female, be they backbenchers, chairs of committees, parliamentary secretaries, or even members of cabinet. The descriptive nature of basing membership upon the gendered category of ‘woman’ has become perhaps less indicative of caucus goals in recent years, and the defining feature that best describes the core group of women and one man active in the women’s caucus during the 37th parliament is their commitment to achieving gender equality by pursuing feminist policy solutions. Of the one male and 62 female Liberal MPs and Senators who are members of the Liberal Women’s Caucus, most interviewees established the average attendance at weekly caucus meetings as ranging between 15 and 25 individuals.20 A core group of women attend every week, but there is also a fluid exchange of members who attend somewhat less regularly.
Goals and Objectives of Current Members The focus of my research was upon the women who do attend the LWC, and the value they place upon the group, and the group’s role within the larger parliamentary process as evidenced in their responses to my interview questions. Not all caucus members were interviewed, nor did I attempt to interview the 30+ women who were unable or chose not to attend caucus regularly. Similar to those associated with MPs’ decisions to not participate in other caucuses of which they are a part (regional caucuses, industry-related
19 Manon Tremblay, Des femmes au Parlement: une stratégie féministe?, les Éditions du remue-ménage, Montréal, 1999, p. 162 20 Interviews with Liberal Women’s Caucus Members, Ottawa, May-June 2001. An Effective Player in the Parliamentary Process 5 Institute On Governance caucuses etc), there are a myriad of reasons why all 62 women do not attend the LWC each week. Aside from the more obvious time restrictions upon participation such as meetings with representatives of important constituencies, hosting a school group or members from one’s riding who are in Ottawa, and generally fulfilling the other competing obligations of the average parliamentarian, some caucus members interviewed noted that not all Liberal women identify with the feminist policy goals of the caucus, and that some who have never in fact attended have a misconstrued vision of the work that goes on. Moreover, it has been noted that some of the women on the Hill fail to see the systemic barriers to women that exist; they don’t see the need for the caucus, and simply prefer to ally themselves with their male colleagues and have therefore refrained from becoming an active part in the caucus.21 Despite the descriptive nature of LWC implying it be only for female Liberals, the current caucus chair, Carolyn Bennett, has repeatedly extended the invitation to all of her Liberal colleagues to join their meetings. Several caucus members commented on the proportion of their male colleagues who were feminists, and with whom they worked on a variety of social policy areas in other caucuses and committees; however at the time of this research, only one male MP, Irwin Cotler, had taken the initiative to participate regularly in the Liberal Women’s Caucus and become a member.
The Current Role of the LWC
When determining the role the LWC plays within Canadian politics and the Liberal party, it is important to distinguish its own goals for representation. In the following pages, I will illustrate three key roles through which the women’s caucus is instrumental in affecting the representation of women in government more generally, and in its public policy outcomes more specifically.
I. A Personal Support Network for Women The first role of the Liberal Women’s Caucus is to act as a personal support network for female (and male where applicable22) Liberal parliamentarians. Parliament is still noted as one of the last remaining bastions of male culture in Canadian institutions; the atmosphere in the Gothic Centre Block remains that of an old-fashioned men’s club in which women are interlopers. 23 As one female MP remarked following the election, “the Brashest of the class of `93 are busy learning how to play in the big leagues; feminism is not a big agenda item for me. I want visible power”.24
A survey held by the Inter-Parliamentary Union noted that many women in politics had commented on the slow pace of change in attitudes and practices despite the presence of
21 Interviews with Liberal Women’s Caucus Members, Ottawa, May-June 2001 22 There is currently one active male member of the Caucus, Irwin Cotler, MP. “Montreal MP Cotler Joins the Liberal Women’s Caucus”, The Hill Times, March 27th, 2000, p.2 23 Charlotte Gray, “House-breaking: fifty-three women MPs are fighting the relentlessly male culture of the Hill, p. 4, www.web2.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark/734/229/30533151w3/purl=rc1_CPI_0_L9, accessed 30/03/2001 24 Gray, p. 8 An Effective Player in the Parliamentary Process Institute On Governance 6 women in their respective institutions. They noted the dominance of what was perceived as masculine behaviour, and talked of becoming like their male counterparts, fearing the adornment of the “male mask”, abuse of power by male and female colleagues and the failure of other women to provide support.25 While one would think that this is more problematic in newer democracies or in parliaments with only a few token women, Sue Barnes noted that approximately half of the Liberal women in the House and Senate do not attend the women’s caucus. She explained, “Some women think that they will get ahead faster if they act like mini-men and so choose to not align themselves with other women, and the caucus itself. Caucus is not about personal gain.”26 Despite the myriad of responsibilities that may make it difficult for women to attend caucus, given the competitive context, the presence of a group that can provide collegiality and emotional support for women who are forced to work within the constraints of this political culture is critical. Veteran parliamentarian Sheila Finestone asserted that the most important aspect of the LWC is the sense of belonging and networking in a cold and unfriendly environment, and the sense of trust and collaboration towards common goals.27 Marlene Catterall echoes this in her response that the caucus is a place “where I can be totally and brutally honest; I feel I can say what I feel and think.28 International human rights lawyer and newly elected Montreal MP Irwin Cotler, the one active male Member, also noted that he enjoyed the fellowship and friendship among members, and found it to be a great opportunity to discuss the gendered dimensions of public policy and politics in an informal yet organized setting.29
The current parliament has the most women ever with 62 Members of Parliament, or 20.6% of the legislators. The past three parliaments have brought important increases in the number of women on the Hill, but personal accounts suggest that more women are still needed to bring systemic change to the political culture of the institution. Many cite the Norwegian example that the strategy of getting more women into public offices can make a difference provided their numbers are substantial enough, at least 15% of the total.30 Some political scientists, however, evaluate the numbers currently in the Canadian parliament and have doubts that the critical mass argument actually works. In his 1999 speech on women’s participation in the 21st century, Shabbir Cheema of the United Nations Development Programme sets 30% as the breaking point for critical mass to carry out significant changes to the political climate.31 It seems the perspectives change depending on one’s personal experiences with the institution in question. As Mary Clancy stated following the 1993 election, “There are now thirty-six women among the 178 Liberal MPs. We went over the top, from tokenism to a voluble force.”32 In her article, Charlotte Gray asserts, “Parliament Hill security guards have finally ‘got it’ and stopped assuming that
25 Politics: Women’s Insight, Analysis of the IPU survey by: Dr. Marilyn Waring et al, 2000, p. 106 26 Interview with Sue Barnes, MP, Ottawa, June 4th, 2001 27 Interview with Sheila Finestone, Senator, Ottawa, June 18th, 2001 28 Interview with Marlene Catteral, MP, Whip of the Liberal Party, Ottawa, June 20th, 2001 29 Interview with Irwin Cotler, MP, Ottawa, June 13th, 2001 30 MacIvor, p. 291 31 Shabbir Cheema, Speech given at a meeting on Women and Political Participation: 21st Century Challenges, New Delhi, India, United Nations Development Programme: Management, Development and Governance Division, www.magnet.undp.org/docs/gender/speeches.doc.html 32 Gray, p. 1 An Effective Player in the Parliamentary Process 7 Institute On Governance any woman on the Hill must be either ‘wife of…’ or ‘assistant to’…”.33 And yet just this past spring, following a farewell lunch with the thrice-elected MP, Paddy Torsney, for whom I interned and her all-female staff, I witnessed a young male staffer attempt to make small talk in the elevator by asking if we all worked for MPs.34 Clearly not all of the attitudes about women on Parliament Hill have been eliminated, and the repeated assumptions about women on the Hill can begin to take their toll on women parliamentarians.
Sydney Sharp asserts that women have learned to use subversive tactics to increase their influence beyond their numbers.35 I would argue that the founding of the Liberal Women’s Caucus in 1993 was one such way women sought to organize themselves to support one another in this unwelcoming environment, and use the LWC as a base from which to pursue their roles on the Hill. Such a network would work to ensure that the women could survive the personal strains of political life on Parliament Hill, allowing a critical mass of women to build and increase with each election, bringing renewed energy for the job, and creating a commitment to mentor the newer women to the Hill.
II. A Professional Support Network for Women The second role that the Liberal Women’s Caucus plays is as a professional support network. This support has been threefold: 1) it promotes gender equality through symbolic and practical gains, 2) it strives to distribute key positions held by the Liberal party to women parliamentarians, and 3) it attempts to reform Liberal party regulations to help break down the barriers to women pursuing elected office. Only in recent years have there been enough women on the Hill to demand changes to the facilities and other services in order to respond to the needs of women parliamentarians. In 1990, the cross-party Association of Women Parliamentarians was formed to discuss women’s common experiences, including difficulties in combining family and political life.36 They managed to make the parliamentary timetable more accommodating for people with family responsibilities by having more frequent week-long breaks and arranging for the House to rise in the third week of December.37 In addition, they pursued basic changes such as having more lights in the parking lot, and prompted a House committee to look at creating sanctions against sexist and racist remarks in the House.38 However, with the
33 Gray, p. 2 33 Interview with Sheila Finestone, Senator, Ottawa, June 18th, 2001 33 Interview with Marlene Catteral, MP, Whip of the Liberal Party, Ottawa, June 20th, 2001 33 Interview with Irwin Cotler, MP, Ottawa, June 13th, 2001 33 MacIvor, p. 291 33 Shabbir Cheema, Speech given at a meeting on Women and Political Participation: 21st Century Challenges, New Delhi, India, United Nations Development Programme: Management, Development and Governance Division, www.magnet.undp.org/docs/gender/speeches.doc.html 33 Gray, p. 1 34 Returning from the Parliamentary Restaurant with MP Paddy Torsney and staff, June 14th, 2001 35 Sydney Sharp, The Gilded Ghetto: Women and Political Power in Canada, 1994, p. 220 36 Sharpe, p. 220 37 Gray, p. 3 38 Kate Malloy, “Women want into politics say Liberal MPs”, The Hill Times, March 3, 1994, p. 4 An Effective Player in the Parliamentary Process Institute On Governance 8 election of 1993 and the high influx of Reform party MPs, cross-party cooperation became less feasible since Reform party caucus chair Deborah Grey openly stated that there were simply no “women’s issues”.39 After the founding of the LWC in 1993 and the election of its first chair, MP Paddy Torsney, the group continued to work towards better conditions for all women on the Hill, reporting to the National Caucus each week in order to sensitize their colleagues about topics broached in their meetings.
Symbolic and Practical Gains One concrete way they sought to raise awareness among their male colleagues about the importance of issues affecting women was through a celebration of International Women’s Day initiated by Chair Paddy Torsney that focused the parliamentary discussions on women and featured almost exclusively women in the House from the Speaker, to the pages, and the MPs who spoke to a variety of issues important to women and their communities.40 Logistically, they sought to improve the situation of women on the Hill through the pursuit of a very basic amenity: a women’s washroom within close proximity to the House. One month after the House opened, the closest women’s washroom was closed for renovations and so the women were forced to trek their way up three floors mid- debate to find one.41 The Speaker agreed to solve the washroom problem, even if he had to build more facilities; thus the men’s washroom next to the Office of the House Leader was renovated to create a women’s washroom as well.
A more symbolic achievement in recognizing women’s role in Canadian politics that occurred under Chair Jean Augustine was the adoption of the Famous Five Foundation’s monument. Emily Murphy, Louise McKinney, Nellie McClung, Henrietta Muir Edwards and Irene Parlby are known as the Famous Five as a result of the historic ‘Person’s Case’ they fought against the government of Canada so that women would be recognized as persons and become eligible appointments to the Senate.42 The Famous Five Foundation was created to promote the recognition of women’s contributions to nation-building, and consequently, President and CEO Frances Wright approached the women’s caucus to seek support for a sculpture of the Famous Five for Parliament Hill. This monument would become the first on Parliament Hill to effectively honour Canadian women for their political participation and country-building efforts.43 Working with Ms. Wright, Caucus Chair Jean Augustine approached the Minister of Heritage, Sheila Copps, the Minister for the Status of Women, Hedy Fry, and the Minister for Public Works, Alfonso Gagliano, to explore the possibility of bringing this monument to Parliament Hill. In December 1997, Ms. Augustine brought a motion in the House that passed with unanimous consent signaling an important commitment to the implementation of the Famous Five on Parliament Hill.44 In October of 2000, this monument was unveiled with speeches from the
39 Tremblay, Des femmes au Parlement p. 161 40 Interview with Paddy Torsney, MP, Chair of the Liberal Women’s Caucus 1994-96, Ottawa, June 12th, 2001, see also Tremblay, Femmes au Parlement, p. 168-169 41 Gray, p. 3 42 Famous Five Foundation website, http://www.famous5.org/html/famous5.html, accessed 09/01/02 43 Interview with a staffer from the Office of Jean Augustine, Ottawa, June 20th, 2001. 44 Interview with a staffer from the Office of Jean Augustine An Effective Player in the Parliamentary Process 9 Institute On Governance Governor-General of Canada, Adrienne Clarkson, Heritage Minister Sheila Copps, and the Minister for the Status of Women, Hedy Fry.45
Key Positions within the Party The second way in which the LWC has provided professional support for Liberal women was its successful lobbying for greater numbers of women in key government roles. Over the past eight years, the Liberal Women’s Caucus has worked collectively to lobby for more gender parity on important committees such as justice and finance, resulting in equal numbers of women and men being placed on the justice committee, and an extra woman being added to the finance committee.46
Another area in which the Liberal Women’s Caucus lobbied to have more numerical inclusion of women was within the Liberal spots for delegations abroad, assuring that all- party delegations, or ministerial trips abroad are inclusive of female parliamentarians as well. For positions that are elected, and not appointed, the caucus has worked “subversively” as a collective to stack certain parliamentary groups to ensure that they would have a voting mass for the female candidate, be it Carolyn Parrish as the chair of the Canada-NATO Friendship Group, or Sue Barnes as the chair of the Canadian Parliamentary Association.47 Caucus support can sometimes be perceived as having a double-edged sword. Whether or not these candidates solicited support from the women’s caucus and were elected strictly as a result of the support from the women’s caucus is not always clear. Carolyn Parrish asserts that she won the chair as a result of the experience she gained from working with the group for five years, and that for every female vote in her favour, she had approximately 6 male votes. She discounts the fact that she was elected because she had the caucus’ support, and feels that it is a dangerous card to play and may have worked against her for some voters. She states, “I tend to be cautious because it can be turned against us and they outnumber us.” She resented the statement made at National Caucus that implied that her success was due to support from the women’s caucus.48 A different example of the united support from within the Liberal National Caucus and its impact is the effective collegiality that worked to promote the candidacy of Jane Stewart for National Caucus chair in 1994. When she mentioned to the caucus that she was considering running for National Caucus chair, there was resounding enthusiasm among members to promote her candidacy. This promotion campaign included lobbying other members to vote for their candidate, and even influencing other candidates that they would not stand a chance in the face of the women’s caucus support. As Mary Clancy jokingly remarked, “I told my friend Ron MacDonald that I would break his kneecaps if he ran against her. She won the chair uncontested.”49
45 I attended this inaugural event on Parliament Hill in October 2000. 46 Telephone interview with Carolyn Bennett, MP, Current Chair of the Liberal Women’s Caucus, June 20th, 2001 47 Interview with Paddy Torsney, MP, Chair of the Liberal Women’s Caucus 1994-96, Ottawa, June 12th, 2001 48 Telephone Interview with Carolyn Parrish, MP, Chair of the Canada-NATO Friendship Group, June 27th 49 Gray, p. 5 An Effective Player in the Parliamentary Process Institute On Governance 10 In an adversarial context, it should not come as a surprise to anyone that a considerable degree of lobbying takes place. Consequently, it comes as no surprise that the LWC functions as a lobby within the Liberal party. It is a forum that provides emotional and concrete support for women, support that is not provided by any other group on the Hill. Arguably, in a charged political arena where regional, linguistic and internal leadership squabbles are ongoing, the balance of power is constantly shifting. Gender, among other factors, comes into play, but it is difficult to ascribe any given success to one group in particular. However, while the caucus may not be the only reason for the success of different women in gaining important positions, certainly their concerted effort and commitment to back strong female candidates who are considering certain positions can only help. Since one function of the LWC is to lobby, the danger exists that a backlash against female candidates will emerge. It is important to strike a balance; obviously the LWC tactics have met with an important degree of success, and female and male colleagues would do well to understand its organizing power. However, rather than openly reaffirming all of the caucus victories, at times, keeping those gains under their hats has proven to be a more effective tactic to protect the long-term goals of the caucus’ lobbying strategy.
Reforming Liberal Party Regulations A third and final area in which the women’s caucus has provided support for future Liberal women parliamentarians, and for current MPs should their riding nominations be contested despite their incumbency, is campaign nominations. Beginning with a commitment to have increased numbers of female candidates running for the Liberal party, Prime Minister Jean Chretien vowed to have at least 25% female candidates.50 Despite calls from those opposed to affirmative action that the process was undemocratic, current Chair Carolyn Bennett has pronounced in favour of the Liberal practice that allows the leader to appoint candidates. “May the best man win – I don’t think cuts it these days”, she said, recognizing that it is a temporary measure to be used until the numbers of women and visible minorities in parliament are topped up.51 Clearly the small percentages present in parliament, despite the numerical majority of women and the abundance of visible minorities in Canada, highlight to what extent it is still a difficult arena to penetrate. Carolyn Bennett questions the solidarity-building mythology surrounding the big flashy nomination fight, noting, “The fights are so ugly that some supporters would switch parties because they were so mad their candidate had lost.”52 As Shaughnessy Cohen colourfully noted, “At candidate get-togethers, the women would bunch together, being friendly and asking about each other’s families. The men were like dogs pissing on hydrants, they were so competitive.”53
In addition to the emotional stresses of participating in almost hostile competition, and the alternative pitfall of being fielded as the sacrificial lamb in an unwinnable riding, another of the recognized challenges that women face when pursuing a nomination for a given
50 Shawn McCarthy, “All parties try to boost number of female MPs”, Toronto Star, April 28, 1997, p. A9 51 Terry McDonald, “Grit chair supports election tax breaks”, The Hill Times, p. 1 52 MacDonald, p. 9 53 Gray, p. 5 An Effective Player in the Parliamentary Process 11 Institute On Governance party is access to the networks of financial support that have traditionally been available to male candidates. As admitted by Sheila Finestone, “women politicians have a harder time fundraising simply because they don’t have the links that men do”, mentioning the “pool parties” that they held to raise $20,000 for 12 female candidates who ran in Quebec.54 Lobbying on behalf of the women’s caucus, Carolyn Bennett worked towards changes in the spending allowances within Liberal party nomination campaigns.55 Promoting the recommendations of the Lortie Commission on electoral reform, the women’s caucus realized a partial victory at the Liberal party’s Biennial Convention in May 2000 with the adoption of a resolution to curb nomination campaign spending. The campaign committee set the limit at 50% of the spending budget used in the election, and therefore failed to constitute the significant reduction upon possible spending that the caucus had hoped to initiate in order to level the playing field for female candidates who traditionally have more difficulty securing financial backers.56 Finally, in a speech to the House of Commons’ Procedure and House Affairs committee regarding the election reform bill, Bill C-2, Don Boudria suggested that the law include financial incentives for parties that field women.57 Although this provision was not included in the final version of Bill C-2, one positive change to improve accessibility for professional women (and men) when proposing their candidacy was in Section 80 which states that every employer of employees to whom Part III of the Canada Labour Code applies shall, on application, grant any such employee leave of absence, with or without pay, to seek nomination as a candidate.58
Ensuring the inclusion of women in important committees, positions and delegations seems obvious, and yet the reality on Parliament Hill was such that the LWC still needed to remind those making the decisions that it was a factor that needed more systematic attention. In an environment where factoring in regional and linguistic concerns is assumed, the Liberal Women’s Caucus has been there to highlight a new demographic that requires systemic inclusion if the government of Canada is to equitably reflect the gendered make-up of Canadian society among its ranks in its committees, its Friendship Groups and its delegations abroad. In turn, this kind of professional advancement has assured that women who do get elected can pursue gratifying careers, and are not marginalized from the various rewards systems that give MPs a range of interesting outlets for their energies, be it travel with a delegation, stewardship of a Friendship Group, or work on a challenging and traditionally male-dominated committee. Despite the personal and family stresses that women in particular must balance as parliamentarians as with other elite professions, if the women develop a sense of achievement and gratification from their roles on the Hill, they will be more likely to run for re-election. This will enhance the retention rate of women in the House of Commons, and build towards a critical mass that will ultimately transform the political culture more permanently. This personal and professional support, combined with changes to the Liberal party nomination regulations,
54 Molloy, p. 4 55 Taber, Jane, “Making politics easier for Liberal women”, The Ottawa Citizen, March 13, 2000 56 Telephone interview with Carolyn Bennett 57 McDonald, p. 9 58 Bill C-2, Section 80, http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/2/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-2/C- 2_3/90095b-5E.html#34
An Effective Player in the Parliamentary Process Institute On Governance 12 are working to build a strong turn-out of Canadian women who wish to enter elite politics, and whose numbers will continue to force the re-evaluation of systemic barriers to women’s participation in Canadian politics.
The Defining Role of the LWC
III. A Feminist Policy Generator The third and perhaps most important role of the Liberal Women’s Caucus is that of a policy development group. In this respect, the caucus takes on the role of a substantive representative59 of Canadian women. In the words of the current chair, the main goal of the women’s caucus is to ensure that the spectrum of voices at the table include the perspective of women Members of Parliament and a feminist perspective of the policy process of government through inclusive decision-making that incorporates the views of feminist women and men.60
Party discipline, stronger in Canada than in most countries, makes it extremely difficult for women to introduce gender issues. Lisa Young notes that female MPs often find themselves negotiating space for gender concerns within the constraints of both partisanship and regionalism.61 The LWC has established a niche for itself and has gained the ability to represent the voices and concerns of the feminist majority of women to cabinet and to its colleagues. Initiated by the first Liberal Women’s Caucus under Chair Paddy Torsney, they invited each cabinet member to appear before caucus to discuss the purview of their department’s responsibilities, programs and initiatives, and associated impact on women. Over the years, this format has become the focus of the women’s caucus and has been one of the most useful ways in which they have been able to create an impact on policy directions pursued by the Liberal government. All caucus members noted the rise in attendance when ministers were scheduled to come before caucus, as these meetings provided an ideal opportunity for backbench MPs to raise important issues with the minister directly. This improved access to ministers was understood to be significantly superior to that achieved by an MP who attempts to gain access to a minister upon their individual merits.62 For example, between January and June 2001, the LWC welcomed 11 different ministers, the Prime Minister’s social policy advisor, the Scientific Director for the CHIR Institute for Gender and Health, and two Justice officials.63 Reflecting on the interaction between Minister Robillard and the women’s caucus concerning the events
59 I use the term substantive representative in that the Caucus goal is to generate feminist viewpoints. Not all of the Liberal parliamentarians are members of the Liberal Women’s Caucus due to differing ideologies, or a desire to distance themselves from a gender-based group. That said, the absence of another Women’s Caucus has meant that the Caucus has come to represent women substantively through their policy work, but also descriptively in that they are the recognized group with whom to interface on women’s issues. They may not represent all of the different opinions of Liberal women, but they represent the feminist majority within the mass of Liberal women. 60 Telephone interview with Carolyn Bennett 61 Sharpe, p. 219 62 Interviews with Liberal Caucus Members, Ottawa, May-June 2001 63 Summary of the National Liberal Women’s Caucus – 237th Parliamentary Session, Liberal Research Branch, pp. 1-4 An Effective Player in the Parliamentary Process 13 Institute On Governance surrounding the government’s decision on pay equity, a staffer noted that the minister wanted to appear before the women’s caucus to inform them of the recent developments, the court’s decision, and to listen to the opinions and concerns of the women present.64 Current Chair Carolyn Bennett reflected that they had lost the first round on pay equity by failing to convince the government to not appeal. However, after extensive informal discussions and lobbying, when an appeal decision was to be made the second time around, the government acquiesced and did not appeal Judge Evan’s decision of October 19th, 1999.
The idea of having the women’s caucus on-side, or at least knowing of the concerns and objections that the women’s caucus has towards a minister’s piece of legislation gives them valuable feedback so that it can be modified before it is introduced. This is an important way for the government to build solidarity around an issue and avoid embarrassing controversies if certain members, or significant portions of the caucus who are of a particular demographic have problems with the bill. The women’s caucus plays an important role in providing that feedback to ministers; appearing before them to discuss new areas of concern gives the ministers a heads-up so that the final legislation is reflective of the views of the women’s caucus, and will have an equitable impact on Canadian men and women. The following four examples illustrate different ways in which the Liberal Women’s Caucus has successfully made a difference on public policy decisions. They have A) provided input prior to the drafting of legislation; B) collaborated with other caucuses around key areas; C) presented a united and uncompromising stand on an issue to force change on a specific decision; D) fanned out and lobbied consistently over time for transformative changes to policy generation.
A) Critical Input to Ministers A natural transformation over the years that highlights the caucus’ success in achieving legitimacy as the representative of Liberal women’s voices is the mixture of invitations to cabinet ministers, and conversely, requests by ministers to come before caucus to receive feedback on legislation that is being considered or is in the drafting stage. While the caucus may not retain formal power over legislation affecting women, it may be considered political suicide for a cabinet minister to ignore or dismiss the voices of women’s caucus. Citing Caucus Chair Paddy Torsney of the 35th parliament, Tremblay writes, “Ainsi, aux dires de cette députée libérale, le Caucus aurait un grand pouvoir d’influence sur les membres du Cabinet: Il n’y a pas un ministre qui oserait avoir le Caucus des femmes monté contre lui…Politiquement, il serait fait. Politiquement, ce serait fatal pour quelqu’un de dire: « Je ne vous écoute pas, je ne prends pas en considération vos commentaires. » Ca ne se fait pas! 65
Two concrete examples of the importance ministers place upon the support of the Liberal Women’s Caucus are the recent appearances of Minister Rock and Minister Martin before caucus in the lead-up to two key policy initiatives. Minister Rock was scheduled to
64 Telephone interview with a staffer from the Office of Minister Robillard, June 26th, 2001 65 Tremblay, Des Femmes au Parlement, p. 164 An Effective Player in the Parliamentary Process Institute On Governance 14 address the caucus on April 25th, 2001 to discuss his draft legislation on human-assisted reproduction. It is important to note that his briefing and discussions with the LWC occurred before briefings to full cabinet and briefings to the National Caucus, demonstrating his own concern with hearing the feedback of women on this sensitive issue so as to ensure that his latter briefings would fully include the concerns of this important internal constituency. The second example is that of Minister Martin’s appearance before caucus on May 3rd, 2001 for a pre-budgetary consultation to hear the women’s priorities and concerns. Due to the fact that Minister Martin did not have enough time to deal with all the issues raised, he asked if he could return in the coming weeks to complete the dialogue.66 He then scheduled to return to caucus on June 6th, 2001 to finish the discussion and respond to several questions that had been submitted to him in advance of the meeting.67 In the words of a Martin staffer, “he always meets with them during the pre- budget consultation period, and considers their input vital to the budget process. Not only do they contribute numerous initiatives of their own, the caucus represents an important venue for the minister to sound out initiatives under consideration by the department in the lead-up to the budget.”68
B) Collaborating with other Caucuses One way in which the women’s caucus has been a strong policy generator is in issues that are perceived as being gender-neutral, and that have consequently required deconstruction to expose the disproportionate impacts on women. The women’s caucus is not always the lead on such issues, but their work in tandem with other caucuses has demonstrated the effective impact of double-teaming. Carolyn Parrish commented that she felt the women’s caucus was most effective when it challenged issues that were not necessarily female- related, but that required a female perspective; joining with other caucuses on key areas adds an extra voice to reports at the National Caucus and gives the issue at hand more visibility.69 This collaboration happens among other caucuses as well and is not unique to the women’s caucus. In policy areas affecting women, however, having the LWC focus on a given issue raises its profile and increases its chances of being included on the cabinet’s agenda. One example that was repeatedly mentioned by caucus members was the work done by Bonnie Brown as lead on seniors’ pensions. Minister Martin’s 1994 Budget announced a year of program review in order to make cutbacks in the right areas. The seniors’ benefits program fell under review and changes to an income-progressive seniors’ benefit based on family-income was to be initiated. Being alarmed by this change, Ms. Brown signaled to Social Policy Chair Reg Alcock the need for a sub-committee on pensions. As chair of this new sub-committee on pensions, Ms. Brown worked with social policy researcher Paul Genest, as well as an economist to look at the changes proposed by Minister Martin on seniors’ pensions and the impact of these changes on women.70 The report by the sub-committee submitted to Minister Martin illuminated how the new benefits calculation process would strip women pensioners of their independent status in
66 I attended Women’s Caucus and witnessed the conversations on May 3rd, 2001. 67 Summary of the National Liberal Women’s Caucus… 68 Correspondence (e-mail) from a staffer in the Office of Paul Martin, June 27th, 2001 69 Interview with Carolyn Parrish 70 Interview with Bonnie Brown, MP, Ottawa, June 12th, 2001 An Effective Player in the Parliamentary Process 15 Institute On Governance returning to a family-based system, and expressed grave concerns about this policy shift since women had long since established that they should be considered as individuals independent of their conjugal spouses. This slowed down policy changes in Minister Martin’s department in 1995 and more time was taken to look at the issue.71 Due to the close collaboration and overlap of women’s caucus members and social policy members, Marlene Catterall became aware of the pensions issue and raised it as a priority for the women’s caucus to pursue. A small group of women’s caucus members focused their efforts on this issue. The caucus requested a gender-based analysis from Minister Martin on this initiative and invited him to the women’s caucus to discuss the legitimacy of the policy shift and its moving forward.72 The combination of the concerted efforts of the social policy caucus, its unanimous report to the minister, and the pressures from women’s caucus resulted in the abandoning by 1996 of a policy change in the calculation of seniors’ benefits.
C) Playing Hardball A recent example in which the Liberal Women’s Caucus was forced to flex its collective muscle was in the area of women’s health. With her commitment to promote women’s health through the feminist model of inclusive decision-making and horizontal structure73, the current chair, Carolyn Bennett was not about to see women excluded from a new spending initiative on health research in Canada. After the independent commission studying the Institutes of Health initiative tabled its report without any mention of an institute to specifically study gender and health, the LWC moved into action. Paul Genest was invited before caucus as the policy person for Minister Rock’s office to discuss the health institutes initiative. The caucus registered its outright protest at the commission’s failure to specify two institutes of vital concern to the women’s caucus: one that would focus on gender and health and one that would focus on Aboriginal health. The caucus wrote to the new governing councils and met with Alan Bernstein following a meeting with the chair of the Canadian Health Institute for Research (hereafter CHIR) to lobby for a change in their decision.74 The political strong-arming that the caucus pursued is reflected in Marlene Catterall’s comment when she says, “we told Minister Rock’s policy advisor to direct this ‘independent body’ to include an Institute for Gender and Health.”75 Clearly, when key issues of concern to the women’s caucus such as women’s and Aboriginal health are blatantly excluded from a new program or spending initiative, the caucus has shown its ability and willingness to flex its muscles and seek the correction of that exclusion. Maintaining their ties to the CHIR Institute of Gender and Health that resulted, the Liberal Women’s Caucus welcomed Scientific Director Miriam Stewart as the guest speaker on February 22nd, 2001 to speak of the institute’s plans, and to invite the
71 Interview with Bonnie Brown 72 Interview with Marlene Catterall 73 Telephone Interview with Carolyn Bennett, commenting on her main goal as Chair of the Caucus, June 20th, 2001 74 Telephone Interview with Carolyn Bennett 75 Interview with Marlene Catterall An Effective Player in the Parliamentary Process Institute On Governance 16 caucus to participate in a brainstorming meeting to generate key areas upon which the Institute would focus its attentions.76
D) Resistance is Futile A final policy area in which the women’s caucus has taken the lead and produced slow, yet incremental change, is in the implementation of the Federal Plan for Gender Equality. This plan was a commitment made at Beijing +5, the Special Session hosted by the United Nations five years after the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing of 1995, and had as its goal the adoption and promotion of public policy initiatives that are informed by gender-based analysis.77 The Liberal government has been slow to fully implement this commitment despite its successful re-election in 1997 and more recently in 2000. The current chair, in conjunction with the collaborative efforts of the Minister for the Status of Women, Hedy Fry, has undertaken to hold the government accountable by pursuing the complete application of gender-based analysis (hereafter GBA) for all departments across the board. The women’s caucus is attempting to influence in a variety of ways by lobbying many different sources of policy generation. In her April 23rd 2001 letter to the Director General of the Parliamentary Research Branch, Caucus Chair Carolyn Bennett requested information on the Library of Parliament’s own preparation vis-à-vis gender-based analysis, and its training of researchers and staff so that they would be in a position to respond to inquiries from MP’s that require documentation of government policies and the respective GBA analysis.78 As noted by Kathleen Rothwell, Liberal researcher for the women’s caucus, “We are moving more systematically on the GBA issue. Letters to each of the ministers have been sent by our Chair to request information on the status of GBA implementation in their departments.”79 The May 11th response from the director general of the Library of Parliament suggested that GBA is being done for MPs and committees in areas that are traditionally associated with women’s issues, and that it is only done if specifically requested.80 More positively, the director was able to inform Ms. Bennett that the library had scheduled an expert on GBA to brief his staff, and that a similar seminar program for parliamentarians and Hill staff was being organized. Whether these seminars had already been planned for the end of session, or whether they were quickly added to the agenda as a result of the chair’s prompting shall be left to speculation; the end result is that the seminars were suddenly placed on the agenda, and explicitly became an area of concern for the Library of Parliament.
In a similar attempt to fan out and apply pressure for developments in GBA implementation, using information from last year’s estimates committees and the occurrence (or lack thereof) of GBA-related questions and spending, the caucus members will be raising a series of questions when ministers appear before the Standing Committee on Estimates in the fall. The implementation costs of GBA should be showing up in the departmental audits, providing concrete measures of which departments are honouring the
76 Summary of the National Liberal Women’s Caucus, p. 2 77 United Nations website, http://www.worldbank.org/gender/beijing5/, accessed 09/01/02 78 Caucus correspondance 79 Interview with Kathleen Rothwell, Liberal Researcher for the Women’s Caucus, Ottawa, June 20th, 2001 80 Letter from Director General Hugh Finsten to Caucus Chair Carolyn Bennett, May 11th, p. 1 An Effective Player in the Parliamentary Process 17 Institute On Governance federal government’s commitment. At the GBA seminar for parliamentarians and Hill staff, Helene Dwyer-Renaud and Sandra Harder highlighted the current struggles facing the implementation of gender-based analysis. To date, there are approximately eight departments81 that are actively pursuing gender-based analysis, and three departments82 that have implemented GBA. Among these, we do not unfortunately find the biggest indicator of equitable income redistribution and social programs — the Department of Finance.
Using a different tactic to promote the GBA implementation strategy more directly, this issue was raised by the women’s caucus during the last two visits of Minister Martin before caucus. In an attempt to receive concrete answers on key policy areas, the women’s caucus submitted a list of questions to the minister so that he could prepare responses for his second appearance.83 Highlighting the points raised in Lisa Philip’s paper, Women, Taxes and Social Programs, and Armine Yalnizan’s Canada’s Great Divide, the caucus questioned the minister on the long-term implications of the government’s budgets, raised a point of contention surrounding the funding of post-secondary education of Aboriginal youth, and provided information that affirmed the disproportionately negative impact of tax cuts on women.84 Minister Martin acknowledged the premise of the document Canada’s Great Divide and recognized an increasing gap of income prior to taxes and transfers. He agreed with the literature that cutting taxes does not help non-tax filers, and concurred that tax cuts need to be accompanied by social programs. More specifically, he revealed that the Department of Finance does not look at gender, but rather targets families and low-income Canadians without any gender lens. He demonstrated that he was open to continuing the discussion of gender-based analysis with the women’s caucus.85
A final example of the caucus’ tactical pursuits which will be implemented in the new session include discussions with Mel Cappe, Head of the Public Service and Clerk of the Privy Council. These discussions attempt to devise a procedural limitation that would require that all cabinet documents have a gender-based analysis, similar to the requirement that all cabinet documents have a communications plan.86 These concrete steps in holding the departments, the Library and the ministers themselves accountable to the women’s caucus as an internal constituency representing the interests of Canadian women is having a tremendous cumulative impact in spurring the full implementation of the 1995 Federal Plan for Gender Equality. The women’s caucus is able to remind its colleagues, particularly the executive, of the importance of women’s voices. Members of the women’s caucus provide for the descriptive representation of a portion of Canadian women, highlighting the liberal and inclusive nature of the Liberal Party of Canada. This, they argue, contributes significantly to the numbers of women voters who have consistently
81 Status of Women Canada, Human Resources and Development Canada, Justice Department, Health Department, Canadian Immigration and Customs, Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, Agriculture Department, Canadian International Development Agency 82 Statistics Canada, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Solicitor General of Canada 83 May 30th Strategy Meeting of the Liberal Women’s Caucus in preparation for Minister Martin’s second appearance on June 6th. 84 Caucus memorandum: Points for discussion with the Minister of Finance – Women’s Caucus June 6th, 2001, p. 2 85 Caucus memorandum: Points for discussion, p. 3 86 May 30th Strategy Meeting An Effective Player in the Parliamentary Process Institute On Governance 18 supported the Liberal party, allowing them the moral legitimacy to hold their own government and party to account by evaluating its ability to generate public policy that is equitable in its application to women.
Conclusions
From small practical improvements, such as providing a women’s washroom within proximity of the House, to greater gains towards incorporating gender-based analysis into all public policy generation, the Liberal Women’s Caucus’ ability to create an impact on the legislative process in order to ensure the representation of women is clear. Many women MPs admit that simply asking questions, rather than agreeing with the proposed solution, has contributed to important shifts in the political culture on Parliament Hill. Asking how budget cuts would impact on women, challenging the exclusion of women in new research initiatives, or rephrasing the discussion so that children are seen as the country’s future, and not as a social burden, are all important ways that women have been inserting their voices and values to warm up the cool climate on Parliament Hill. These subtle differences have become especially noticeable since the presence of an important mass of women on Parliament Hill. Within the framework of the Liberal Women’s Caucus, a core group of 10-25 women is working strategically, tactically, and some would argue subversively, to ensure that the realities of Canadian women are reflected in government policies, and to demand that the faces of Canadian women are represented in the bodies that generate those policies, and in the delegations that present them abroad.
As noted by many of the members I interviewed, the networking process of the women’s caucus enables them to strategize as a group, and then fan out as separate individuals. This collaborative approach turns their individual energy into momentum toward specific goals for women’s rights and is what makes the caucus effective. The successes they see achieved through the women’s caucus act to counterbalance the personal and professional stresses of life on the Hill, and encourage them to have faith in their ability to achieve a female-friendly institution by influencing the maze of departments, party structures, and political culture. Certainly, one of the sentiments that I have taken away from this research paper is a reaffirmed belief that backbench MPs do indeed hold sway within the National Caucus and consequently within cabinet, if they work in the strategic ways of the Liberal Women’s Caucus. This provocative group has been instrumental in its representation of Canadian women’s experiences to government, and in its promotion of women politicians on the Hill. Their use of cooperative tactics to realize key outcomes has enabled the Liberal Women’s Caucus to carve out its niche as a networking circle that promotes Liberal women on Parliament Hill, and as an internal feminist policy watchdog that promotes the interests of Canadian women and equality-seeking men alike.
An Effective Player in the Parliamentary Process 19 Institute On Governance Research Paper for the Parliamentary Internship Programme Interview Questionnaire – June 2001
1) On average, how many women and men attend the Liberal Women’s Caucus each week?
2) How long have you been involved with the Liberal Women’s Caucus?
3) Are their certain times when there is higher attendance? Why?
4) In your opinion, what is the most important aspect of Women’s Caucus?
5) Can you provide 2 examples of key policy areas in which Women’s Caucus have made an impact over the last 4 years?
a)
b)
6) In what way is the Women’s Caucus used as a venue to influence and apply pressure?
An Effective Player in the Parliamentary Process Institute On Governance 20 7) What do you think the Women’s Caucus can do to increase their ability to influence the government’s policy direction?
8) What is the main goal of Women’s Caucus?
9) Is the Women’s Caucus perceived in the same ways as other Caucus’ by your male and female colleagues, or is it seen as a Special Interest Group for women?
10) In what ways are you addressing issues of legitimacy within National Caucus?
11) Other comments that you have about the Women’s Caucus?
An Effective Player in the Parliamentary Process 21 Institute On Governance BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books and Articles
Bashevkin, Sylvia, Toeing the Lines: Women and Party Politics in English Canada, Oxford University Press, Toronto, 1993
Erickson, Lynda, “Might More Women Make a Difference? Gender, Party and Ideology among Canada’s Parliamentary Candidates”, Canadian Journal of Political Science, XXX:4
Fife, Robert, “A ticket to the backbenchers”, The Ottawa Sun, March 12th, 1997
Lortie, Pierre, “The Principles of Electoral Reform”, Canadian Parliamentary Review, Vol. 16, No. 1, 1993
Norris, Pippa, Politics and Sexual Equality: The Comparative Position of Women in Western Democracies, 1987
MacIvor, Heather, Women and Politics in Canada, Broadview Press, Peterborough, 1996
Malloy, Kate, “Women want into politics say Liberal MPs”, The Hill Times, March 3, 1994
McCarthy, Shawn, “All parties try to boost number of female MPs”, Toronto Star, April 28, 1997
McDonald, Terry, “Grit chair supports election tax breaks”, The Hill Times, November 15th, 1999
Megery, Kathy, editor, Women in Canadian Politics: Toward Equity in Representation, Volume 6 of the Research Studies, Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing and Canada Communication Group – Publishing Supply and Services Canada, Dundurn Press, Toronto, 1991
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel, The Concept of Representation, 1967
Sharp, Sydney, The Gilded Ghetto: Women and Political Power in Canada, 1994
Putnam, Robert, The Comparative Study of Political Elites, 1976
Taber, Jane, “Making politics easier for Liberal women”, The Ottawa Citizen, March 13, 2000
Tremblay, Manon, Des femmes au Parlement: une stratégie féministe?, les Éditions du remue-ménage, Montréal, 1999
Tremblay, Manon, and Réjean Pelletier, Que font-elles en politique?, Les Presses de l’Université Laval, Sainte-Foy, 1995
An Effective Player in the Parliamentary Process Institute On Governance 22 Waring, Dr. Marilyn et al, Politics: Women’s Insight, Analysis of the IPU Survey, 2000
Wilson, Janet, “Women MPs bridge the partisan gap”, The Hill Times, May 26th, 1994
Young, Lisa, Feminists and Party Politics, UBC Press, Vancouver, 2000
“Montreal MP Cotler Joins the Liberal Women’s Caucus”, The Hill Times, March 27th, 2000
“Symposium on the Active Participation of Women in Politics, Montreal, Quebec, October 31-Novermber 3, 1990”, Reforming Electoral Democracy, Vol. 4 What Canadians Told Us, 1991
An Effective Player in the Parliamentary Process 23 Institute On Governance Information/Articles from Web Sites
07/11/2000: Rebick, Judy, “Women’s Issues: The Gender Gap”, http://cbc.ca/election2000/diaries/rebick001102.html
29/03/2001: CSPG Publication, Party Caucuses: Behind Closed Doors, Ottawa November 21-22, 1997, Conference organized by the Canadian Study of Parliament Group (CSPG), www.studyparliament.ca/english/publications_1997_fall_conference.htm
30/03/2001: Gray, Charlotte, “House-breaking: fifty-three women MPs are fighting the relentlessly male culture of the Hill”, 29/03/2001: www.web2.infotrac.galegroup.com Political Women, http://ehostvgw17.epnet.com
30/03/2001: “Some reflections on the role of caucus”, Sharon Carstairs, http://web2.infotrac.galegroup.com
29/03/2001: Female Representation in the Senate, the House of Commons, and Provincial and Territorial Legislative Assemblies, Elaine Campbell, http://www.ontla.on.ca/library/C56tx.htm
29/03/2001: Women’s Standings, http://1p-bp/content/info- resources/federal/Asp/StandingsWomen.asp
02/04/2001: “Single parents get break on travel allowance MP wins her point, end boycott of Commons”, The Globe and Mail, P1, http://ptg.djnr.com/ccroot/asp/publib/story_clean.cpy.asp
25/06/2001: House of Commons Publication, Bill C-2, Section 80, http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/2/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-2/C- 2_3/90095b-5E.html#34
09/01/2002: Famous Five Foundation web site, http://www.famous5.org/html/famous5.html
07/01/2002: Elections Canada, Thirty-seventh general election 2000: Official voting results, Table 7: Distribution of seats, by political affiliation and sex, http://www.elections.ca/gen/rep/37g/table7_e.html
An Effective Player in the Parliamentary Process Institute On Governance 24 Interviews
Interview with Paddy Torsney, MP, Chair of the Liberal Women’s Caucus 1994-96, Ottawa, April 14th, 2001
Interview with Sue Barnes, MP, Ottawa, June 4th, 2001
Interview with Jean Augustine, MP, Chair of the Liberal Women’s Caucus 1996-1999, June 5th, 2001
Interview with Paddy Torsney, MP, Ottawa, June 12th, 2001
Interview with Bonnie Brown, MP, Ottawa, June 12th, 2001
Interview with Irwin Cotler, MP, Ottawa, June 13th, 2001
Interview with Sheila Finestone, Senator, Ottawa, June 18th, 2001
Interview with Marlene Catteral, MP, Whip of the Liberal Party, Ottawa, June 20th, 2001
Interview with Kathleen Rothwell, Liberal Researcher for the Women’s Caucus, Ottawa, June 20th, 2001
Interview with a staffer from the Office of Jean Augustine, Ottawa, June 20th, 2001.
Telephone Interview with Carolyn Bennett, MP, Current Chair of the Liberal Women’s Caucus, June 20th, 2001, 11:00 a.m.
Follow-up Telephone Interview with Carolyn Bennett, MP, Current Chair of the Liberal Women’s Caucus, June 20th, 2001, 3:00 p.m.
Telephone interview with Alvah Hanrahan, Former Director of the National Liberal Women’s Commission, June 21st, 2001
Telephone Interview with Carolyn Parrish, MP, Chair of the Canada-NATO Friendship Group, June 27th
Telephone Interview with Leanne Maidment, Legislative Assistant to Carolyn Bennett, January 8th, 2002
An Effective Player in the Parliamentary Process 25 Institute On Governance Correspondence and Internal Documents
Correspondence (e-mail) from a staffer in the Office of Paul Martin to myself, June 27th, 2001
Letter from Caucus Chair Carolyn Bennett to Parliamentary Research Branch Director General Hugh Finsten, April 23rd, 2001
Letter from Parliamentary Research Branch Director General Hugh Finsten to Caucus Chair Carolyn Bennett, May 11th, 2001-06-29
Caucus:
Activity Report of the National Liberal Women’s Caucus from January 31st, 2001 to June 13th, 2001
Introduction: Meet the Liberal Women’s Caucus, Liberal Research Branch
Memorandum: Points for discussion with the Minister of Finance – Women’s Caucus June 6th, 2001, Liberal Research Branch
Memorandum: For meetings from October 13th, 2000 to June 13th, 2001
Summary of the National Liberal Women’s Caucus – 27th Parliamentary Session January 31st, 2001 to June 13th, 2001
An Effective Player in the Parliamentary Process Institute On Governance 26