In Versus Out: LGBT Politicians in Canada

n v r t: L BT P l t n n n d

Joanna Everitt, Michael Camp

Journal of Canadian Studies/Revue d'études canadiennes, Volume48, Number 1, Winter 2014, pp. 226-251 (Article)

Published by University of Toronto PressDOI: 10.1353/jcs.2014.0013

For additional information about this article

Access provided by University of New Brunswick (10 Jun 2014 11:25 GMT)

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/jcs/summary/v048/48.1.everitt.html

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/jcs/summary/v048/48.1.everitt.html

226

J oa n n a Eve r i tt & M i c h a e l C a m p

The number of openly LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered) politicians in Parliament

and the provincial legislatures has grown steadily since Burnaby member of Parliament Svend

Robinson declared his sexual orientation in 1988. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual Canadians still have

a long way to go before they have achieved equitable representation in the mainstream political

process, however. This essay explores the backgrounds of “out” federal and provincial politi-

cians, and identifies the various factors that have affected their chances of being successful in

electoral races. While things have changed in recent federal and provincial elections, this study

concludes that the LGBT candidates most likely to win at the polls are those who established a

reputation for community service before the public discovered their sexual orientation.

Le nombre de politiciens LGBT (lesbiennes, gais, bisexuels et transgenres) déclarés au Parlement

et à l’assemblée législative provinciale a augmenté de façon constante depuis que le député de

Burnaby Svend Robinson a proclamé son orientation sexuelle en 1988. Les lesbiennes, homo-

sexuels et bisexuels canadiens ont toutefois un long parcours à faire avant d’être représentés de

façon équitable au sein du processus politique régulier. Le présent article examine le chemine-

ment des politiciens fédéraux et provinciaux qui ont affiché leur préférence au grand jour et

recense les divers facteurs qui ont influé sur leurs chances de gagner des courses électorales.

Bien que la situation ait changé au cours des élections fédérales et provinciales récentes, cette

étude conclut que les candidats LGBT qui ont le plus de chance de gagner leurs élections sont

ceux qui se sont taillé une réputation dans le domaine des services communautaires avant que

le public découvre leur orientation sexuelle.

Copyright © Journal of Canadian Studies. All rights reserved.

Copyright © Revue d’études canadiennes. Tous droits réservés.

Volume 48 • Number 1 • Winter 2014 | Volume 48 • numéro 1 • hiver 2014

In versus Out:LGBT Politicians in Canada

JOANNA EVERITT & MICHAEL CAMP

Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes

227

Since the late 1960s, women and racial minorities in Canada have made consider-able advances towards achieving equitable representation in municipal councils,

provincial legislatures, and Parliament. Their progress and the challenges they con-tinue to face have been the subject of numerous academic studies (Bashevkin 2009; Black 2008; Black and Hicks 2006). Not all identifiable groups have achieved the same degree of success, however, and certainly lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual (LGBT) Canadians are among those still on the margins of our democratic system. Only five acknowledged LGBT politicians currently sit in the Canadian House of Commons, representing less than 2% of the total seats. A similar 2% of the total seats at the provincial level are held by LGBT politicians, with the percentage varying from one province to the next (Everitt forthcoming).

While exact figures are impossible to verify, the number of declared and unde-clared homosexuals in the adult population is estimated to be as high as 10% (Gole-biowska 2002). If one accepts the proposition that our governing bodies should reflect the diversity of the people they govern, then homosexuals are arguably one of the most underrepresented groups in Canada; but even if a much lower figure is used as a reference point, it is clear that LGBTs are far from achieving anything close to equitable representation in Canada’s legislative assemblies.

With the selection in January 2013 of Kathleen Wynne, an out lesbian, as the leader of the Ontario Liberal Party and by default premier of Ontario, the political participation of LGBT politicians gained national attention. Party activists, political pundits, and journalists openly mused about the electability of Wynne and by exten-sion other LGBT politicians, and debated as to whether Canadian voters outside of large urban settings were ready to accept gay politicians and political leaders. While each candidate’s success is no doubt affected by a range of individual factors, the research that has been conducted so far strongly suggests that while electable, LGBT candidates continue to share many of the same challenges that women and racial minorities have historically confronted; they are more likely to run for left-leaning parties, or minor parties with little or no chance of being elected; they typically run in largely urban ridings; and they are slightly more likely to run in ridings with a large LGBT population. There are a few distinct differences between LGBT candidates and other underrepresented groups, however, some of which stem from the fact that LGBT candidates have the option of being invisible. If they so desire, they may conceal their sexual orientation and thereby avoid potential negative consequences that might flow from such a disclosure. In the light of recent successes in legislatures across the country, it is timely to explore common factors in the electoral experiences of LGBT candidates as they follow other identifiable groups in seeking an equitable place in the Canadian political mosaic.

228


Experiences of Gays and Lesbians in Canada

Historically, attitudes towards homosexuals have played a significant role in limit-ing their involvement in the political process in Canada, although in relative terms, homosexuals are more accepted in this country than in many others (Rayside 1998). The change in public opinion towards homosexuality has been substantial and rapid, given the fact that homophobic attitudes were deeply ingrained in Canadian society well into the last century. Until 1969, it was a criminal offence for consenting adults to engage in homosexual acts, and homosexuality itself was considered to be a form of sexual deviance or mental illness (Rayside 1998, 41-42). Compared with other West-ern nations, Canada was aggressive in prosecuting homosexuals. Urban police depart-ments kept an eye on the activities of gay and lesbian organizations, while the Royal Canadian Mounted Police stepped up its surveillance on suspected gays in the civil service (41-42). A 1952 amendment to the Immigration Act declared that gay and les-bian applicants should be categorized as “subversive” and scrutinized accordingly (41).

In a 1975 survey, only 28% of Canadians said they thought sexual relations between people of the same gender were “acceptable” (George 2006). The emergence of the Gay Pride movement in the 1970s and new social and psychological perspec-tives on sexuality have had a profound effect on the way the public thinks about those who are not heterosexual. In 1987, an Environics survey found that only 10% of Canadians expressed approval when asked, “Do you personally strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove of homosexuality?” In that survey, 55% disapproved and 34% were neutral (Langstaff 2011, 51). The num-ber of Canadians expressing approval climbed slowly throughout the 1990s, and by 2004, approval rates had increased to almost half the population, with almost 7 in 10 Canadians under the age of 30 demonstrating approval (Langstaff 2011). In the last decade alone, there have been substantial changes in attitudes. As table 1 indicates, when asked during recent Canadian elections to rate how they felt about gays and lesbians on a feeling thermometer (measured from 0 to 100),1 respondents’ answers became increasingly higher and thereby more positive as time went on. Between the 2004 election and the 2011 election, public sentiments have increased by 17 points.

TABLE 1. How do you feel about gays and lesbians?

2004 2006 2008 2011

Mean score 55.9 61.4 66.5 72.7

Source: Canadian Election Surveys 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2011 (Fournier et al. 2011; Gidengil et al.

2009).


229

More recent surveys have found that almost three quarters of Canadians say they know someone who is lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered, with slightly lower numbers (70%) in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, or Alberta indicating this was the case; 5% of Canadians identify as LGBT, with a self-identification rate of up to 10% among individuals aged 18 to 34.

Of particular relevance to this essay is a 2012 Environics survey that found that 67% of Canadians show a high level of agreement with the idea that gays and lesbians should be permitted to run for public office. A further 27% hold no strong opinion on this and only 6% disapprove (Environics 2012). These results put Canada ahead of all other countries in the Americas in terms of openness to LGBT politicians. Support was greatest among “Atlantic Canadians and Quebecers, women, Canadians with higher levels of education and income, and those born in the country” (Environics 2012, 41). This view was also strongly related to support for the values of the political left, but over time support has also increased among the right (14).

While these dramatic changes in public attitudes, along with court rulings con-firming that it is illegal to discriminate against individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation2 and legislation permitting same-sex marriages, suggest a much more accepting climate for LGBTs, deeply held views about sexuality are not easily removed. Not all stereotypical perceptions of homosexuals have vanished in the span of three or four decades, particularly among older generations, some new Canadians, and evangelical Christians. As a result, political activists continue their efforts to extend human rights to the LGBT community despite vigorous resistance from right-wing politicians and defenders of the “traditional” family.

In order to preserve these gains, David Rayside has argued, it is essential for openly LGBT activists to become involved in mainstream politics at the local, pro-vincial, and federal levels; however, he writes, “Disengagement from mainstream politics … is no longer an option. The opening up of opportunities in courts, parties and legislatures demands participation, even if only for preventing setbacks,” which may come at any time (1998, 3). While most rights have been achieved through the courts (Smith 1999), Parliament and provincial legislatures still remain important arenas for policy debate, and having politicians in these bodies who are sympathetic to LGBT issues and concerns can make the difference between legislative wins or losses (Haider-Markel 2007, 2010; Reynolds 2013). In fact, as recently as January 2012, there was the possibility that the Harper Conservative government might interpret legisla-tion in a way that would effectively mean that same-sex marriages for non-Canadians did not have the same status in law as heterosexual unions (Makin 2012, A1). While officials later backed away from this position, it demonstrates the importance of hav-ing defenders of LGBT issues within legislative and executive bodies.

230


To get into these bodies, however, LGBT politicians must first get elected. Even though (as noted above) the public has become increasingly open to gays and lesbi-ans, there is evidence to suggest that barriers still exist for LGBT candidates seeking elected office.

LGBT Politicians in Canada

Casual observers of Ontario politics at the beginning of the second decade of the twenty-first century would not be remiss in thinking that sexual orientation was no longer a barrier to political participation. In 2010, George Smitherman, an openly gay, senior minister in the Liberal government, resigned his seat in the Legislative Assem-bly to run unsuccessfully for mayor of the City of Toronto. He followed other gay politicians who have sought the mayor’s seat in cities such as Winnipeg and Ottawa.3

Even more notable was the 2013 leadership race to replace Ontario’s Liberal leader and provincial premier Dalton McGuinty. Two high-profile Liberal cabinet ministers, Kathleen Wynne and Glen Murray, both of whom have been open about their sex-ual orientation since before entering provincial politics, entered the leadership race along with several straight men and one straight woman, leading to speculation about whether their homosexuality would affect their chances of success. Murray eventually dropped out of the race to support Wynne, who went on to win the party leadership.

Wynne’s success at winning the leadership, matched with other examples of suc-cessful LGBT politicians, suggests that sexual orientation may no longer be an issue in Canadian politics. Indeed, in comparison to other countries, there have been some notable electoral breakthroughs for homosexual politicians in Canada who willingly run the risk of proclaiming their sexual orientation to the public. It should be noted, however, that Wynne’s and Murray’s experience of entering politics as openly gay is relatively unique. Many successful LGBT politicians did not reveal their sexual ori-entation when they first presented themselves to the public. Further, the persistent debate as to whether Wynne’s identity as a lesbian might affect her electability indi-cates that not all barriers have been eliminated.

The first openly homosexual man to win a seat in the House of Commons was Svend Robinson of Vancouver. Robinson was still “in the closet” in 1979 when he successfully contested the riding of Burnaby–Douglas as an New Democratic Party (NDP) candidate. It was not until 1988 that he announced on national television that he was gay; he then proceeded to win his riding in three more federal elections (True-love 2013). Robinson resigned from Parliament in April 2004, with 25 years’ experi-ence as an Member of Parliament (MP).


231

Six years after Robinson came out, Bloc Québécois MP Réal Ménard, first elected in the riding of Hochelaga in 1993, become the second member of Parliament to announce that he was gay. His outing occurred in 1994 during a parliamentary debate on gay marriage. Ménard declared himself to be gay, while responding to com-ments from Roseanne Skoke, a former Liberal and social conservative, who said that homosexuality was “unnatural and immoral” (O’Neil 1994, A4). Whatever negative effects the announcement of his sexuality may have had on public opinion, it was not enough to prevent Ménard from winning his seat in four subsequent elections. He served for several years as the justice critic for the Bloc Québécois, before resigning in the summer of 2009 to run successfully for mayor of the Montreal borough of Mercier–Hochelaga–Maisonneuve.

Of all the openly gay men in federal politics, Scott Brison of Nova Scotia has attained the highest level of success. He won the riding of Kings–Hants in 1997 as a Progressive Conservative (PC) candidate. He was re-elected in 2000, and in 2002 he announced he was gay, noting that he was “not a gay politician, but a politician who happens to be gay.”4 Brison ran for the leadership of the PC Party, but was unsuccess-ful. When the PCs later joined forces with the Canadian Alliance to form the new Con-servative Party of Canada, Brison crossed the floor to the Liberals. He was promptly named parliamentary secretary to the prime minister, with special responsibilities for Canada–US relations. After Brison won his seat as a Liberal in the general election of 2004, he was named minister of Public Works and Government Services—the highest position ever reached by an openly gay politician in the federal government. Brison was re-elected in 2006, though he lost his cabinet post when the Liberals were defeated by the Conservatives. He was also a candidate for the leadership of the Lib-eral Party, but failed to attract much support at the party’s convention on 2 December 2006. Brison dropped out of the race after receiving 181 votes, or 3.9% of the total number of delegates, on the first ballot.

Similarly, high-profile provincial politicians have often waited to achieve electoral success before coming out to their electorate. André Boisclair became the first openly homosexual politician in North America to lead a mainstream party with significant legislative representation.5 He was originally elected in 1989 and served for a time as a PQ cabinet minister before coming out in 2000. In November 2005 he became leader of the PQ and held the post until May 2007, when he resigned after the party suf-fered a major electoral defeat in the provincial election of that year. Other prominent gay male politicians at the provincial level include Tim Stevenson, former minister for Employment and Investment in British Columbia (BC) and Canada’s first openly gay cabinet minister; Ted Nebbeling, a former minister of State in BC; Jim Rondeau,

232


minister of Healthy Living in Manitoba; Glen Murray, minister of Infrastructure and minister of Transportation in Ontario; and George Smitherman, former minister of Health in Ontario.

While successful lesbian politicians appear to be less common than gay men, this is largely a function of the percentage of women elected to office in the first place. Women on average hold fewer than 25% of the seats in the House of Commons, and while their level of representation varies from one province to another, they hold a relatively similar number of seats at the provincial level. Thus one might expect that lesbians are likely to represent only about a quarter of all LGBT candidates and politicians.

The first openly declared lesbian in Parliament was Libby Davies, the NDP mem-ber for Vancouver East, who came out during a debate on gay marriage in 2001, four years after she was first elected. Davies said she had lived with a man for most of her adult life, but after he died of cancer in 1997, she formed a relationship with a female partner. In an interview with the Vancouver Sun, Davies said she did not plan the announcement. She said it just seemed appropriate because Parliament was debat-ing a bill on gay marriage, sponsored by her caucus colleague Burnaby MP Svend Robinson, who had declared his sexual orientation several years earlier. In any case, Davies said, the news was hardly a secret because she had been living as an openly gay woman for some time. “I have been introducing my partner in Vancouver and to people I know, and I’ve been at events where she’s been introduced, so it’s been information that’s been out there. And today in the House, because we were debat-ing Svend’s bill, which I always supported, it just seemed like the right thing to say” (quoted in O’Neil 2001, B1). Advocates for gay rights expressed hope that Davies’s example would encourage more lesbian women to enter mainstream politics. John Fisher, an official with the advocacy group called EGALE (Equality for Gays and Les-bians Everywhere), said it was a historic event for the gay community: “It is the first time we’ve had a female MP identify herself as being in a same-sex relationship, and I think we’d all like to see the day come when that is something that is just accepted as part of the fabric of Canadian society” (quoted in O’Neil 2001, B1).

Agnès Maltais, a Quebec politician first elected in 1998, was the only other woman to come out while in office. She was a former Parti Québécois cabinet minis-ter and did not reveal her sexual orientation until November 2003, seven months after her second election. Interestingly, all other identified female candidates and politi-cians were out prior to their first election campaign. This includes Kathleen Wynne, the new Ontario premier, and Jennifer Howard, a cabinet minister in Manitoba. Part of the explanation for this may be timing and the fact that the number of female


233

candidates or successfully elected female politicians in earlier decades when people were less open about their sexual orientation was still quite small.

While politicians running for office prior to the early 2000s were more likely to wait until after their first election to come out, more recent candidates have tended to face the electorate with their sexual orientation known. This fits with comparative data on LGBT politicians worldwide. Andrew Reynolds has found that prior to 1999 only 48% of LGBT politicians were out at the time of their election. After 1999 this percentage rose to 93% (2013). It should be noted, however, that despite the success of the above-identified individuals, for each LGBT candidate that is elected, there are several others who were not. Because of the limited research that has been conducted on LGBT politicians in Canada, little is known about the factors that contribute to or inhibit their chances of electoral success. Given the changing attitudes towards LGBT politicians and the substantive increase in the number of out candidates who have run for federal or provincial office in the last decade, it is time to pay more than anecdotal attention to the challenges facing these individuals.

Methodology

To determine the factors that have contributed to the electoral fortunes of LGBT can-didates, we have created a data set that contains information about all of the identi-fiable LGBT politicians and candidates who have run for election at the federal or provincial level in Canada prior to November 2013.6 Municipal candidates were not included in this data set, as it would have been impossible to identify thoroughly all LGBT candidates who had run in local political races due to limited information and media coverage of most municipal election campaigns. Data were gathered from a wide variety of sources, including searching the web and newspaper databases using the following key terms: gay candidate, gay politician, lesbian candidate, lesbian poli-tician, homosexual candidate, and homosexual politician and election, along with Canada and each of the provinces. Admittedly, this is likely to be an incomplete list-ing as there may be those who are out, but whose orientation was not identified in a news story about them or is not known by the majority of their community. Indeed, the authors are aware of a few such individuals, but have not included them in this analysis as the lack of public acknowledgement of their sexual orientation is likely to lead to a lower awareness of it among their constituents. As a result, they have more in common with non-LGBT candidates whose sexual orientation is unlikely to be an election issue than typical LGBT candidates. Having said this, it is the most compre-hensive listing of LGBT candidates in Canada to date.

For all candidates, we recorded key information: the date of each election in which they ran; whether it was their first election campaign at this level or not; whether they

234


won or lost; whether it was a federal or provincial election; the name of the riding; the province they ran in; and whether or not they had run as an out candidate.

In addition, we coded information that could potentially have an impact on their electoral success. For example, we noted their gender, as women continue to have greater challenges than men in winning their party nomination, particularly in win-nable ridings (Trimble and Arscott 2003). We also recorded the party that they repre-sented. Studies show that the ideological predispositions of a political party are highly correlated to its openness to running an out LGBT candidate. In the United States, LGBT candidates are more likely to be found running for the Democratic Party than for the Republicans (Haider-Markel 2010), and in the United Kingdom, politicians perceived greater barriers to running as an out candidate in the Conservative Party than in the Labour Party or the Liberal Democrats (Durose et al. 2011).

In Canada, the party that has been the most open to LGBT candidates is the New Democratic Party. In 2006, delegates to a federal convention of the NDP adopted the Declaration of Montreal on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Human Rights—making it the world’s first political party to do so. At the same time, it enshrined equality for LGBT members in its party constitution and subsequently established the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Committee. None of the other parties have gone quite so far. Just as it has made special efforts to encourage and facilitate the electoral participation of women or minority candidates, the NDP has made efforts to recruit LGBT candidates. While the Liberals have made some efforts to be more inclusive by recently creating a Queer Caucus, it is not institutionalized in the same way as it is with the NDP.

In addition, we tried to identify whether the riding that candidates ran in was a predominately urban, suburban, or rural riding, as several studies have argued that urban centres tend to possess the social diversity and cosmopolitan attitudes that have supported openly homosexual lifestyles (Bailey 1998; Wilson 1995). We also included a rough measure of the degree to which a riding was home to a large gay or lesbian population. While LGBT populations, even when highly concentrated, are still likely to be less numerous than other minority populations (many of whom may be opposed to LGBT politicians), “gay villages” in Toronto, Montreal, or Van-couver can still provide important electoral resources through campaign volunteers or votes that can be mobilized to support a candidate (Button, Wald, and Rienzo 1999). Both urbanism and supportive community environments have been identi-fied as important correlates to general attitudes towards gays and lesbians, and are the areas where LGBT candidates were most likely to be located in the United States (Heider-Markel 2010).


235

We were unable to include in this analysis a measure of the degree to which individual candidates conformed to either a gay male or lesbian stereotype. Stereo-types are perceptual short-cuts in the process of impression formation (Golebiowska 2001; Golebiowska and Thomsen 1999). When they are available, they limit the col-lection and processing of new, individualizing information about the person being considered. As a result, they have a tendency to impede further inquiry into the actual nature of the individual in question and may result in negative and unsupported assessments (Golebiowska and Thomsen 1999).

Stereotypes about homosexuals are fundamentally gendered and are greatly influenced by the prevailing beliefs of how men and women should act (Viss and Burn 2001). Effeminate men and butch women challenge social expectations of appropriate gender behaviours and thus frequently generate negative reactions to individuals who present themselves in these manners. In addition, these stereotypic attributes are at odds with the stereotype of the baby-kissing, pro-family, heterosexual, male politician (Golebiowska 2001; Golebiowska and Thomsen 1999), potentially raising questions about a candidate’s appropriateness for politics. While there is some evidence that masculine lesbian candidates are likely to be perceived more positively than feminine gay male candidates (Golebiowska 2001), there is little question that stereotyping can harm an LGBT candidate’s electoral fortunes (Golebiowska 2001; Golebiowska and Thomsen 1999). Unfortunately, while a candidate’s conformity or non-conformity with gay or lesbian stereotypes may have had an impact on his or her campaign suc-cess, it was beyond the scope of this project to assess each of the candidates on this measure.

Results

As of November 2013, we were able to identify a total of 55 LGBT candidates who have run for office at the federal level and 59 at the provincial level. As some individuals have run in multiple elections and others have run in different ridings at the same level of office, and still others have run both federally and provincially, this results in a total of 97 federal candidacies and 110 provincial candidacies. When we look only at those campaigns where candidates were out at the time of their election, we find 82 federal and 79 provincial instances of individuals running as LGBT candidates. As might be expected, the majority of these individuals have run for office in the past decade (see table 2), as public attitudes towards lesbians and gays have become more accepting.

The first out homosexual to run for political office was Robert Douglas Cook, who ran in the BC provincial election of 1979 for the Gay Alliance Toward Equality

236


(GATE) party. While he was unsuccessful in his bid for electoral office, his candidacy nudged opened the doors for future LGBT politicians. Between 1979 and the late 1980s, few individuals ran as out gay or lesbian candidates; however, as the 1990s progressed, more individuals were open about their sexual orientation, and several openly gay candidates at the provincial level were actually getting elected in their first run for office.

The first openly gay politician to win a seat in a federal or provincial election was Maurice Richard. He served for several years as a municipal councillor and then mayor in Bécancour, a community across the Saint Lawrence River from Trois-Rivières. He came out as gay in the 1970s during his time in municipal office. While his sexual orientation became an issue during the 1985 provincial election, in which he ran as a Liberal candidate, it did not stop him from winning a seat from the Parti Québécois incumbent.

It took almost another 20 years for an out LGBT candidate to win a seat in the Canadian House of Commons: Bill Siksay, after running unsuccessfully for the NDP in 1997 and 2000 in Vancouver Centre, finally in 2004 won by almost 1,000 votes the Burnaby–Douglas seat previously held by Svend Robinson.7 Siksay credits Robinson for helping people to “get their brains around the idea of an openly gay politician rep-resenting them” (Siksay 2009). Siksay had worked as Robinson’s constituency assis-tant for 18 years and was chosen to replace Robinson when Robinson retired.8 It was the first time a non-incumbent candidate had won a federal seat as a declared homo-sexual, breaking the usual pattern of homosexuals having to establish their political

Note: This table represents each occurrence of an LGBT-identified candidate running in a federal or provincial election or by-election. Some individuals were not out at the time of their early election campaigns and were only included once they came out. Individuals who ran in more than one elec-tion or at more than one level of office are counted separately for each election.

TABLE 2. Total number of LGBT candidates in Canada by election cohort.

Election Date Federal Provincial Annual Total

Pre-1990 1 6 7

1990-94 3 4 7

1995-99 6 5 11

2000-2004 31 7 38

2005-2009 23 29 52

Post-2010 18 28 46

Total 82 79 161


237

reputations in Parliament before making their sexual orientation known to the pub-lic. Siksay went on to win two more times before retiring in 2011.

The 2004 federal election saw an explosion of openly gay candidates running; along with Siksay, 17 new candidates entered the race, joining three other incum-bent candidates (Brison, Davies, and Ménard). Thirteen of those new candidates ran for the NDP, two ran for the Liberals, and three ran for the new Conservative Party. Almost all of them ran in urban ridings, and many ran in areas with a significant LGBT population; however, only one of those new candidates, Bill Siksay, was success-ful in winning his seat, while the three incumbents were re-elected. Mario Silva also ran in that election as a Liberal candidate, but did not publicly come out until a couple of months after successfully winning his election campaign.

Since Siksay’s breakthrough, other gay men have been successful in their first attempt at winning a seat in Parliament, including Raymond Gravel, who won a by-election in Quebec in 2006 as a Bloc Québécois candidate, and Rob Oliphant, who ran successfully as a Liberal in Toronto in the general election of 2008. The 2011 elec-tion saw three additional gay male NDP politicians elected. Libby Davis remains the only identified lesbian member of Parliament. LGBT politicians have been even more successful at the provincial level, with 12 currently holding seats in provincial legisla-tive assemblies across the country.

TABLE 3. Success rate of out LGBT candidacies.

Methodologically, it is difficult to assess accurately the chances of an LGBT candidate winning because only those who are out can be included in the analysis. None the less, a preliminary assessment of the data presented in table 3 might suggest that the success rate of out LGBT candidates is quite high. Of the 161 instances where an out LGBT candidate ran for office, 42% resulted in a win and 58% resulted in a loss. To a large extent, this remarkably high rate of success can be attributed to a handful of individuals who have successfully run in multiple election campaigns; however, it should be noted that several of these candidates only revealed their sexual orientation after they took elected office, sometimes after several elections.9

Win Loss

Provincial election 51.9% (41) 48.1% (38)

Federal election 31.7% (26) 68.3% (56)

Total success 41.6% (69) 58.4% (94)

238


TABLE 4. Rate of candidate success in first election.

Win Loss Total

Out at first election 19% (18) 81% (76) 71% (94)

Not out 75% (15) 25% (5) 30% (20)

Note: Four candidates ran at both the federal and provincial levels and six ran in different ridings at the same level of office.

When we limit our attention to LGBT candidates’ first election campaigns (see table 4) the success rate for out candidates drops dramatically to 20 percent while 75 percent of those who were not out won their first campaign.10 While there are many factors that may account for the success or lack of success of these candidates, the most obvious one is that LGBT candidates who are out appear to have a harder time winning their first election campaign than LGBT candidates who are not out. In the past, candidates were advised to refrain from publicizing their sexual orientation until after they had been elected and had demonstrated their credibility in the eyes of the public. This was the strategy of many of the politicians discussed earlier. Even Bill Siksay, the first gay politician whose sexual orientation was widely known before he won his first election, has suggested that LGBT politicians face more difficulties than heterosexual candidates, especially at the start of their careers in electoral politics:

It’s still, I think, a challenge in that first election when you haven’t been around for a while and people don’t know you and then you come out. [Delaying the announcement] is still the model that’s easiest, so I think there still are some challenges that way.… You just need to look at the House of Commons, where the majority of openly gay or lesbian politicians came out after they were elected. There’s still a challenge to be openly gay at the point of election and be elected as openly gay for the first time. (Siksay 2009)

Ewa Golebiowska has argued that “gay and lesbian candidates are better off politi-cally when they postpone the disclosure of their homosexuality until after they have individuated themselves to their constituents based on their effective campaigning or effective representation of their constituency once they are elected” (2003, 328). Don-ald Haider-Markel, in his extensive analysis of LGBT candidates in the United States, found that their sexual orientation played less of a role in their campaigns if they were incumbents as opposed to challengers (2010, 68). Without a previous record or a pre-existing public profile, an LGBT politician may face a difficult problem overcoming prejudice and negative biases when facing the electorate for the first time.


239

This was particularly the case in the past before attitudes towards gays and les-bians became more accepting. A good example is David Rayside’s description of the experience of Betty Baxter, an NDP candidate in the riding of Vancouver Centre, in 1993. Baxter was a volleyball coach who had played on the Canadian national team for seven years. She said she felt at home in the riding, with its substantial concentration of homosexual voters (Rayside 1998, 187). Even so, her experiences in the campaign made her realize that her sexuality was, in fact, a divisive issue. Whereas Robinson reported very few comments or criticisms about being a gay candidate after he came out, Baxter experienced a different reaction when she went looking for support:

I had people open the door and a look of absolute terror would go across their face. They would close the door behind them and step slightly into the hall and say [in a whisper], “You’re the lesbian candidate?” And I would go, “Yes, I am.” I didn’t know whether I was about to get punched or what was going on, but usually these were reasonably civil meetings.… The negatives were sometimes a bit more bold. About six months before the campaign, there were people who would phone me at two or three in the morning, and say in rather obscene terms that no lesbian should ever be able to run for political office. (quoted in Rayside 1998, 187)

Baxter finished fourth in Vancouver Centre, with 15.18% of the vote,11 a sharp decline from the previous election when the party came within 300 votes of winning the riding. Rayside argues that Baxter would likely have attracted more popular support if she had revealed her sexual identity later in her political career, after she had estab-lished a track record. As he notes, “for less well-known candidates, the lack of a legisla-tive track record may well provide anti-gay prejudice more play” (1998, 187).

TABLE 5. Success rate of out candidates by first election cohort.

Cohort Win Loss Total

Pre-1990 20% (1) 80% (4) 5

1990-94 0% (0) 100% (6) 6

1995-99 44% (4) 56% (5) 9

2000-2004 9% (2) 91% (20) 22

2005-2009 24% (5) 76% (16) 21

Post-2010 19% (6) 81% (25) 31

Total 19% (18) 81% (76) 94

240


In the absence of information that would define a candidate individually, voters are inclined to form impressions based on easily processed stereotypical or categorical assumptions. Although it would be impossible to determine the exact degree to which it hurt Baxter or other early LGBT candidates, it could certainly be argued that, in the past, many homosexual stereotypes were typically negative and unlikely to influence public opinion in a positive manner (Golebiowska 2002; Rayside 1998; Tadlock and Gordon 2003). While attitudes have changed over time, negative stereotyping still occurs and may present a significant barrier to aspiring LGBT politicians, particularly when they are not already known quantities.

As table 5 indicates, the success rate of out LGBT candidates in their first cam-paign has varied over the years, depending upon when the election took place. The most successful electoral cohort of first-time LGBT candidates was found in the late 1990s when four of the nine LGBT candidates (44%) who entered politics for the first time were elected. Since then, while the number of successful candidates has grown from one cohort to the next, their overall success rate as a percentage of all LGBT candidates has dropped due to the increased number of candidates who have run unsuccessfully.

Table 6, which indicates candidate success rate by level of government, suggests that there are slightly different patterns at the federal and provincial levels. While LGBT-identified candidates have not been particularly successful when running in their first election federally (only 11% have won), they have been somewhat more suc-cessful in provincial elections. Approximately 28% of LGBT candidates have won in their first attempt at office. This matches with findings elsewhere that indicate there is greater support for LGBT candidates at sub-national levels of government than for national office (Haider-Markel 2010, 45).

Several factors may contribute to the greater success at the provincial level. The first may simply be that a greater proportion of the LGBT candidates running at the provincial level have faced the electorate in the last seven years, a period when atti-tudes towards lesbians and gays have been more accepting. The fact that provincial

TABLE 6. Rate of candidate success in first election by level of government.

Federal Provincial

Win Loss Total Win Loss Total

Out at first election 11% (5) 89% (7) 12 28% (13) 72% (34) 47

Not out 88% (42) 12 (1) 43 67% (8) 33% (4) 12

Total 47 8 21 38


241

ridings are generally smaller and more homogeneous than federal ridings may also help to account for the higher levels of success for first-time LGBT candidates in the provinces. These potentially less-divided populations may be less opposed to electing an LGBT candidate. A case in point would be the experiences of two lesbian women who ran for office in Newfoundland. Peg Norman ran as a candidate for the NDP in St. John’s South–Mount Pearl in 2004 and 2006. She lost in both elections, coming in third. Her wife, Gerry Rogers, a documentary filmmaker, running in the smaller and more homogeneous St. John’s Centre (which was part of the larger St. John’s South–Mount Pearl federal riding), was more successful, and she was elected as the first LGBT politician in the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly in 2011.12

There are clearly some regions of the country where first-time LGBT candidates are more likely to run, and more likely to win. The larger, more populated provinces of British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, and particularly the urban areas of Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, are more likely to have LGBT candidates who run and win their seats. The four exceptions to this have occurred at the provincial level. In Mani-toba, Jim Rondeau has successfully held office in the riding of Assiniboia since 1999, and Jennifer Howard won her Fort Rouge riding in both 2007 and 2011. As noted above, Gerry Rogers won her seat in St. John’s Centre in Newfoundland and Labrador

Not Out Out Total

Win Loss Win Loss

Federal candidates

NDP 3 (75%) 1 (25%) 3 (10%) 27 (90%) 34 (61.8%)

LIB 1 (100%) 1 (33.3%) 2 (66.7%) 4 (7.3%)

PC/CP 2 (100%) 6 (100%) 8 (14.5%)

CA 1 (100%) 1 (1.8%)

BQ 1 (100%) 1 (100%) 2 (3.6%)

Green 6 (100%) 6 (10.9%)

Provincial candidates

NDP 2 (66.6%) 1 (33.4%) 6 (31.6%) 13 (68.4%) 22 (37.3%)

LIB 2 (50%) 2 (50%) 7 (63.6%) 4 (36.4%) 15 (25.4%)

PC 1 (100%) 4 (100%) 5 (8.5%)

PQ 3 (100%) 1 (100%) 4 (6.8%)

Green 5 (100%) 5 (8.5%)

Other/ Indep. 9 (100%) 8 (13.6%)

TABLE 7. Success of first-time candidates by party.

242


in 2011, and Joanne Bernard won her Dartmouth–North seat in the fall 2013 Nova Scotia election. In each case, these individuals ran in the largest urban centre in their province in parts of the city that were socio-economically more predisposed to support LGBT candidates (Environics 2012, 41).

Party also appears to have an important impact on LGBT candidates, but this has more to do with the number of candidates that each party runs than with getting them elected. As might be expected, the NDP is the party that has run the greatest number of LGBT candidates. Almost 62% of first time federal LGBT candidates and 37% of first-time provincial LGBT candidates have run under the NDP’s banner. As has been the case with female or minority candidates, the party’s position on equality and commitment to diversity has made it more welcoming to LGBT candidates. This has not necessarily translated into success, in part owing to the party’s weaker politi-cal status in many regions of the country. For example, two of the federal candidates who won their seats in their first election campaign were unexpectedly brought into office in 2011 with the “Orange Crush” that swept Quebec, a region of the country where the NDP have historically been weak. NDP candidates at the provincial level have been more successful, particularly in BC where four of the seven elected out NDP candidates were located. This is a province where the NDP has been traditionally stronger, making it more likely that a nominated candidate would be elected.

In federal politics, it would appear that all of the other parties are roughly equiva-lent in terms of their openness to running first-time LGBT candidates, with two cave-ats. If all of the LGBT candidates, both out and not out, who ran for the Progressive Conservatives / Conservative Party of Canada and the Canadian Alliance are added together, they would make up over 16% of the total number of federal LGBT candi-dates. The Green Party represents 10.9%, the Liberals would only comprise 7.3%, and the Bloc Québécois would make up 3.6%.13 As so few candidates have actually won elections, it is impossible to comment on which party has served as a better vehicle to office for LGBT candidates.

At the provincial level, there is a greater distribution of candidates among the parties. Following behind the NDP, the Liberals have fielded 25% of the LGBT candi-dates, the Conservatives and the Greens just over 8%, and the Parti Québécois (PQ), almost 7%. Here, however, there do appear to be some differences in the patterns of success for candidates. As noted above, six (or 32%) of the out NDP candidates have been successful; however, seven (or almost 64%) of the out Liberal candidates have won their first election. Three of those individuals were in Ontario, two were in BC, one was in Quebec, and the last was in Nova Scotia. All of them were elected in elections that produced favourable results for their party. Interestingly, fewer LGBT-identified politicians have run as first-time candidates for the Conservative Party at


243

the provincial level than at the federal level of office, a factor that may in part be due to the lack of a viable Conservative Party in several provinces.

Along with province, there are some other important factors that affect the suc-cess of LGBT candidates. At both federal and provincial levels, a greater number of gay men than women have run for elected office: 77% of the out LGBT candidates at the federal level and 60% at the provincial level were men; 23% at the federal level and 23% at the provincial level were women.14 These values are roughly comparable to the proportion of men and women who run overall. In the last decade, women made up between 23% and 28% of the federal candidates and between 20% and 30% of the provincial candidates (Trimble, Arscott, and Tremblay 2013). All of the 11 women who ran as out candidates in their first campaign for federal office were defeated, while 5 of the 36 (13.8%) gay male candidates for federal office were elected. At the provincial level, there appeared to be little difference in the success rates of lesbians and gay men: 28% of these candidates won their first campaigns.

Another important commonality in the experiences of LGBT candidates (whether out at the time of their first election or not) was their tendency to run in largely urban ridings. Eighty-three percent of both federal and provincial candidates stood for office in ridings in large metropolitan centres. Very few of the candidates ran in predomi-nately rural ridings (ridings with no large urban population) or what we have identi-fied as suburban (i.e., urban ridings, but not in a major metropolitan centre or in an urban core). Even in this case, however, those who were successful ran in ridings that had significant university populations (Kings–Hants and Acadia University) or large arts and cultural communities (Powell River–Sunshine Coast). Interestingly though, the nature of the riding appeared to make little difference in terms of electoral success for first-time out candidates. At the federal level, almost 90% of the out candidates lost their first election campaign even in an urban riding. Out candidates at the provincial level were slightly more successful; 29% of them won their first campaign when they ran in an urban riding.

At first glance, it would appear that having a strong LGBT presence in a riding is not an incentive for out candidates to run, as LGBT candidates appear to be evenly distributed between ridings that have significant LGBT populations and those that do not. When one stops to consider that only a handful of the ridings both federally and provincially would have such populations, however, it becomes clear that out candi-dates are far more predisposed to run in these areas than elsewhere. This is not to say that having a strong gay presence in a riding makes it more likely for an out candidate to get elected. In fact, the composition of the riding appears to make little difference in electoral success. Only two (9%) of the first-time out candidates who won in federal elections, and only eight (about 30%) of those who won at the provincial level ran

244


in ridings that are recognized for having large LGBT populations. In fact, first-time LGBT candidates were as likely to win in ridings that had a limited or no LGBT pres-ence than in a riding with a strong LBGT presence (12% vs. 9% in federal ridings, and 25% vs. 30% in provincial ridings). While this may be counterintuitive, it should be viewed positively as it suggests that there is space within the Canadian political system for LGBT candidates and that they should not feel that they are restricted in where they are able to run.

To examine more closely the factors contributing to the electoral success of LGBT candidates, we conducted a multivariate analysis using whether a candidate won or lost as the dependent variable and controlling for whether he or she was out at the time of the election, whether he or she was running at the federal or provincial level, gender, the electoral cohort to which the candidate belonged, whether there was a gay presence in the riding, and whether the riding could be considered an urban, subur-ban, or rural riding. We ran two different analyses, first on the likelihood of success in these candidates’ first campaign, and then on all campaigns that LGBT candidates ran in. The data presented in table 8 are standardized regression coefficients.15

TABLE 8. Variables affecting the likelihood of an LGBT candidate winning an election campaign.

(Standardized Regression Coefficients)

First Campaign All Campaigns

Out at time of election -.501*** -.134*

Federal campaign -.092 -.132**

Male -.007 -.043

Election cohort .059 -.321***

Gay presence in riding .122 .119

Urban riding -.052 -.179**

Adjusted R2 .211 .211

Note: *** p> .001; ** p > .05; * p > .10

As can be seen in table 8, whether a candidate is out during an election campaign or not has a substantial negative impact on his or her chance of electoral success, par-ticularly for first-time candidates. In fact, being out is the only statistically significant factor that contributes to first-time candidates’ success (or lack thereof). It should be noted, however, that since this is as accurate a census (i.e., not a sample) of LGBT candidates as we could establish, measures of significance are less meaningful than in other types of analyses. Given this, we can with caution say that first-time LGBT candidates in more recent electoral cohorts seem to have had slightly more success


245

than those in earlier cohorts, that the presence of a gay community in a riding is also more likely than not to enhance their chance of winning, and that urban areas are likely to be more open to LGBT candidates.

These patterns appear slightly different when examining the results for all of the 207 elections in which an LGBT candidate has run. First, the impact of being out is substantively reduced when it is not a candidate’s first election campaign, point-ing to the importance of having developed a public profile. Second, and not surpris-ingly, candidates from older cohorts are more likely to be successful than candidates from more recent cohorts since these are often individuals who have won successive campaigns and are therefore included multiple times in the data set. They were also individuals who were more likely to have come out after they were elected. Finally, the urban nature of a riding is less important to electoral success when all campaigns are considered. Again, this may be due to the winning records of individuals such as Richard Hatfield, who won multiple elections in New Brunswick and whose sexual orientation was never really confirmed during his time in office, or Scott Brison, who only publicly came out during his second term of office.

Discussion

Just as has been the case for other underrepresented groups within Canadian soci-ety, the number of elected LGBT politicians is growing at both the provincial and federal levels of office. Even more noteworthy are the numbers who are stepping for-ward to run for elected office. Not unexpectedly, given the barriers that the average female candidate still faces when competing for elected office, lesbians are far less common Canadian candidates for election than gay males, although there is little evidence to suggest that lesbians are any more likely to win or lose than gay men. Also as expected, LGBT candidates were more likely to run for the NDP than for other political parties, although at the provincial level the Liberal parties in Ontario and BC appear to be somewhat more open than other parties to LGBT candidates. Finally, the concentration of these candidates in urban ridings and in ridings that have a larger-than-average LGBT presence matches the experiences of homosexual candi-dates elsewhere. These communities, with more cosmopolitan and socially accepting attitudes and with a potential support base to draw on for votes or campaign workers, are obvious areas for LGBT candidates to establish an electoral base.

In his recent book Out and Running, Haider-Markel has argued that LGBT can-didates in the United States are strategic in the choices they make in terms of where and when they run. As he notes, “Although a significant portion of the population is unlikely to support LGBT candidates, potential candidates strategically select where and when to run and thereby reduce, and perhaps negate, the role of sexual orientation

246


in elections (Haider-Markel 2010, 80). This may also be the case in Canada. While not all candidates choose to run in ridings or for parties that could be viewed as receptive to a gay candidate, many do. In doing so, they may strategically increase the odds of their success of being nominated to be a party’s standard-bearer.

People’s willingness to vote for a candidate and their behaviour at the polls are strongly influenced by their willingness to vote for the party that the candidate is running for, and being nominated to run for an electorally viable party can be chal-lenging. Those who research the experiences of female or racial minority candidates frequently point to party gatekeepers and the difficulties of winning nominations, particularly in winnable ridings, as the greatest contributor to these groups’ contin-ued underrepresentation in Canadian politics. These are also likely to be significant factors in the electoral success or failure of LGBT politicians. Unfortunately, measur-ing their impact is beyond the scope of this essay.

There is a notable difference, however, between the experiences of other under-represented groups and that of LGBT candidates. Unlike the situation for female or racial minorities whose identities are clear to all, a politician’s sexual orientation is only revealed if a candidate has chosen to out him- or herself. This makes it difficult to identify and capture the experiences of all LGBT politicians, since their status as political outsiders based on their sexual orientation is only made obvious if they as a candidate choose to make it so.

It is this fact—whether candidates are or are not out to the public—that appears to have the greatest impact on their success, particularly for first-time candidates. While attitudes are changing and a growing number of LGBTs are stepping forward to run for elected office, evidence suggests that many voters would prefer LGBT can-didates whose sexual orientation is kept private or downplayed, and that voters are slightly more open to those candidates who come out as incumbents rather than as first-time candidates (Haider-Markel 2010, 52). This is something that many current and former politicians are intuitively aware of, and there continue to be successful politicians at all levels of political office, who, although rumoured to be LGBT, have not publicly self-identified as such. Despite the challenge from individuals like Rick Mercer in the fall of 2012 encouraging LGBT politicians to serve as role models for others,16 they have chosen not to make their sexual orientation known to the public. Until MP Svend Robinson made his nationally televised announcement in 1988, the consequences of coming out in Canada were considered damaging, if not fatal, to a political career (Rayside 1998). It is still a risk to be an openly gay public figure, and many are not prepared to take that risk while in office. As a recent document reporting on LGBT politicians in the United Kingdom noted, “many LGBT politicians choose to keep their sexuality private in order to avoid jeopardizing their future chances of


247

promotion, losing the support of the electorate or being pigeonholed” (Durose et al. 2011, 98).

Not all individuals, however, are able to conceal or are comfortable with conceal-ing their sexual orientation. One of the most common and perplexing dilemmas faced by lesbian and gay candidates is when, or even if, they should reveal their sexual orientation to the public. In the previous two or three decades, there was clearly a strategic advantage to delaying this announcement until the candidate had had the opportunity to forge a political identity based on his or her involvement in a range of issues and general competence as a politician (Golebiowska 2002, 2003; Rayside 1998). Indeed, this was the case for individuals such as Robinson, Ménard, Brison, and Davies. All of these individuals, and several others who have been successful in political life, have waited until after being elected to reveal their sexual orientation. In part, this was due to the date that they first entered political office.

Newer generations of LGBT politicians have less choice about whether or when to reveal their sexual identity than in the past for the simple reason that many have already opted to live their lives out of the closet; and, once out, it is impossible, even if they desired to do so, to go back in. As homosexuality gains a broader acceptance, it is no longer unusual for individuals to state their orientation to their family and friends while still relatively young, before many of them have even considered any kind of political involvement, let alone running for an elected office. It is for this rea-son that the past decade has seen an explosion of LGBT candidates who are out of the closet when they make their first attempt at winning an election. While an increasing number are successful and many, as in the case of Kathleen Wynne, are assuming important leadership roles among Canada’s political elites, this does not necessarily mean that LGBT candidates in general will find it easier to get elected. Instead, it puts more pressure on us to understand the experiences and challenges facing LGBT politicians better.

NOTES

1. Thermometer measures use the following instructions to ask respondents to rate a group.

“Use any number from zero to one hundred. Zero means you really DISLIKE the group, and

one hundred means you really LIKE the group.”

2. In 1995, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that sexual orientation was to be “read in”

to section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In November 2000, Ottawa

amended 68 federal statutes to extend benefits and obligations to same-sex couples on the

same basis as common-law opposite-sex couples. In September 2003, Parliament passed

Bill C-250, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code, which added sexual orientation to the list of

protected minorities in Canada’s hate propaganda legislation.

248


3. Glen Murray was elected mayor of Winnipeg in 1998 and again in 2002. Kaj Hasselriis ran

for mayor of Winnipeg in 2006. Alex Munter ran for mayor of Ottawa in 2006.

4. While Brison had been open about his sexual orientation since his twenties, it was not

widely known until he announced his bid for the Conservative Party leadership.

5. Allison Brewer won the leadership of the New Brunswick NDP in September 2005; however,

a month after her selection, the party lost its only seat in the provincial legislature, a seat

that had been held by her predecessor, Elizabeth Weir (Everitt and Camp 2009a, 2009b).

6. Only individuals who have publicly self-identified as LGBT through the media, campaign lit-

erature, biographies, or personal websites are included in this analysis. Current and former

politicians who are suspected or rumoured to be gay have not been included; however, oth-

ers such as Ontario’s Ian Scott or New Brunswick’s Richard Hatfield were included as their

sexual orientation was acknowledged after their deaths. Eight individuals in this data set

have come out or been publicly acknowledged as LGBT since their retirement from office.

7. In the 2004 election, Elections Canada recorded 15,682 votes for Bill Siksay in the Burnaby

riding; Liberal Bill Cunningham received 14,748, and the Conservative candidate George

Drazenovik had 12,531 (Elections Canada 2004).

8. Because Siksay ran in two different ridings, he was counted twice in our analysis.

9. Given the unique nature of this data set (only including LGBT candidates), it is impossible

to compare these results to the broader population as they are not just based on one elec-

tion campaign or on the chance of incumbents getting re-elected; nor has a similar analysis

been conducted on other underrepresented groups such as women or minority candidates.

10. As these data reflect success in a number of different elections and across federal and

provincial levels of government, they are difficult to compare to the success of non-LGBT

candidates. It can be noted that, in the 2011 federal elections, there were 1,302 candidates

representing major parties running for the 308 seats in the House of Commons. This meant

that, if no other factors were relevant, a candidate’s chance of winning would have been

23.7%. If minor party and independent candidates were included, the average success rate

would have been 19.4%.

11. Liberal Hedy Fry defeated incumbent MP and former Prime Minister Kim Campbell in Van-

couver Centre in 1993, with 31% of the vote. Campbell was second with 25%. Ian Isbister of

the Reform Party finished third.

12. It should be noted that Peg Norman was a well-known abortion activist while Gerry Rogers

had developed a local profile as a strong, well-publicized cancer patient advocate, as well as

a respected filmmaker.

13. It is important to remember that the BQ candidates would only come from the province of

Quebec, so there would be fewer opportunities for the party to nominate LGBT candidates.

14. One individual (2%) was transgendered.

15. Since the dependent variable is dichotomous, we originally produced similar logistical

regression analyses. As the patterns of substantive and statistical significance were the

same in the linear regressions and logistical regression, we have chosen to report only the

linear regression results for ease of interpretation.


249

16. In October 2011, comedian Rick Mercer responded to the suicide of an Ottawa teen who

had been bullied because he was gay by challenging closeted LGBT individuals with the

statement, “If you’re gay and you’re in public life, I’m sorry, you don’t have to run around

with a pride flag and bore everyone, but you can’t be invisible, not anymore” (Mercer 2011).

His demand that more public figures, including politicians, step up and out of the closet

to provide role models to Canada’s LGBT youth made it clear that there were politicians in

Ottawa and elsewhere who were known to be gay, but who had not publicly acknowledged

their sexual orientation.

REFERENCES

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code, Revised Statutes of Canada 2003, c-46.

Bailey, R.W. 1998. Gay Politics, Urban Politics: Identity and Economics in the Urban Setting. New York:

Columbia University Press.

Bashevkin, Sylvia. 2009. Women, Power, Politics: The Hidden Story of Canada’s Unfinished Democ-

racy. Don Mills: Oxford University Press.

Black, Jerome H. 2008. “The 2006 Federal Election and Visible Minority Candidates.” Canadian

Parliamentary Review 31 (3): 30-36.

Black, Jerome H., and Bruce M. Hicks. 2006. “Visible Minority Candidates in the 2004 Federal

Election.” Canadian Parliamentary Review 29 (2): 26-31.

Button, James, Kenneth Wald, and Barbara Rienzo. 1999. “The Election of Openly Gay Public Offi-

cials in American Communities.” Urban Affairs Review 35 (2): 188-209.

Carlson, Kathryn Blaze. 2012. “The True North LGBT: New Poll Reveals Landscape of Gay Canada.”

National Post, 6 July, http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/06/the-true-north-

LBGTt-new-poll-reveals-landscape-of-gay-canada.

Durose, Catherine, et al. 2011. Pathways to Politics. Manchester: Equality and Human Rights

Commission.

Elections Canada. 2004. Thirty-eighth General Election 2004 Official Voting Results. Ottawa: Elec-

tions Canada.

Environics. 2012. AmericasBarometer: Canada 2012, Final Report. Toronto: The Environics Institute.

Everitt, Joanna. Forthcoming. “Gender and Sexual Diversity in Provincial Election Campaigns.”

In Battlegrounds: Elections, Electors, and Electioneering in the Canadian Provinces, ed. Jared J.

Wesley. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

Everitt, Joanna and Michael Camp. 2009a. “Changing the Game Changes the Frame: The Media’s

Use of Lesbian Stereotypes in Leadership versus Election Campaigns.” Canadian Political

Science Review 3 (3): 24-39.

——. 2009b. “One Is Not Like the Others: Allison Brewer’s Leadership of the New Brunswick

NDP.” In Are Doors Opening Wider? Studies of Women’s Political Engagement in Canada, ed.

Sylvia Bashevkin, 127-44. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

Fournier, Patrick, Fred Cutler, Stuart Soroka, and Dietlind Stolle. 2011. The 2011 Canadian Election

Study (dataset), http://ces-eec.org/pagesE/surveys.html.

250


Gidengil, Elisabeth, Joanna Everitt, Patrick Fournier, and Neil Nevitte. 2009. The 2004-06-08 Cana-

dian Election Studies Panel (dataset). Canadian Opinion Research Archive. Queen’s University,

www.queensu.ca/cora/ces.html.

George, Leanne. 2006. “What We Believe.” Macleans.ca, 3 July, 35-38, www.ebscohost.com.

Golebiowska, Ewa. 2001. “Group Stereotypes and Political Evaluation.” American Politics Research

29 (6): 537-38.

——. 2002. “Political Implications of Group Stereotypes: Campaign Experiences of Openly Gay

Political Candidates.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 32 (3): 590-607.

——. 2003. “When to Tell? Disclosure of Concealable Group Membership, Stereotypes, and Politi-

cal Evaluation.” Political Behavior 25 (4): 313-37.

Golebiowska, Ewa A., and Cynthia J. Thomsen. 1999. “Group Stereotypes and Evaluations of

Individuals: The Case of Gay and Lesbian Political Candidates.” In Gays and Lesbians in the

Democratic Process, ed. Ellen D.B. Riggle and Barry L. Tadlock, 192-219. New York: Columbia

University Press.

Haider-Markel, Donald. 2007. “Representation and Backlash: The Positive and Negative Influence

of Descriptive Representation.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 32 (1): 107-33.

——. 2010. Out and Running: Gay and Lesbian Candidates, Elections and Policy Representation.

Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Herrick, Rebekah, and Susan Thomas. 2001. “Gays and Lesbians in Local Races: A Study of Elec-

toral Viability.” Journal of Homosexuality 42 (1): 103-27.

Langstaff, Amy. 2011. “A Twenty-Year Survey of Canadian Attitudes towards Homosexuality and

Gay Rights.” In Faith Politics and Sexual Diversity in Canada and the United States, ed. David

Rayside and Clyde Wilcox, 49-66. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

Makin, Kirk. 2012. “The Same-Sex Marriage Trap.” The Globe and Mail, 12 January, A1.

O’Neil, Peter. 1994. “Gay-rights Debate Brings Second MP out of Closet: Bloc Quebecois’

Ménard Joins NDP’s Robinson in Denouncing Skoke and Chrétien.” Vancouver Sun, 28

September, A4.

——. 2001. “Davies Admits Gay Relationship: Vancouver MP Is First Woman in House to Declare

Same-sex Partnership.” Vancouver Sun, 30 October, B1.

Rayside, David. 1998. On the Fringe: Gays and Lesbians in Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Reynolds, Andrew. 2013. “Representation and Rights: The Impact of LGBT Legislators in Compara-

tive Perspective.” American Political Science Review 107 (2): 259-74.

Siksay, Bill. 2009. Interview with the author. January.

Smith, Miriam. 1999. Lesbian and Gay Rights in Canada: Social Movements and Equality-Seeking,

1971-1995. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Tadlock, Barry, and Ann Gordon. 2003. “Political Evaluations of Lesbian and Gay Candidates: The

Impact of Stereotypic Biases in Press Coverage.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of

the American Political Science Association, August.

Trimble, Linda, and Jane Arscott. 2003. Still Counting: Women in Politics across Canada. Toronto:

University of Toronto Press.


251

Trimble, Linda, Jane Arscott, and Manon Tremblay, eds. 2013. Stalled: The Representation of Women

in Canadian Governments. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

Truelove, Graeme. 2013. Svend Robinson: A Life in Politics. Vancouver: New Star.

Viss, Denise, and Shawn Burn. 2001. “Divergent Perceptions of Lesbians: A Comparison of Les-

bian Self-Perceptions and Heterosexual Perceptions.” Journal of Social Psychology 132 (2):

169-77.

Wilson, Thomas. C. 1995. “Urbanism and Unconventionality: The Case of Sexual Behaviour.”

Social Science Quarterly 76 (2): 346-63.

In Versus Out: LGBT Politicians in Canada

Documents

Transcript of In Versus Out: LGBT Politicians in Canada