Workshop - Diversity and Representation in Canadian Legislatures

W502 - Diverse Dimensions of Representation in Canadian Legislatures

Date: Jun 12 | Time: 10:15am to 11:45am | Location: 680 Sherbrooke St. West 1151

Chair/Président/Présidente : Jonathan Malloy (Carleton University)

Did Indigenous Involvement Matter? Responses from Indigenous Volunteers, Candidates, and MPs Between the 2015 – 2019 Canadian Federal Elections: Chadwick Cowie (University of Toronto)
Abstract: In assessing Indigenous involvement, especially between the 2015 and 2019 Canadian federal elections, this paper will consider writings and responses from Indigenous peoples. More specifically, this paper will first introduce the author of this paper's personal experience as an Indigenous volunteer within the LPC up to April of 2018. In sharing such context and experience, the reader will garner understanding and background regarding the methodological approach, and questions, utilized during interviews held with a variety of Indigenous individuals who had sought involvement in Canada’s federal electoral process. Following the aforementioned section, this paper then outlines the methodological approach, questions formulated, and categorical details of those interviewed in order to understand the pool of respondents in relation to being Indigenous and involved in Canadian federal political and legislative institutions. Lastly, the answers given in said interviews, alongside that of Jody Wilson-Raybould's own writing regarding her involvement at this time, will be presented and then analyzed. In assessing personal experience of Indigenous volunteers, candidates, and MPs, this paper concludes that for many, any victory made meant that reconciliation was actually with the slow pace the Canadian state and the Trudeau government had taken in relation to Indigenous peoples and nation-to-nation relations.

Unelected Representatives? A Conceptual Exploration of Descriptive ‘Representation’ in Senate of Canada: Michael Wigginton (Carleton University)
Abstract: The Senate of Canada increasingly distinguishes itself from the House of Commons in having far more diversity in its membership. While women account for scantly more than 30% of members of the House of Commons they currently account for the majority of Senators. Similarly, Indigenous and racialized people make up larger proportions of Senators than they do MPs. While the greater diversity of the upper house of Canada’s Parliament is undisputed, the implications of increased diversity in an unelected legislature are less clear. In this paper I use the case of the Senate of Canada to explore the concept of descriptive representation and ask the question: is electoral accountability a necessary component of descriptive representation? I argue that, while important in its own right, diversity in the Senate does not constitute descriptive representation in the sense usually meant by political theorists. I further caution that appointing more people from underrepresented groups cannot be said to compensate for any perceived deficits in the House of Commons.

Who is the Standing Committee on the Status of Women Representing?: Alexie Labelle (House of Commons)
Abstract: Committee work represents an important part of Members of Parliament’s role as legislators. As a space wherein state-society interactions happen on a weekly basis, House committees provide the opportunity for MPs to better understand the community interests at play, and to better represent these communities in the House. Despite their relevance to the study of representation and legislative politics in Canada, House committees remain understudied. In their 2007 article, Tremblay and Mullen put forth the argument that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women (FEWO) provides an avenue for improving both the descriptive and substantive representation of women in Parliament. Decades later, and in light of intersectional considerations, I propose to revisit FEWO’s role as a vector for improving women’s substantive representation. Considering how women’s experiences and needs are shaped by other factors, such as race, sexual orientation, ability, and so on, I ask the following question: who has the committee been representing over the years? I argue that taking a closer look at the studies undertaken by the committee since its inception in the 38th Parliament can provide some clarity on this matter. More precisely, distinguishing between intersectional studies, meaning studies that have focused on a specific group of women (e.g. Indigenous, disabled, or trans), and non-intersectional studies, namely studies without an explicit focus on a certain group of women, can provide a sense of the extent to which the committee actively seeks to represent the interests of certain groups of women. Secondly, examining which witnesses have appeared before the committee on non-intersectional studies can further deepen our understanding as to which voices are being heard by the committee. Together, these results will provide an enlightening portrait as to whose interests has the committee sought to represent before the House.