1 Such measures, however, are not unanimously agreed upon either within the population or within political parties, as evidenced by the reactions to the nomination of female candidates by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien during the 1997 federal election; see also Gidengil, Elisabeth, “Gender and Attitudes toward Quotas for Women Candidates in Canada,” Women and Politics 6 (1996), 21–44Google Scholar.

2 See, for example, Chodorow, Nancy, The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Gender (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978)Google Scholar; and Gilligan, Carol, In a Different Voice (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982).Google Scholar

3 See notably Sapiro, Virginia, The Political Integration of Women: Roles, Socialization, and Politics (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1983).Google Scholar

4 See Carroll, Susan J. and Dodson, Debra L., “Introduction,” in Dodson, Debra L., ed., Gender and Policymaking: Studies of Women in Office (New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for the American Woman and Politics, 1991).Google Scholar

5 See Klein, Ethel, Gender Politics: From Consciousness to Mass Politics (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984);CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Sigel, Roberta S., Ambition and Accommodation: How Women View Gender Relations (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996).Google Scholar

6 Pitkin, Hanna F., The Concept of Representation (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967).Google Scholar

7 For details, see Tremblay, Manon, “Quand les femmes se distinguent: Féminisme et représentation politique au Québec,” this Journal 25 (1992), 55–68.Google Scholar

8 See Thomas, Sue, How Women Legislate (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 4.Google Scholar

9 In Canada see, for example, Brodie, M. Janine, “The Recruitment of Canadian Women Provincial Legislators, 1950–1975,” Atlantis: A Women's Studies Journal/Journal d'études sur la femme 2 (1977), 6–17Google Scholar; Brodie, M. Janine and Vickers, Jill McCalla, Canadian Women in Politics: An Overview (Ottawa: Institut canadien de recherches pour l'avancement de la femme, 1982)Google Scholar; Tardy, Évelyne et al. , La politique: un monde d'hommes? Une étude sur les mairesses au Québec (Montréal: Hurtubise HMH, 1982)Google Scholar; and Vickers, Jill McCalla, “Where Are the Women in Canadian Politics?” Atlantis: A Women's Studies Journal/Journal d'études sur la femme 3 (1978), 40–51Google Scholar.

10 For Canada see, for example, Bashevkin, Sylvia B., “Political Participation, Ambition and Feminism: Women in the Ontario Party Elites,” American Review of Canadian Studies 15 (1985), 405–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Erickson, Lynda, “Might More Women Make a Difference? Gender, Party and Ideology among Canada's Parliamentary Candidates,” this Journal 30 (1997), 663–688Google Scholar; and Gotell, Lise and Brodie, Janine, “Women and Parties: More than an Issue of Numbers,” in Thorburn, Hugh G., ed., Party Politics in Canada (6th ed.; Scarborough: Prentice-Hall Canada, 1991), 53–67Google Scholar.

11 In Canada see, for example, Trimble, Linda, “Feminist Politics in the Alberta Legislature, 1972–1994,” in Arscott, Jane and Trimble, Linda, eds., In the Presence of Women: Representation in Canadian Governments (Toronto: Harcourt Brace, 1997), 128–153Google Scholar. See also Trimble, Linda, “A Few Good Women: Female Legislators in Alberta, 1972–1991,” in Cavanaugh, Catherine A. and Warne, Randi R., eds., Standing on New Ground: Women in Alberta (Calgary: University of Alberta Press, 1993), 87–118Google Scholar.

12 Pitkin, The Concept of Representation.

13 Ibid., 61.

14 Ibid., 114.

15 Carroll, Susan J., Women as Candidates in American Politics (2nd ed.; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994), 15Google Scholar.

16 As the citizenship of women is initially couched in social terms, women's issues and social policies maintain close, sometimes inextricable, ties. I have not attempted here to unravel the differences between them precisely because they often, although not always, make reference to the same realities. For more details, see Andrew, Caroline, “Women and the Welfare State,” this Journal 17 (1984), 667–683Google Scholar; Del Re, Alisa and Heinen, Jacqueline, eds., Quelle citoyenneté pour les femmes? La crise des États-providence et de la représentation politique en Europe (Paris/Montréal: L'Harmattan, 1996)Google Scholar; Hernes, Helga Maria, “The Welfare State Citizenship of Scandinavian Women,” in Jones, Kathleen B. and Jónasdóttir, Anna G., eds., The Political Interests of Gender: Developing Theory and Research with a Feminist Face (London: Sage, 1988), 187–213Google Scholar; and Pateman, Carole, “The Patriarchal Welfare State,” in Pateman, Carole, ed., The Disorder of Women (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1989), 179–209Google Scholar.

17 Dodson, Debra L. and Carroll, Susan J., Reshaping the Agenda: Women in State Legislatures (New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for the American Woman and Politics, 1991), 53 (emphasis in original)Google Scholar.

18 Saint-Germain, Michelle, “Does Their Difference Make a Difference? The Impact of Women on Public Policy in the Arizona Legislature,” Social Science Quarterly 70 (1989), 956–968Google Scholar.

19 The literature on this topic is extensive. For a critical overview of the roll-call vote measurement tools, see Norton, Noelle H., “Analyzing Roll-Call Voting Tools for Content: Are Women's Issues Excluded from Legislative Research,” Women & Politics 17 (1997), 47–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 For a recent statement of this assumption in Canada, see Young, Lisa, “Fulfilling the Mandate of Difference: Women in the Canadian House of Commons,” in Arscott, and Trimble, , eds., In the Presence of Women, 82–103Google Scholar. In Australia, see McAllister, Ian and Studlar, Donley T., “Gender and Representation among Legislative Candidates in Australia,” Comparative Political Studies 25 (1992), 388–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Whip, Rosemary, “Representing Women: Australian Female Parliamentarians on the Horns of a Dilemma,” Women & Politics II (1991), 1–22Google Scholar. For the US, see Considine, Mark and Deutchman, Iva Ellen, “The Gendering of Political Institutions,” Social Science Quarterly 75 (1994), 854–866Google Scholar.

21 See, notably, Kathlene, Lyn, “Power and Influence in State Legislative Policymaking: The Interaction of Gender and Position in Committee Hearing Debates,” American Political Science Review 88 (1994), 560–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Kathlene, Lyn, “Position Power versus Gender Power: Who Holds the Floor?” in Duerst-Lahti, Georgia and Kelly, Rita Mae, eds., Gender, Power, Leadership, and Governance (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995), 167–193Google Scholar.

22 In order to preserve anonymity within a relatively restricted population, I asked for only two responses of a nominative character, sex and political party. It is therefore not possible here to determine if the questionnaires were completed by a group representing the composition of the House in terms of seniority, position of leadership or other characteristics. This being said, the MPs who completed the questionnaire were certainly those who are the most interested in the debate on the role of women in politics.

23 Overall, the questionnaires returned reflected accurately the make-up of the House. Liberals, who occupied 60 per cent of the seats in the House, returned 57.9 per cent of questionnaires. The equivalent proportions for the other parties, in percentages, are as follows: 18.3 BQ MPs (17.5 questionnaires); 17.6 Reform MPs (14.9 questionnaires); 3.1 NDP MPs (5.3 questionnaires); 0.7 Conservative (0.9 questionnaires); 0.3 independant MP (0.9 questionnaire). The completed questionnaires also reflected the proportion of women and men in the House from each party, although there was sometimes a slight overrepresentation of female respondents—which could simply reflect the greater interest of female MPs in the role of women in politics. Therefore, while 20.9 per cent of Liberal MPs are women, 22.7 per cent of Liberal responses were from women. The corresponding proportions, in percentages, for the BQ are 14.8 female MPs—20 responses; the NDP, 11.1 female MPs—16.7 responses; the Conservatives, 50 female MPs—100 responses; Reform, 13.5 women MPs—29.4 responses.

24 The analysis rests on 54 female parliamentarians due to the election of Lucienne Robillard in a by-election in February 1995 (and not in October 1993 like the other 53 women). This member was seated for almost one year of the first session of the 35th legislature, which gave her time to pronounce herself on women's issues, although as mentioned above, as a minister she was precluded from private members' activities, and, like all ministers, would address the Commons only on matters related to her ministerial responsibilities.

25 In regards to the low response rate among men, we can note that the absolute rate of response to the survey allows for the establishment of pertinent comparisons with the group of women, within which almost one member in two completed the survey. Furthermore, a lower response rate among men with regards to questions dealing with issues which are more closely associated with women is understandable, as men will possibly feel less involved.

26 As a consequence, all activity in the House which was not reported in the Hansard Index will not figure in this study.

27 It is important here to note that this analysis was not of the content of the actual debates in the House, but of the Index of the Debates in the Canadian House of Commons (Hansard) for the first session of the 35th Parliament. In addition, as the discussions on women's issues in the Index do ot directly report speeches, they cannot be classified according to whether a feminist or anti-feminist stance was adopted. In reality, a rapid examination of certain debates in the House on women's issues shows the difficulty of classifying this, because one debate may contain elements of both feminism and anti-feminism, and because an issue within a given debate may be approached from both standpoints.

28 Laycock, David, “Reforming Canadian Democracy? Institutions and Ideology in the Reform Party Project,” this Journal 27 (1994), 213–247Google Scholar.

29 This proposition remains hypothetical, as it would be necessary to analyze the treatment of women's issues in several Parliaments of different partisan make-upto respond.

30 As previously mentioned, Lucienne Robillard was elected to the Commons in February 1995.

31 Kanter, Rosabeth Moss, “Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex Ratios and Responses to Token Women,” American Journal of Sociology 82 (1977), 965–990CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 Vega, Arturo and Firestone, Juanita M., “The Effects of Gender on Congressional Behavior and the Substantive Representation of Women,” Legislative Studies Quarterly 20 (1995), 213–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 The breakdown by party of the other elected women is: eight BQ, seven Reform, one NDP and one Conservative.

34 Interview conducted in April 1996 with the chair of the Liberal Women's Caucus.

35 This hypothesis is inspired by the works of Matland and Studlar on the theory ofinter-party contagion concerning the presence of women in politics. I do notpresume to apply integrally such a theory here, let alone to verify it. Rather, Iassert that such a theory of contagion can be useful in understanding the dynamics of the interventions by female MPs on women's issues in the House of Commonsin Canada, dynamics which have yet to be demonstrated (see Matland, Richard E. and Studlar, Donley T., “The Contagion of Women Candidates in Single-Member District and Proportional Representation Electoral Systems: Canada and Norway,” Journal of Politics 58 [1996], 707–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar). See also Mohr, Lawrence B., Explaining Organizational Behavior (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1982)Google Scholar.

36 See Carroll, Susan J., “Women State Legislators, Women's Organizations, and the Representation of Women's Culture in the United States,” in Bystydzienski, Jill M., ed., Women Transforming Politics: Worldwide Strategies for Empowerment (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1992), 24–40Google Scholar; and Dodson and Carroll, Reshaping the Agenda, 44–45.

37 This information was obtained from interviews conducted with 44 of the female MPs in the first session of the 35th legislative assembly, and from the analysis in the Canadian Parliamentary Guide.

38 It is primarily American studies which have examined the impact of women in politics, thus rendering all comparisons with women elected into parliamentary systems precarious. Nonetheless, the conclusions of Pippa Norris in her studies on the United Kingdom are essentially the same as those of US researchers (Norris, Pippa, “Women Politicians: Transforming Westminster?” Parliamentary Affairs 49 [1996], 89–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Norris, Pippa and Lovenduski, Joni, “Women Candidatesfor Parliament: Transforming the Agenda?” British Journal of Political Science 19 [1989], 106–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar). This article will thus situate Canada–and particularly women elected to the House of Commons–in relation to what we already know of the UK, the US and, as much as it is possible, other parliamentary democracies.

39 For European parliamentary democracies, see Davis, Rebecca Howard, Women and Power in Parliamentary Democracies: Cabinet Appointments in WesternEurope, 1968–1992 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997), 24Google Scholar. For the US, see Boles, Janet K., “Advancing the Women's Agenda within Local Legislatures: The Role of Female Elected Officials,” in Dodson, , ed., Gender and Pollcymaking, 39–48Google Scholar; Burrell, Barbara C., A Woman's Place Is in the House: Campaigning for Congress in the Feminist Era (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994), 161–162Google Scholar; Dodson and Carroll, Reshaping the Agenda, 53–60; Kahn, Kim Fridkin, “Gender Differences in Campaign Messages: The Political Advertisements of Men and Women Candidates for the US Senate,” Political Research Quarterly 46 (1993), 481–502Google Scholar; Saint-Germain, “Does Their Difference Make a Difference?”; Schumaker, Paul and Burns, Nancy Elizabeth, “Gender Cleavages and the Resolution of Local Policy Issues,” American Journal of Political Science 32 (1988), 1070–1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thomas, How Women Legislate, 72–79; Thomas, Sue and Welch, Susan, “The Impact of Gender on Activities and Priorities of State Legislators,” Western Political Quarterly 44 (1991), 445–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Welch, Susan and Thomas, Sue, “Do Women in Public Office Make a Difference?”in Dodson, , ed., Gender and Policymaking, 13–19Google Scholar.

40 Norris, “Women Politicians: Transforming Westminster?” 98.

41 See Fox, Richard Logan, Gender Dynamics in Congressional Elections (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1997), 45–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mezey, Susan Gluck, “Perceptions of Women's Roles on Local Councils in Connecticut,” in Stewart, Debra W., ed., Women in Local Politics (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1980), 177–197Google Scholar; Reingold, Beth, “Concepts of Representation among Female and Male State Legislators,” Legislative Studies Quarterly 17 (1992), 509–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Thompson, Joan Hulse, “Role Perceptions of Women in the Ninety-fourth Congress, 1975–76,” Political Science Quarterly 96 (1980), 71–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Such a conviction is also shared by the electorate (see Huddy, Leonie and Terkildson, Nayda, “Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male and Female Candidates,” American Journal of Political Science 37 [1993], 119–147)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 Tremblay, Manon and Pelletier, Rejean, Que font-elles en politique? (Sainte-Foy: Les Presses de I' Université Laval, 1995), 127–166Google Scholar.

43 Whip, “Representing Women.”

44 For Canada, see Tremblay, Manon and Garneau, Édith, “La représentation des femmes par la voie(x) d'une ‘démasculinisation’ du style parlementaire,” in Tremblay, Manon and Andrew, Caroline, eds., Femmes et représentation politique au Québec et au Canada (Montreal: Remue-ménage, 1997), 69–100Google Scholar. For Europe, see Bystydzienski, Jill M., Women in Electoral Politics: Lessons from Norway (Westport: Praeger, 1995), 54–57Google Scholar. For the US, see Dodson and Carroll. Reshaping the Agenda, 56; Havens, Catherine M. and Healy, Lynne M., “Cabinet-Level Appointees in Connecticut: Women Making a Difference,” in Dodson, , ed., Gender and Policymaking, 21–30Google Scholar; and Reingold, “Concepts of Representation.”

45 Skjeie, Hege, “The Rhetoric of Difference: On Women's Inclusion into Political Elites,” Politics and Society 19 (1991), 233–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46 The question was: “In Great Britain, when a new Parliament is formed, Dod's Parliamentary Guide—which is roughly the equivalent of our Parliamentary Guide—lists the areas of interest of the members of Parliament (for example, the environment, defence, trade and industry, humanitarian rights, etc.). Which would yours be (the top three)?” Concerning the priority which female and male MPs accorded to women's issues, the question was as follows: “In your opinion, what sort of priority should be given to issues specifically affecting women? Please check only one box. Relatively high priority; Relatively low priority; Sometimes high, sometimes low priority.”

47 The areas of interest listed in Table 1 are as mentioned by female and male MPs. In other words, 5 out of the 26 female parliamentarians who participated in this study explicitly wrote “women's issues” on their questionnaire as either their first, second or third field of interest.

48 In Great Britain, see Norris, Pippa and Lovenduski, Joni, Political Recruitment: Gender, Race and Class in the British Parliament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 218–219Google Scholar. In the US, see, for example, Thomas, How Women Legislate, 72–77; and Welch and Thomas, “Do Women in Public Office Make a Difference?” For Scandinavian countries, see Skard, Torild and Haavio-Mannila, Elina, “Women in Parliament,” in Haavio-Mannila, Elina et al. , eds., Unfinished Democracy: Women in Nordic Politics (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1985), 51–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 Norris, “Women Politicians: Transforming Westminster?” 98. See also Norrisand Lovenduski, “Women Candidates for Parliament.”

50 A breakdown of these 15 women according to political affiliation is as follows: 9 Liberal, 4 BQ, 1 NDP and 1 Reform. For men, the breakdown is: 19 Liberal, 11 BQ, 3 NDP and 2 Reform (one man did not specify his political affiliation).

51 Barry, Jim, The Women's Movement and Local Politics: The Influence on Councillors in London (Aldershot: Avebury, 1991), 142–147Google Scholar.

52 Bashevkin, “Political Participation, Ambition and Feminism”; Erickson, “Might More Women Make a Difference?”; and Gotell and Brodie, “Women and Parties.”

53 Saint-Germain, “Does Their Difference Make a Difference?”; and Thomas, Sue, “The Impact of Women on State Legislative Policies,” Journal of Politics 53 (1991), 958–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54 Kathlene, Lyn, Clarke, Susan E. and Fox, Barbara A., “Ways Women Politicians Are Making a Difference,” in Dodson, , ed., Gender and Policy making, 31–38Google Scholar.

55 Dodson and Carroll, Reshaping the Agenda, 92.

56 Burrell, A Woman's Place Is in the House, 162.

57 This figure was obtained by counting all Standing Order 31s mentioned in the Index of the Debates of the House of Commons for the first session of the 35th legislature.

58 The party breakdown of these 42 women is: 28 Liberal, 6 BQ, 6 Reform, 1 NDP and 1 Conservative. The proportion of women who made statements on behalf of protheir party reflects the proportion of women members from each party in the House.

59 The party breakdown is: 48 Liberal, 9 BQ, 18 Reform and 5 NDP. Here, contrary to women, the proportion of men who made statements on behalf of their party reflects the proportion of men in the House only for the Liberal and Reform parties. The male MPs from the BQ made proportionately fewer statements than their presence in the House (11.3% vs. 19.1%), while the opposite was the case for the NDP (6.3% vs. 3.3%).

60 Welch and Thomas, “Do Women in Public Office Make a Difference?”

61 Vallance, Elizabeth, “Do Women Make a Difference? The Impact of Women MEP on Community Equality Policy,” in Buckley, Mary and Anderson, Malcolm, eds., Women, Equality and Europe (Houndmills: Macmillan Press, 1988), 126–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

62 Skard and Haavio-Mannila, “Women in Parliament.”

63 Trimble, “Feminist Politics in the Alberta Legislature.” See also, Trimble, “A Few Good Women.”

64 Tremblay, Manon and Boivin, Guylaine, “La question de i' avortement au Parlement canadien: de l' importance du genre dans I'orientation des d6bats,” Revue juridique Lafemme et le droit 4 (1991), 459–476Google Scholar.

65 It is important to note here that MPs who did not speak out on women's issues during the legislative debates could have otherwise done so in other dimensions of parliamentary activity, for example, by invoking Standing Order 31 or by presenting a private members' notice of motion.

66 Due to the low number of female members from both the NDP and Conservative parties, the corresponding figures have little meaning.

67 This total was calculated by applying the definition provided by Saint-Germain in “Does Their Difference Make a Difference?” All speeches which appeared in the Index of the House of Commons Debates for the first session of the 35th legislature were retained, with the exception of petitions (which were the object of another analysis), questions on the order paper and statements by members (which were already included in the first part of this analysis).

68 Vallance, “Do Women Make a Difference?”

69 Interviews with 44 of the women members of the House of Commons during the first session of the 35th Parliament allows me to maintain partially the hypothesis that women are ghettoized in women's issues. For details, see Tremblay and Garneau, “La representation des femmes par la voie(x) d'une ‘démasculinisation’ du style parlementaire.”

70 Again, due to the low number of women elected as members of the NDP and Conservative parties, these figures have little meaning.

71 Trimble, “Feminist Politics in the Alberta Legislature”; and Trimble, “A Few Good Women.”

72 For an overview of arguments on parity in democratic institutions, see Mossuz-Lavau, Janine, Femmes/hommes pour la parite (Paris: Presses de sciences politiques, 1998)Google Scholar.

73 Yoder, Janice D., “Rethinking Tokenism: Looking beyond nNumbers,” Gender and Society 5 (1991), 178–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Norton, Noelle, “Women, It's Not Enough to Be Elected: Committee Position Makes a Difference,” in Duerst-Lahti, Georgia and Kelly, Rita Mae, eds., Gender Power, Leadership, and Governance (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995), 115–140Google Scholar.

74 Bashevkin, Sylvia B., “Political Parties and the Representation of Women,” in Tanguay, A. Brian and Gagnon, Alain-G., eds., Canadian Parties in Transition (2nd ed.; Toronto: Nelson, 1996), 479–495Google Scholar; and Dolan, Kathleen and Ford, Lynne E., “Are All Women State Legislators Alike?” in Thomas, Sue and Wilcox, Clyde, eds., Women and Elective Office: Past, Present and Future (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 73–86Google Scholar.

75 See Dolan, Kathleen and Ford, Lynne E., “Women in the State Legislatures: Feminist Identity and Legislative Behaviors,” American Politics Quarterly 23 (1995), 96–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

76 Kelly, Rita Mae, Saint-Germain, Michelle A. and Horn, Jody D., “Female Public Officials: A Different Voice?” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 515 (1991), 77–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Skjeie, “The Rhetoric of Difference.” For Canada, see Manon Tremblay, “Femmes et représentation à la Chambre des communes du Canada: un modele des orientations du rôle de representation des femmes,” International Journal of Canadian Studies, forthcoming.

77 On the importance of maintaining the criteria of diversity among women, see Vickers, Jill, Reinventing Political Science: A Feminist Approach (Halifax: Fernwood, 1997), 56–65Google Scholar.

78 Norris, “Women Politicians: Transforming Westminster?”

79 But see Erickson, “Might More Women Make a Difference?”