Roundup: Missing the mark on encouraging participation

Posted on by

The House of Commons’ status of women committee tabled a report this week that is about getting more women into politics? The problem? That all of its recommendations are focused on what the government can do, when it’s not their job. Rather, it’s the job of political parties, and only some of them take it seriously. Add to that, the one recommendation that people tend to focus on — that the federal government give some manner of financial compensation to parties who recruit more women candidates — is bad policy because it simply rewards parties for putting women candidates in unwinnable ridings and lets them claim their percentages. The Conservatives had their own dissenting report as well, which focused on their notion of women running on “merit” rather than quotas (because there’s apparently no tokenism in their party), and wanted more focus on women who bully and discourage other women in politics. (The NDP’s own dissent focused on some of the language of the recommendations, and more funding for women’s groups, childcare, and so on).

And I have to stress that this is a party issue, not a government issue. Parties are the ones who set the rules for their nomination contests, and are responsible for recruiting their own candidates, and even more to the point, these should be grassroots efforts rather than coming on high from party headquarters. That means mobilising party members at the ground level to find and recruit more women, and to convince them to run. The Liberals have had success with this — they instituted a programme of getting people to find women in their communities and then asking them several times to run, because they know the research that shows that while a man would likely accept on the first request, women can take something like seven times being asked before they will accept to run. Overcoming that socialised reluctance is a big part of it, and where the focus needs to lie — on top of the parties making their nomination rules more clear (and less reliant on the “unwritten rules” as have been spoken of), and ensuring that things like childcare are being taken care of so that women can do things like door-knock and and canvas. None of this is something that the government can take care of, but the party grassroots needs to be aware of and work toward implementing.

It’s not just rules — it’s an ecosystem. Part of that is civics education, because we don’t teach students about things like nomination races and why they matter, and how to get involved. That’s one of the most fundamental parts of our system, and we don’t teach it. How do we expect more young women to get involved if we don’t tell them how? This is where the focus needs to lie if we’re to make any lasting change.

Good reads: 

  • At a Liberal event in Mississauga, Justin Trudeau was test-driving new campaign lines linking Andrew Scheer with Doug Ford and their tolerance for white supremacists. 
  • Federal ministers from Ontario are also saying Ford’s budget cuts are a preview of what Scheer would do (and some of them are also raising the spectre of Jason Kenney).
  • Ontario’s budget not only cut legal aid funding, but forbids it from being used on refugee cases, citing that the federal government is responsible for them.
  • Some Sikh communities are threatening to use their political might against the Liberals because an intelligence report mentioned Khalistani separatists.
  • The Supreme Court of Canada restored  compensation award to a residential schools survivor after a dispute over what constituted sexual assault. 
  • Here is a look at the state of the campaigns in the last days of the Alberta election.
  • An American economic think tank warns of even greater risk and uncertainty for investors in the energy sector if Jason Kenney wins.
  • Lawyer Clayton Ruby gives a supposition as to what former Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin’s advice to Judy Wilson-Raybould would have been regarding DPAs. 
  • Kevin Carmichael’s tour of Alberta continues with a look at businesses diversifying before the crash hit, and how they are managing in a no-growth environment.
  • Colby Cosh looks at the potential election night chaos of Alberta using “vote-anywhere” advance polls. 
  • Andrew Coyne has scathing words about the refugee changes that were tucked into the omnibus budget bill. Martin Patriquin has a few words of his own to add.
  • Chantal Hébert posits that because Doug Ford’s budget is not an orgy of cuts that it will give less ammunition for Trudeau, and give some cover to Scheer.
  • My weekend column looks at that commissioned poll on how people love the “new” Senate, and how it is likely to lead to no good.

Odds and ends:

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.