CSPG Seminar: An Inclusive Parliament?
Public and private institutions must grapple with questions of equity, diversity, inclusion and access, and Canadian legislatures are no exception. On April 25, 2025, the Canadian Study of Parliament Group held a seminar on inclusion within legislative spaces, from the experiences of legislators to public engagement and staff participation behind the scenes.
Alexie Labelle
Alexie Labelle is a member of the CSPG board.
Opening remarks by Manon Tremblay
Manon Tremblay, Professor Emeritus at the School of Political Studies at the University of Ottawa and expert on the representation of women and 2SLGBTQ+ persons in Canada, delivered a commencement speech.
Although she highlighted some of the progress that has been made on inclusion, she referred primarily to the global backlash against diversity policies. That backlash, which disproportionately affects sexually and gender diverse individuals and communities, as well as women and racialized minorities, has spiked since the return of Donald Trump to the United States presidency and Canada is not exempt. By raising some of the blind spots in diversity policies, including about disabilities, Ms. Tremblay painted the picture of a truly inclusive parliamentary institution, detailing the criteria for real inclusion.
A revised and expanded version of these remarks appears elsewhere in this issue.
First panel: The Road to Parliament
This first panel brought together Senator Donna Dasko, professors Erin Tolley and Angelia Wagner, and researcher Valérie Lapointe, to look at the inclusion of women, sexual and gender minorities, Indigenous people and racialized people in election campaigns.
Angelia Wagner shared her research into people who choose not to run in elections, having investigated the reasons motivating that choice. She first turned to the financial aspect as an explanation, noting that women worry more about their ability to take a break from their current employment (and their income) to become legislators and their job opportunities after election. Turning to the parties and the role of political conviction, Angelia Wagner noted that in addition to having to support the majority of a party’s platform in order to run as a candidate, racialized individuals also have to count on the party’s support on issues affecting their community. Public control seems to have more of an influence over the choice by sexual and gender minorities not to run as candidates, in part because of expectations to conform to heterosexist standards. While work-life balance does not seem to explain why more women are choosing not to run, health issues offer a new explanation that is worth exploring further. Ms. Wagner’s research indicates that politics is physically demanding, discriminatory against individuals with mental health struggles and represents a high risk to an individual’s physical security, especially for trans people.
Senator Donna Dasko focused on her decades-long work on promoting women’s involvement in politics. She offered several explanations as to why more women need to be part of our parliamentary institutions. First, above all, Senator Dasko stated that it is a matter of equity, given that women make up more than half the population. By entering the world of parliamentary politics, women can actively participate in formal political decisions, which strengthens our democracy. What is more, women offer different perspectives than men in certain areas of public policy that deserve more attention from our political institutions. Senator Dasko suggested that there are fewer women than men in parliamentary politics because of institutional barriers, including the voting system and political parties. In fact, that is what motivated her to introduce a bill allowing the Chief Electoral Officer to collect demographic data on voter participation, including candidate nominations, and to report back on these data. The bill also requires political parties to disclose their action plan for promoting greater diversity among their candidates.
Researcher Valérie Lapointe then shared the results of research conducted jointly with professors Luc Turgeon and Benjamin Ferland on ridings where political parties run diversity candidates. Using data from the 2015, 2019, and 2021 federal elections, Valérie Lapointe noted that women, sexual and gender minorities, racialized individuals and Indigenous peoples tend to run in ridings where a party has little chance of being elected. Sexual and gender minorities were predominantly “sacrificial lambs” in that they ran in ridings where their party had little to no chance of winning. Ms. Lapointe closed her presentation by adding that the results of her research show that a diversity candidate also has less of a chance of being re-elected.
Erin Tolley concluded the panel by touching on the role that political parties can play in ensuring better political representation in Canada. She argued that political parties have the necessary tools to diversify our political institutions; they just have to choose to use them. These tools include: 1) internal processes and rules; 2) political networks; and 3) financial resources. First, the parties can adopt rules governing their members, nominations and candidate recruitment that promote the nomination of diverse candidates. Second, the parties can diversify their networks, which includes diversifying their leadership and their local associations. Last, the parties can allocate more resources to diversity candidates and distribute their funding equitably. That is especially important, according to Ms. Tolley, because her research also shows that financial resources are more of a barrier to the nomination of Black and racialized individuals.
Second panel: Parliament and Parenthood
Researcher Melanee Thomas, former federal MP David Graham, former Whitehorse city councillor Michelle Friesen, and Chief of Staff for the Independent Senators Group Amanda McLaren discussed the obstacles that parents in politics must overcome, whether they are elected members or staff members.
In her research, Melanee Thomas focused on the politicization of parenthood, the experiences of members who are parents and Parliament as a workplace, as aspects that might affect the work-life balance of members who are parents. She highlighted that MPs politicize parenthood differently according to their gender and their political party. She added that there is a double standard for female and male MPs who are parents. For example, she explained that women are at a disadvantage if they decide not to share photos of their children. Then she shed light on how members who are parents have traditionally received little support within the parliamentary precinct even though there is some support for measures such as parental leave, childcare, etc. Nonetheless, she noted that parental status remains a systemic barrier that limits the nomination of women.
David Graham, the former member for Laurentides-Labelle, spoke about his own experience as an elected member and father of a young child. He noted that parliamentarians are expected to be “family oriented,” but also always available. However, the work of representation in Ottawa is such that many MPs who are parents must travel and be far away from their family for extended periods of time, considerably limiting the possibility for work-life balance. When Mr. Graham was a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the committee studied work-life balance in Parliament and recommended inclusion measures for members who are parents. Although many of those measures were not widely accepted at the time, the COVID-19 pandemic facilitated a change in perspective and made way for the implementation of various measures.
Michelle Friesen also shared her own experience as a young mother and a city councillor on the Whitehorse City council. Since she had her son after being elected to city council, she got used to having him with her during council meetings. She had to juggle her work and her family but she also felt like she had to work twice as hard to properly represent her community. After several issues came up, she was asked to find alternatives to having her son with her. Under those circumstances, access to childcare services was a major obstacle to her participation in city council, especially since the reimbursements did not fully cover the childcare expenses. In relaying her experience, Ms. Friesen underlined the double standard when councillors have to momentarily step away from meetings. For example, while others did not have to justify their absence, she would be expected to explain that she had to change her son’s diaper. Nonetheless, some changes have occurred since her time on council with a young child, including when it comes to participating remotely and the reimbursement of childcare fees.
Amanda McLaren shared her view on political staff who must navigate work-life balance. She stated from the outset that the political environment is not conducive to work-life balance, but noted that it is possible to achieve balance. That possibility stems more from individual responsibility than from institutional measures. For example, to set up an organizational structure promoting flexibility within her office, she hired another person and implemented an action plan to ensure the continuity of operations in the event of an absence. Ms. McLaren expressed concern about the lack of institutional measures in support of staff who are parents and how the absence of these measures can lead to retention problems in Parliament.
Third panel: Comparative Perspective – Disability and Representation
Professor Elizabeth Evans and borough councillor for the City of Montreal, Laurence Parent, addressed the representation of persons with disabilities. While Ms. Evans shared her research on the representation of persons with disabilities in Europe and in Australia, Laurence Parent focused on her experience as an elected member with a disability.
Three questions fuelled Elizabeth Evans’ research: what barriers stand in the way of candidates with disabilities; the experiences of elected members with disabilities; and how ableism shapes parliamentary institutions. To answer those questions, she met with 125 parliamentarians and activists in the United Kingdom, Australia, Finland and Czechia. Among the obstacles to electing candidates with disabilities, Ms. Evans underlined the inaccessibility of infrastructures, financial constraints, and the ableist culture underlying campaign standards and the paths to politics. As for the experience of elected members with disabilities, she raised the inaccessible, intimidating and hostile political culture of parliamentary institutions and the lack of understanding of invisible disabilities, such as autism. Finally, Ms. Evans explained how parliamentary institutions developed and continue to develop for the benefit of persons who do not have disabilities, resulting in the marginalization of persons with disabilities, who are considered inferior.
By sharing her own experience as a municipal politician, Laurence Parent echoed some of Ms. Evans’ research. As the only elected official with a disability among 60 or so officials, Ms. Parent advocated for better representation of accessibility issues in discussions and debates, notably because persons with disabilities disproportionately fall below the poverty line. She noted that in addition to a lack of elected officials with disabilities in Quebec and Canada, biases continue to exist around persons with disabilities who are either reticent about disclosing their disability, or who get attacked by other elected officials or other citizens. Underscoring the pressure to work within the existing model for elected officials, Laurence Parent mentioned the importance of: having adequate financial measures in place, such as election spending avenues for accessibility needs thereby allowing more persons with disabilities to run for office; and the need to deploy the necessary financial resources to make political institutions accessible.
Fourth panel: Inclusive Institutions?
The goal of this fourth panel was to shed light on the inclusion initiatives put in place in parliamentary institutions. It brought together the Clerk of the Senate, Shaila Anwar, the Clerk of the House of Commons, Eric Janse, the chief human resources officers of the Senate and the House of Commons, Toni Francis and Carolyne Evangelidis, as well as the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, Rick Yarish.
Ms. Anwar and Ms. Francis talked about the sense of community instilled by the Senate administration through the implementation of open and respectful communication, the development of a culture of belonging, and the establishment of an accessible workplace devoid of obstacles, with equal pay for work of equal value. They then highlighted the achievements of the workplace accommodation and equity specialist, a position created in 2024, including the development of training tools and updating the duty to accommodate policy. They also underscored other initiatives promoting inclusion, such as the Indigenous Youth Internship Program (pilot project) and the continuous improvement of talent acquisition practices.
Mr. Janse and Ms. Evangelidis reiterated the House of Commons’ inclusion values, noting the importance of supporting diversity and setting up a workplace where all employees can bring their whole selves to work. In addition to explaining the development of the new inclusion framework, they explained some inclusion initiatives. These included modernizing self-identification by employees, who can now share their pronouns and their preferred name, the implementation of a community of practice, the publication of a monthly inclusion calendar, and finalizing the first inclusion strategy for the House of Commons’ administration.
Rick Yarish pointed out the recent changes in the composition of the Manitoba Legislature. Those changes, including those related to cultural and gender diversity, led to the implementation of inclusion measures. Increased Indigenous representation generated a variety of reconciliation and decolonization measures at the Legislative Assembly, including: the creation of a reconciliation task force; showcasing Indigenous artwork within the Assembly; and relaxing the dress code to allow traditional Indigenous clothing to be worn. The election of non-binary and trans members generated discussions on the use of titles and salutations at the Assembly, which have since become optional. Major renovations at the Assembly have made it accessible to persons in wheelchairs. Mr. Yarish discusses accessibility initiatives at the Assembly in an article elsewhere in this issue.
Fifth panel: Gender and Representation – From Research to Practice
This last panel consisted of a discussion between the former Grand Chief of Kahnawà:ke, Kahsennenhawe Sky-Deer, Alberta MLA Janis Irwin, Senator Kim Pate, and moderator Valérie Lapointe from the Institute for Research on Public Policy. As women who identify as part of 2SLGBTQ+ communities, they discussed their journeys and shared their experiences as sexual minorities working or having worked, in political institutions. Despite their generational differences, they all stressed the importance of representation and the sense of duty that motivates them every day to be involved in their different communities.
For more information on the CSPG and its upcoming activities, consult https://cspg-gcep.ca/home-e.html.