































 

 

      

 

 

 

      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      

 

Come As you Are, but Change Once you Enter 
The Misalignment between the Admission and the Integration of Homosexual Individuals in 

1970s Cold-War Era Canada 
Alfonso Ralph Mendoza Manalo, University of Toronto ’23 

 
Abstract: The Immigration Act of 1952 was the first immigration policy to explicitly mention 
homosexuals in its list of prohibited persons from immigrating to Canada. Homosexuality was 
later removed as grounds for denying admission into Canada in the 1977 Immigration Act. In 
doing so, the Canadian state recognized homosexuals as legal members of the Canadian state 
through the provision of legal status. I argue that the 1977 amendment was not indicative of the 
integration of homosexuals into Canadian Society, as the Immigration Act of 1952 was amended 
due to the increased visibility of the Gay and Lesbian Liberation Movement and the lack of 
policy influence amongst the Department of National Defense (DND) and the Royal Canadian 
Mounted Police (RCMP). Furthermore, homosexuals continued to be subject to increased 
surveillance and sexual regulation compared to their heterosexual counterparts; and were subject 
to pervasive forms of homophobia and sexual othering throughout the 1970s in Cold War Era 
Canada which stripped them of other aspects of Canadian citizenship (i.e., equal rights and social 
and economic belonging).  

 



  
 

Introduction 
The Immigration Act of 1952 was the first immigration policy to explicitly mention 

homosexuals1 in its list of prohibited persons from immigrating to Canada (LaViolette, 2004, 
p.973). This policy was built on the premise that homosexuals were to be considered 
“subversives” and national security threats, due to dominant thinking at the time, which 
presumed homosexuals would be sympathetic towards Communists and the political left and 
more susceptible to being blackmailed based on their sexual orientation by Communists (LGBT 
Purge Class Action, 2019). Homosexuality was later removed as a ground for denying admission 
into Canada in the 1977 amendment to the Immigration Act, which was fully implemented in 
1978 (Colwell, 2018,p.5) as a response to growing calls amongst Gay and Lesbian organizations 
that homosexual acts amongst two consenting adults were no longer prohibited by the Canadian 
Criminal Code as of 1969 (Girard, 2007, p.6) and that the Immigration Act should reflect this. 
The 1977 amendment was also caused by the public nature of the government’s deliberations on 
the Immigration Act of 1977 broadly through the Government’s decision to call for a Green 
Paper (p.6). which marked a turning point in Canadian immigration law as the act was the first to 
explicitly note the fundamental objectives of Canada’s immigration laws such as prioritizing 
diversity and the principles of non-discrimination, and by introducing a transparent point system 
to determine the eligibility of admission for immigrants (Canadian Museum of Immigration at 
Pier 21, 2023b). This heavily juxtaposed the lack of public consultation and the confidential 
nature of the Immigration Act of 1952 (Girard, 2007, p.14).  

In amending the 1977 Immigration Act to remove homosexuality as grounds to bar 
individuals from being admitted into Canada, the Canadian state recognized homosexuals as 
legal members of the Canadian state through the provision of legal status. However, this paper 
complies with Bloemraad, Korteweg, and Yurdakul’s (2008) argument that citizenship 
encompasses the following additional dimensions: substantive equal rights, political 
participation, and belonging (social and economic), in addition to legal status (Bloemraad et al., 
2008, p.153). Using this as a framework to assess the citizenship of homosexuals in Cold War 
Era Canada, I note that the full integration of any group or community within Canadian society 
would require said group to possess all four of these dimensions of citizenship. Thus, despite this 
marked transition regarding the admission of homosexuals into Canada, the 1977 amendment 
was not indicative of the integration of homosexuals into Canadian Society, as the Immigration 
Act of 1952 was amended due to the increased visibility of the Gay and Lesbian Liberation 
Movement and the lack of policy influence amongst the Department of National Defense (DND) 
and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).  

As will be demonstrated further in this paper, homosexuals continued to be subject to 
increased surveillance and sexual regulation compared to their heterosexual counterparts; and 
were subject to pervasive forms of homophobia and sexual othering throughout the 1970s in 

 
1 This paper will use the term homosexuals to refer to sexual minorities, primarily gay men, lesbian women, and 
bisexual individuals in the Cold War Canadian Context. This paper employs this term as it was commonly used in 
official documents and the rhetoric of Canadian law-enforcement agencies throughout the Canadian Cold War when 
referring to sexual minorities.  



  
 

Cold War Era Canada. Homosexuals were stripped of all dimensions of citizenship following the 
ratification of the 1977 Immigration Act, as they were consistently labeled by the Canadian 
government as “deviants”, “subversives”, and “national security threats” thereby further othering 
them from the rest of heteronormative Canada. This was accompanied by the Canadian 
government purging itself of all homosexual public servants from its ranks by identifying, 
outing, demoting, and firing homosexual public servants, thereby hindering their ability to 
participate economically in a key sector of the economy, and thus preventing them from feeling 
any sense of economic belonging in Canada. Lastly, the increased surveillance of homosexuals 
and the enforcement of sexual regulations such as the bawdy-house law to raid bathhouses and 
other gay and lesbian establishments, and the Customs Act which was used to censor gay and 
lesbian publications, inhibited homosexuals from enjoying the same rights as their 
heteronormative counterparts in regard to expressing their sexual orientation. In demonstrating 
the above-mentioned phenomena through a series of cases, programs, and other government 
measures, I seek to establish a pattern wherein the Canadian government continued to hamper 
the possibility of homosexuals from fully integrating into Canadian society following the 
implementation of the 1977 Immigration Act. Therefore it becomes clear that the ratification of 
the Act, and the legal acceptance of homosexuals, did not indicate the full integration of 
homosexual citizens into broader Canadian society but rather a slight amelioration of one 
dimension of citizenship.    

 
“Subversives”: The Homosexual as a Subject of Suspicion in Cold War Era Canada   

To further our understanding of the relationship between the status of homosexuals in 
Canada’s immigration laws and its relation to their other aspects of citizenship, we must first 
understand the conditions that led to the barring of homosexual individuals from immigrating 
into Canada in the first place. At the onset of the Cold War, the Canadian government had 
embarked on a paradigm shift in regard to its immigration and national security policy, where it 
sought to proactively bar “subversive” individuals (those with an inclination to challenge the 
Canadian state) from immigrating into Canada rather than interning them, so as to curb the 
“contamination” of Canadians with so-called dangerous notions (Finkel, 1986, p.54) and prevent 
internal political dissent (Girard, 1987, p.1).  This mainly pertained to Communists and left-
leaning individuals, whose activities were labeled by Canadian and European intelligence 
partners to be “subversive or propagandistic in nature” (Finkel, 1986, p.57), with the Canadian 
state institutionalizing the use of security checks for all immigration applicants following a 
Cabinet decision in 1946 (p.54). This later expanded to include a host of other individuals, with 
Cabinet Guidelines to the RCMP in 1949 expanding the barring of all prospective immigrants to 
“anyone who might have once demonstrated an interest in left-wing thought” (p.58). This was 
justified by then Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Walter Harris, on the basis that 
“subversion had undertaken peaceful means and attempted to destroy the faith of the democratic 
peoples in the processes of democratic government in Canada,” (p. 59) and thus requiring 
counteraction similar to subversion by force. 



  
 

 
Homosexuals specifically, later became a prime target of national surveillance and other 

national security measures on the basis that the state considered their activity as “obscene”, 
“defiantly” challenging traditional gender roles and heteronormativity, and that they themselves 
innately had “character weaknesses” due to their sexual object of choice (Kinsman, 2000, p.143). 
This coincides with Kinsman et al.’s (2000) argument that the use of national surveillance and 
other national security measures is to protect the interests of the ruling or privileged class, by 
marking the other as “threatening”, “dangerous”, or “other”, justifying the suppression of their 
rights for the sake of protecting national interest (Kinsman et al., 2000, p.278). As shown, 
homosexual activity was deemed to operate in direct opposition to dominant heteronormativity 
by the Canadian government, similar to how left-wing and Communist individuals were deemed 
as threats to the interests of the dominant bourgeoisie and the capitalist system. This led to both 
groups being seen as “subversive” national security threats, external to the national interest of 
democratic Canadians and thus “unworthy” of equal rights, political participation, belonging, and 
virtually all forms of integration. This is notably seen in the words of Minister Walter Harris in 
response to criticisms to the 1952 Immigration Act:  

“It might be said that by denying entry, we were tampering with the right of free 
speech…, however it was not felt that facilities for entry must necessarily be granted to 
one who had no right of admission into Canada and no special claim on Canadian 
hospitality” (Finkel, 1986, p.54).  

 
Denying and Gaining Admission: The Origins of the 1952 Immigration Act section 5 (e)  
 The government-backed rhetoric that homosexuals were threats to Canada’s national 
security, due to their susceptibility to left-wing thought and thus should have their rights 
suppressed was diffused onto Canada’s 1952 Immigration Act. The 1952 Immigration Act 
Clause (Immigration Act section 5 (e)) (Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21, 2023a) 
barred confirmed homosexuals from entering Canada in all capacities reflected the rife 
homophobia in Canadian society throughout the Cold War, acting as a complementary national 
security tool to the increased preventative measures taken by the Canadian government to 
prevent the infiltration of gays and lesbian individuals at large from infiltrating the public service 
by firing and demoting accused gay and lesbian public servants (LGBT Purge)2 on the grounds 
that they were deemed by the government to be subversive, and increasing the sexual regulation 
of homosexuals in broader Canadian society (Girard, 2007, p.6). This also included the formal 
authorization of the Security Panel (composed of the RCMP, DND, External Affairs, and other 
rotating members) to investigate and weed out all homosexual working in the public service and 

 
2 The term LGBT Purge is used to describe the Canadian government’s intentional outing and identification of gay 
and lesbian public servants, so as to fire or demote them on the basis of their accused sexual orientation. The LGBT 
Purge lasted roughly from the early 1940s till 1990, culminating with Douglas v. Minister of National Defense 
wherein Douglas filed a lawsuit against the Department of National Defense for infringing her Charter 
(Constitutional) Rights for being interrogated and discriminated upon on the basis of her sexual orientation as a 
lesbian woman (LGBT Purge Class Action, 2019).   



  
 

at large, with an overriding principle of secrecy (p.4). Given that the clause itself was a product 
of Canada’s national security regime, it did not solely focus on the admission of homosexuals but 
also prescribed their increased regulation, subsequently curbing their sexual rights. This is seen 
in the fact that the Immigration Act of 1952 also required all municipal clerks, immigration 
officers, constables, and peace officers to report all individuals who were suspected or deemed to 
have engaged in homosexual acts to the Director of Immigration (p.7).  

The increased regulation of homosexual immigrants in Canada coincided with the 
ratification of homophobic policies in the United States of America, which was Canada’s 
strategic intelligence partner throughout the Cold War and onwards. Most notable was the  U.S. 
Senate’s Subcommittee report on the “Employment of Homosexuals and Other Sex Perverts in 
the Government” released in December 1950, which called for the dismissal of all homosexuals 
from the American public service (p.8). It is important to note that the Immigration Act of 1952’s 
clause barring homosexuals was a product of “international security arrangements with the 
United States who was increasingly concerned with the laxity of Canada’s security system and 
pressured them to tighten them” (p.6). In an effort to mitigate publicity issues and moral panics 
surrounding the barring and targeting of homosexuals as experienced in the US’s Lavender 
Scare, the Canadian government succumbed to the RCMP and DND’s whims to secretly include 
the clause barring homosexuals, and subsequently, the notion that homosexuals were security 
risks to Canada’s national interest (p.4). Therefore section 5 (e) of the 1952 Immigration Act in 
Canada arose in part out of international pressures and policy diffusion in the sphere of national 
security from the United States, while also coming out of domestic worries and angst towards the 
presumed threat that homosexuals had to Canadian society.  

 
The Door was left Ajar: The Conditions Leading Admittance of Homosexuals  

As aforementioned, the barring of homosexual individuals from immigrating to Canada 
under Canadian immigration law ceased with the amending of the Immigration Act in 1977 and 
its full implementation in 1978. However, the removal of the clause barring homosexuals from 
the 1977 Immigration Act is not to be mistaken as indicative of any increased integration of 
homosexuals in Canadian society as seen in the conditions that had led to its amendment. I assert 
that it was not necessarily a change in public attitude and increased tolerance that led to this 
amendment, but rather a myriad of other factors. One of these factors being the fact that the 
Immigration Act of 1977 was preceded by the 1975 Green Paper from the Special Joint 
Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, which publicly reached out to multiple 
organizations throughout Canada to consult them on their views towards Canada’s immigration 
scheme broadly (p.14) so as to instill National debate on the issue of immigration. This included 
a dozen Gay and Lesbian organizations that called to remove all explicit references of 
homosexuals and homosexualism in the Act, on the basis that barring potential immigrants on 
the grounds of their sexual orientation was misaligned with other legal developments (p.16). 
They primarily stressed that private sex between two consenting adults (21 years and older) had 
been decriminalized in 1969 and that the Immigration Act of 1975 should reflect this (p.16). 



  
 

Furthermore, the Green Paper of 1975 held multiple primary objectives, including ensuring the 
principle of non-discrimination throughout the entire immigration process (Hawkins, 1975, 
p.239). Therefore, the barring of homosexuals from immigrating into Canada would operate in 
direct opposition to this principle, leading to a misalignment in Canada’s Immigration law 
framework. The very public nature of these consultations and the weight given to community 
input rather than that to the RCMP and DND played a pivotal role in the removal of the clause in 
1977. 

Additionally, the Gay and Lesbian Liberation Movement had started to emerge in Canada 
leading up to the Green Paper. Through this, homosexuals increasingly becoming more visible 
and public with their sexual orientation (Girard, 2007, p.14-15). This was patterned with the 
increasing establishment of a collective queer identity, including through homosexual legal and 
community advocacy groups (i.e., Homophile Association of St. John’s  and Gay Alliance 
Towards Equality (GATE) (p.15), the proliferation of gay businesses and publications, and an 
overall willingness to voice out queer experiences and oppression at the hands of the government 
and heterosexist Canadian society. These combined pressures all contributed to the removal of 
the barring clause from the 1977 Immigration Act. 
 
Sexual Dangers to the Canadian Public: The Sexual Regulation of Homosexuals 
 The ratification of the 1977 Immigration Act did not lead to the full integration of 
homosexuals in Canada, wherein they are granted equal rights, felt a sense of political and 
economic belonging, and participated politically aside from possessing legal status as a citizen. 
As shown in the previous section, the Immigration Act itself was not amended due to drastic 
changes to public perception or acceptance of homosexuals in Canadian society, but rather due to 
the public nature of the policy consultations surrounding the Immigration Act broadly and the 
misalignment of a clause barring the admission of homosexuals into Canada with other pieces of 
legislation. To supplant the notion that the 1977 Immigration Acts amendment did not coincide 
with the full integration of homosexuals, this section will illustrate the ways in which 
homosexuals continued to be subjected to increased measures of national surveillance, policing, 
and sexual regulation in other public spheres outside of immigration around the time of the 1977 
Immigration Act’s implementation.  Throughout this time the sexual rights of homosexuals were 
severely limited, with said limitations being justified by a perpetuated notion that homosexuals 
were to be seen as national security threats. In being framed as national security threats, the 
limitation of their rights was justified as measures used to ensure the protection of the Canadian 
people; and subsequently proves that homosexuals were actively limited in obtaining dimensions 
of integration by the Canadian state. These dimensions included access to the same equal rights 
and social belonging, given that in being labeled as national security threats, homosexuals were 
stripped of rights from which their heterosexual counterparts benefited and enjoyed while they 
were constantly being othered.     
 



  
 

 A clear example of this can be seen in the disproportionate use of the Customs Act to 
censor, seize, and destroy homosexual publications and materials, essentially limiting the rights 
of expression and speech of homosexuals. As aforementioned, the emergence of the gay and 
liberation movement in the 1970s was accompanied by an increase in explicitly homosexual 
publication presses, magazines, books, poetry, and pornography (Cossman, 2013-2014, p.49). 
The proliferation of these homosexual publications and content was met with routine seizure 
during transit to homosexual-catered bookshops. This led to multiple notable legal cases against 
the government on the grounds that they were limiting the rights to expression and speech of 
homosexuals, including but not limited to The Body Politic, a gay newspaper which was raided 
multiple times by Toronto’s Morality Squad, and Glad Day Bookshop and Little Sister 
Bookstore which routinely had their homosexual publications seized by the government (pp. 53-
56).  

The censoring and seizure of homosexual publications was explained by the government 
on the basis that the confiscated contents were considered to be “immoral”, “indecent”, and 
“obscene” in accordance with the 1959-1992 Criminal Code definition of obscenity. This 
definition was later replaced in the Supreme Court Case of R. v. Butler (1992), in which the 
community test to determine if a material was legally considered as obscene was rewritten to 
include the following three categories: (i) sex with violence, (ii) sex without violence, but is 
degrading and/or dehumanizing, and (iii) sex without violence but is not degrading and/or 
dehumanizing (p.51). It is important to note that gay and lesbian publications were consistently 
considered as failing this community test as they were often considered to fall under the second 
category. This is explicitly shown in Glad Day Bookshop v. Deputy Minister of National 
Revenue (Customs & Excise) (1992), where the judge ruled that all seizures made at Glad Day 
Bookshop were justified as each publication was considered to be obscene, “as the mere 
representation of gay sex was degrading and dehumanizing (p.54).” The disproportionate 
censoring of homosexual publications on the basis of obscenity was explicitly recognized in 
Little Sisters Book & Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice), in which the Supreme Court 
ruled that the Canadian Customs’ practice of censoring materials did not breach the 
homosexuals’ right to the freedom of expression under the Charter, but that Canadian Customs 
did unfairly target gay and lesbian materials (p.56). 

Another notable example of the increased sexual regulation of homosexuals was the 
drastic increase in “public sexuality” following the amendment of the 1969 Omnibus Bill that 
decriminalized sex amongst two private consenting adults in private (a bedroom), which, 
according to the George Smith, a sociologist and gay activist “ironically…led to the largest mass 
arrests of gay men in the country’s history (Hooper, 2019, p.260).” This was due to the fact that 
as argued by Tom Hooper, the Omnibus Bill recriminalized homosexuality by explicitly 
expanding the criminal justice system’s authority over the lives of discreet homosexual men 
whose sexual lives prior to the Omnibus Bill were mainly unnoticed (p.259).  

 



  
 

In decriminalizing the sexual relations of homosexuals in private, Canada’s law 
enforcement agencies disproportionately3 used other regulations such as the Bawdy-House Law, 
to raid gay establishments (i.e., bathhouses, bars, etc.) and arrest homosexuals. Under the 
Bawdy-House Law, all spaces that facilitated acts of so-called indecency were considered to be 
illegal (p.265). This was used to raid all spaces wherein homosexual sexual acts were considered 
to occur regardless of whether that establishment considered itself to be private or not (p.263). 
The most notable of these countless raids included Operation Soap in 1981, in which Toronto 
Police raided four bathhouses and arrested 306 men (p.266); the 1977 raiding of the Montreal 
Truxx Bar where 146 patrons were charged with being “found-in” a bawdy-house (p.266); and 
the 1976 Montreal Olympic Cleanup in which countless gay establishments in Montreal and 
Ottawa were raided leading up to the Olympics (p.265). It is important to note that the sexual 
regulation of homosexuals was underpinned by the homophobic mentality that homosexuals 
were considered to be sexual threats and sexual dangers to Canadian society, with Toronto Chief 
James Mackey noting in 1968 that: “Families have been brought heartbreak and sadness because 
of children affected by coming into contact with homosexuals” (pp.263-264). This paralleled the 
words L. R. Hobbs, the director of Montreal Port Police, where he problematically claims that 
homosexuality needed to be regulated as it led to criminality: “The search by homosexuals for 
partners often leads to assault, theft, male prostitution and murder” (p.264). Furthermore, this 
stood in direct contrast to how heterosexual group sex was legally regulated, as shown in R. v. 
Mason 1981 wherein despite the fact that Mason hosted monthly heterosexual group sex parties, 
the judge acquitted of keeping a bawdy-house, with his rationale being:  

“It is my considered opinion that no one would seriously contend that a sexual act, 
between consenting adults of the opposite sex, in a private home, could be considered grossly 
indecent…, an act of gross indecency, as contemplated by the Code, includes an act between 
homosexuals…” (Hooper, 2014, p.71)      

 
Unfit for Employment: The Expansion of Sexual Regulation into Economic Integration  

The stripping of homosexuals’ freedom to enjoy equal rights as their heterosexual 
counterparts encroached other areas outside of the previously mentioned literary expression, the 
ability to gather and congregate, and perform sexual activity in private. The sexual regulation of 
homosexuals also prevented the economic integration of homosexuals in Canada, hindering 

 
3 There is a lack of concrete statistical figures surrounding the disparity on the enforcement of sexual regulations 
such as the Bawdy-House Law on sexual minorities in Canada. However, there is broad consensus surrounding the 
fact that these regulations were disproportionately enforced on gay men and lesbian women specifically throughout 
the Cold War, as seen in Prime Minister Trudeau’s 2018 apology wherein he states: “discrimination against 
LGBTQ2 communities was quickly codified in criminal offences like “buggery”, “gross indecency”, and bawdy 
house provisions. Bathhouses were raided, people were entrapped by police. Our laws bolstered and emboldened 
those who wanted to attack non-conforming sexual desire. Our laws made private and consensual sex between 
same-sex partners a criminal offence, leading to the unjust arrest, conviction, and imprisonment of Canadians. This 
criminalization would have lasting impacts for things like employment, volunteering, and travel” (Prime Minister’s 
Office, 2017). 

 



  
 

homosexuals from yet another dimension of citizenship needed for full integration. As subjects 
of national surveillance, they were barred from working in the federal civil service, the RCMP, 
and the military until 1992 (Federal Court, 2020 p.70). In actively investigating suspected 
homosexuals in the Canadian public service and purging itself of queers in their ranks, the 
Canadian government hindered their ability to economically belong in Canada, preventing their 
integration. Known as the LGBT Purge, the Canadian government tasked the RCMP’s A-3 Unit 
with hunting down homosexual public servants and confirming the sexual orientation of all 
suspected homosexuals within the civil service (Kinsman, 1995, p.149). The RCMP would 
conduct their investigations in a myriad of ways, including but not limited to the surveillance of 
suspected homosexual meeting spots, befriending non-civil servant homosexuals, and asking 
them who they knew was gay, and directly interrogating suspected homosexuals to out 
themselves and others (Kinsman, 2000, pp.145-147). DND’s Special Investigative Unit also 
employed the same research methods to purge itself of homosexuals, in accordance with 
Canadian Forces Administrative Order 19-20 which barred homosexuals from working in the 
military until 1992 (Gouliquer et al., 2018, p.324). This resulted in the discriminatory discharge 
of hundreds of individuals such as Martine Roy (1984), Alida Satalic (1989), and Todd Ross 
(1990) who successfully launched the LGBT Purge Settlement, in which the Canadian 
government recognized that the LGBT Purge subjected class members to persistent 
discriminatory, humiliating and injurious treatment, demeaning their dignity and infringing their 
basic human rights (Federal Court, 2020, p.69). Similar to other sexual regulations, the LGBT 
Purge was also justified by national security campaigns, that deemed homosexuals unfit for 
employment in all capacities due to their moral and character failings and supposed susceptibility 
to being blackmailed by Communists as a result of their sexual orientation (Kinsman, 1995, 
p.141).  

 
Conclusion 

As demonstrated throughout this paper, the Canadian government increased the sexual 
regulation of homosexuals leading up to and following the 1977 Immigration Act, on the basis 
that they were “other” as sexual and moral dangers, and national security threats who did not 
socially nor economically belong to Canadian society nor shared the nation’s interest. This 
sexual regulation hindered their ability to possess substantive equality rights as enjoyed by their 
heterosexual counterparts and subsequently stripped them of the multiple dimensions of 
citizenship required to be considered fully integrated such as their economic and social 
belonging, according to Bloemraad et al.’s. (2008) framework. Therefore, the Immigration Act 
of 1977 granted the admission of homosexuals, but its ratification did not lead to nor coincide 
with their full integration into Canadian society.  
 

 

 



  
 

 

References 

Bloemraad, I., Korteweg, A., & Yurdakul, G. (2008). Citizenship and Immigration:  
Multiculturalism, Assimilation, and Challenges to the Nation-State. Annual Review of 
Sociology, 34(1), 153–179.       

 
Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21. (2023a). Immigration Act, 1952. Canadian 

Museum of Immigration at Pier 21. https://pier21.ca/research/immigration-
history/immigration-act-1952 

 
Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21. (2023b). Immigration Act, 1976. Canadian 

Museum of Immigration at Pier 21. https://pier21.ca/research/immigration-
history/immigration-act-1976 

 
Colwell, R. (2018). “Pernicious [E]ffects”: Discretionary Decision-making in Queer Immigration 

to Canada. Western Journal of Legal Studies, 8(2). 

Cossman, B. (2013). Censor, Resist, Repeat: A History of Censorship of Gay and Lesbian Sexual 
Representation in Canada. Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, 21(1), 45–66. 

Todd Edward Ross, Martine Roy and Alida Satalic and Her Majesty the Queen, Final Settlement 
Agreement, (Federal Court 2020). https://www.classaction.deloitte.ca/en-
ca/Pages/LGBTpurgeSettlementClassAction.aspx 

Finkel, A. (1986). Canadian Immigration Policy and the Cold War, 1945–1980. Journal of 
Canadian Studies, 21(3), 53–70.  

Girard, P. (1987). From Subversion to Liberation: Homosexuals and the Immigration Act 1952–
1977. Canadian Journal of Law and Society, 2, 1–27.  

Gouliquer, L., Poulin, C., & Moore, J. (2018). A threat to Canadian national security: A lesbian 
soldier’s story. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 15(2–3), 323–335.  

Hawkins, F. (1975). Canada’s Green Paper on Immigration Policy. The International Migration 
Review, 9(2), 237–249.  

 
Hooper, T. (2014). “More Than Two Is a Crowd”: Mononormativity and Gross Indecency in the 

Criminal Code, 1981-82. Journal of Canadian Studies, 48(1), 53–81. 
https://doi.org/10.3138/jcs.48.1.53 

Hooper, T. (2019). Queering ’69: The Recriminalization of Homosexuality in Canada. The 
Canadian Historical Review, 100(2), 257–273.  

https://pier21.ca/research/immigration-history/immigration-act-1952
https://pier21.ca/research/immigration-history/immigration-act-1952
https://pier21.ca/research/immigration-history/immigration-act-1976
https://pier21.ca/research/immigration-history/immigration-act-1976


  
 

LaViolette, N. (2004). Coming Out to Canada: The Immigration of Same-Sex Couples Under the 
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. McGill Law Journal. 

LGBT Purge Class Action. (2019). About – LGBT Purge. LGBT Purge Class Action. 
https://lgbtpurge.com/about-lgbt-purge/ 

Kinsman, G. (1995). “Character Weaknesses” and “Fruit Machines”: Towards an Analysis of the 
Anti-Homosexual Security Campaign in the Canadian Civil Service. Labour (Halifax), 
35, 133–161.  

Kinsman, G. (2000). Constructing Gay Men and Lesbians as National Security Risks, 1950-
1970. In G. Kinsman, D. K. Buse, & M. Steedman (Eds.), Whose National Security? 
Canadian State Surveillance and the Creation of Enemies (pp. 143–153). Between the 
Lines. https://books-scholarsportal-
info.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/en/read?id=/ebooks/ebooks0/gibson_crkn/2009-12-
01/3/406158#page=8 

Kinsman, G., Buse, D. K., & Steedman, M. (2000). How the Centre Holds—National Security as 
an Ideological Practice. In G. Kinsman, D. K. Buse, & M. Steedman (Eds.), Whose 
National Security? Canadian State Surveillance and the Creation of Enemies (pp. 278–
286). Between the Lines. https://books-scholarsportal-
info.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/en/read?id=/ebooks/ebooks0/gibson_crkn/2009-12-
01/3/406158#page=8 

Nash, C. J. (2014). Consuming Sexual Liberation: Gay Business, Politics, and Toronto’s 
Barracks Bathhouse Raids. Journal of Canadian Studies, 48(1), 82–105. 
https://doi.org/10.3138/jcs.48.1.82 

Prime Minister’s Office. (2017, November 28). Remarks by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to 
apologize to LGBTQ2 Canadians. Prime Minister of Canada. 
https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/speeches/2017/11/28/remarks-prime-minister-justin-trudeau-
apologize-lgbtq2-canadians 

 

https://lgbtpurge.com/about-lgbt-purge/
https://doi.org/10.3138/jcs.48.1.82
https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/speeches/2017/11/28/remarks-prime-minister-justin-trudeau-apologize-lgbtq2-canadians
https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/speeches/2017/11/28/remarks-prime-minister-justin-trudeau-apologize-lgbtq2-canadians

