1 Gotell, Lise and Brodie, Janine, “Women and Parties in the 1990s: Less than Ever an Issue of Numbers,” in Thorburn, Hugh G., ed., Party Politics in Canada (7th ed.; Scarborough: Prentice Hall, 1996), 68.Google Scholar

2 See, for example, Bashevkin, Sylvia, Toeing the Lines: Women in Party Politics in English Canada (2nd ed.; Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1993), 67–68Google Scholar, and Burt, Sandra, “The Changing Patterns of Public Policy,” in Butt, Sandra, Code, Lorraine and Dorney, Lindsay, eds., Changing Patterns: Women in Canada (2nd ed.; Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1993), 227–30.Google Scholar For a discussion of this issue see Gotell and Brodie, “Women and Parties in the 1990s,” 60–70; Young, Lisa, “Fulfilling the Mandate of Difference: Women in the Canadian House of Commons,” in Arscott, Jane and Trimble, Linda, eds., In the Presence of Women: Representation in Canadian Governments (Toronto: Harcourt Brace, 1997), 89–91Google Scholar; Phillips, Ann, Democracy and Difference (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993)Google Scholar; and Kelly, R. M., Saint-Germain, M. A. and Horn, J. D., “Female Public Officials: A Different Voice?” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 515 (1991), 77–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 For a review of some of the literature on the issue of numbers see Considine, Mark and Deutchman, Iva Ellen, “Instituting Gender: State Legislators in Australia and the United States,” Women & Politics 4 (1996), 1–4.Google Scholar

4 It should be emphasized that attitudinal data are only one kind of relevant evidence on the question of whether female legislators might make a difference. Women's conduct within legislatures, including their speeches and their behaviour within committees, and their approach to constituents are other important dimensions of representation for which gender may be relevant.

5 Kam, Christopher, “Why Sheep Are Sheep: Intraparty Coherence and Conformity among Candidates in the 1993 Election,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, St. Catharines, June 1996.Google Scholar

6 The BQ mailings were postponed until party endorsement of the project was received.

7 Erickson, Lynda, “Entry to the Commons: Parties, Recruitment and the Election of Women in 1993,” in Andrew, Caroline and Tremblay, Manon, eds., Women and Representation in Canada (Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 1997).Google Scholar

8 The Bloc candidates are, however, included in the total scores for men and women candidates in Tables 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 10.

9 Fowler, Linda, “Theories of Recruitment in Comparative Perspective,” paper presented at the 16th World Congress of the International Political Science Association, Berlin, 1994.Google Scholar

10 See, for example, Thomas, Sue, How Women Legislate (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994)Google Scholar; Thomas, Sue, “The Impact of Women on State Legislative Policies,” Journal of Politics 53 (1991), 958–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thomas, Sue and Welch, Susan, “The Impact of Gender on Activities and Priorities of State Legislators,” Western Political Quarterly 44 (1991), 445–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ruth Mandel and Debra Dodson, “Do Women Officeholders Make a Difference?” in Sara E. Rix, ed., The American Women (New York: W. W. Norton); and Saint-Germain, Michelle, “Does Their Difference Make a Difference? The Impact of Women on Public Policy in the Arizona State Legislature,” Social Science Quarterly 70 (1989), 956–68.Google Scholar

11 Dodson, Debra et al., Voices, Views, Votes: The Impact of Women in the 103rd Congress (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Center for the American Woman and Politics, 1995)Google Scholar; Thomas, How Women Legislate; Norris, Pippa, “Women in Congress: A Policy Difference?” Politics 6 (1986), 34–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Welch, Susan, “Are Women More Liberal than Men in the US Congress?” Legislative Studies Quarterly 10 (1985), 125–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Kelly, Saint-Germain and Horn, “Female Public Officials,” 77–87.

13 Norris, Pippa, “Women Politicians: Transforming Westminster?” Parliamentary Affairs 49 (1996), 89–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 McAllister, Ian and Studlar, Donley T., “Gender and Representation among Legislative Candidates in Australia,” Comparative Political Studies 25 (1992), 388–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar In the analysis of party differences, Liberal-National coalition candidates are grouped as one party.

15 The questions in this index included ones concerning trade-offs between taxes and social services, statements about the disincentive of high taxes and an item on whether too many rely on government handouts.

16 Tremblay, Manon, “Political Party, Political Philosophy and Feminism: A Case Study of Female and Male Candidates in the 1989 Quebec General Election,” this Journal 26 (1993), 507–22.Google Scholar

17 Young, “Fulfilling the Mandate of Difference,” 82–103.

18 Ibid., 99.

19 Ibid., 102.

20 The term “women's issues” is being used here for questionnaire items that most explicitly refer to women and/or questions of gender equality. This is not to suggest that other issues such as the economy or social policy are not just as important to women, nor that they do not have gender implications. It is, rather, being used as a shorthand for issues in which gender dimensions are most explicit.

21 Erickson, “Entry to the Commons.”

22 Erickson, Lynda, “Making Her Way In: Women, Parties and Candidacies in Canada,” in Lovenduski, Joni and Norris, Pippa, eds., Gender and Party Politics (London: Sage, 1993), 60–85.Google Scholar

23 A majority of Conservative candidates opposed special financial support for female candidates, even though their party has had a special fund to support women since 1986.

24 Evans, Judith, Feminist Theory Today: An Introduction to Second Wave Feminism (London: Sage, 1995).Google Scholar

25 Candidacies in the last election clearly varied in terms of the degree to which the party membership and/or organization (its “selectorate”) was involved in actively recruiting or choosing the local candidate. For a discussion of this aspects of party selection, see Erickson, Lynda, “Candidate Selection Revisited” (unpublished manuscript, Simon Fraser University, 1996).Google Scholar

26 This conclusion is drawn from the data presented by Norris, “Women Politicians,” 94 and 95, and Dodson et al., The Impact of Women in the 103rd Congress, 8 and 9. In Norris’ graphs, Conservative women tend to be more different than their male counterparts than are Liberal-Democratic or Labour party women compared to their male counterparts. In their analysis of selected roll-call votes by party and sex, Dodson et al. concluded there were “numerous instances of gender differences, especially among Republicans” (9).

27 Jonnasdottir, Anna, “On the Concept of Interest, Women's Interest and the Limitations of Interest Theory,” in Jones, K. B. and Jonnasdottir, A. G., eds., The Political Interests of Gender (London: Sage, 1988).Google Scholar