Question Period in the House of Commons became a bit raucous during this last session of Parliament, with elected representatives acting more like toddlers than leaders.
So when NDP leader Jack Layton argued there should be more women in Parliament during the second English-language leaders’ debate leading up to the federal election, he tied it to the issue of personal attacks. He claimed female representation would address the issue of “democracy and accountability and respect” in the House of Commons. With the clock ticking, Layton found a way to avoid what have become routine attacks and tip his hat to his own party, which is running 108 female candidates (or 36 per cent) in this election.
But while he was dodging questions and acting the gentleman, Layton expressed a belief that should have felt patronizing to all women.
Layton says he thinks the whole tone of debate would change if there were more women in Parliament. Change to what? What power does Layton put behind a few extra X chromosomes? From a feminist perspective, what is most frightening about Layton’s comment is his portrayal of women as a homogeneous group.
Layton is not the only culprit. Paul Martin agreed on the importance of improving women’s representation in politics. But in doing so, Martin also grouped all women as a uniform “they.” His suggestion that women have a “wealth of experience that would be very important” in the House of Commons that especially provides food for thought. A 2004 report by the Law Commission of Canada recommended a certain number of seats be reserved for women and minority groups to ensure their voice is heard in Parliament. These quotas are similar to affirmative action campaigns that have enhanced the position of women in the workforce (or, depending on your take on feminism, created a whole new genre of sexist humour).
Of course women have a wealth of experience; of course they would bring important perspectives to Parliamentary debates. But so would the blind, or homosexuals, or even ex-cons. So too do middle-aged white men of privileged upbringing, but placing a ‘reserved’ sign on a few seats in the House of Commons is only going to lead to an onslaught of requests — followed by uproars — from other minority groups.
The Law Commission report was meant to reform Canada’s democratic system, but the choice of candidates based on gender quotas develops an uneven playing field. This adds fuel to the anti-feminist fire, and weakens voters’ capacity to choose the best man — or woman — for the job.