An Effective Player in the Parliamentary Process: the Liberal Women’S Caucus, 1993 – 2001
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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.