Evidence of meeting #7 for Status of Women in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cases.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Lawyer, As an Individual
My benefit, the benefit for my children, is the recognition of belonging to their community. That's probably the core piece of this legislation for this victory.
For years, those of us who have been excluded because of the legislation--not because of the heritage, but because of the legislation--have not been able to fully participate in our communities.
It goes to the heart of who we are, the recognition of who we are. I know that in the Sandra Lovelace case the United Nations said the banishment of women from their communities was contrary to international conventions, because being part of your community and being recognized as part of your community is a right. It's a cultural right. It's a right to be able to reinforce your sense of self. That's the biggest piece.
In addition to that, a lot of women and their descendants live in slums in major cities. They have no access to benefits such as health benefits, education benefits, and dental benefits. Those are their rights. We have a birthright, and that's why I have been fighting for so long. I have that right by virtue of my birth, and they will not be able to access that. It's a total denial of rights.
The government recognizes it. You look at the documents, and they recognize that when they changed the law in 1985 they only did a partial job. It was recognized. Yet they are very reluctant to change it. They won't change it. The case said they should change it. Now they've challenged it and have put up an almost insurmountable barrier for me to continue with this.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Does anybody else wish to comment on this case? Anybody else?
President, DisAbled Women's Network of Canada
I'm Carmela Hutchison, with DAWN Canada.
My understanding is also that it's almost genocidal. You can correct me if I'm wrong in my understanding of this, but as subsequent generations continue to lose their status, it will eradicate the entire culture of aboriginal women within the next fifty to a hundred years.
Chair, Human Rights Committee, Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action
A number of people have commented that this is one of the most important sex equality cases of the last couple of decades.
For aboriginal women, it's clear that this is discrimination that's gone on for a long time, for decades and decades and decades. We've never erased the sex discrimination in the Indian Act. We did it partially in 1985, but poorly.
But it also has implications for all women, because partly what's at stake here is the question of whether women are actually able to convey to their children and grandchildren the status, the personhood--in this case the Indian citizenship--that men are seen to be the holders of, and we've recognized them as the holders of. So it's a huge case in its implications for aboriginal women directly and for all women more indirectly.
The fact that we're in the position now of having to go around with a hat to raise money to support Sharon to go forward, when on the other side the government is using our money to oppose it, is shocking. It's amazing to me that we've come to this particular point. I think we should all be embarrassed.
National Vice-President, REAL Women of Canada
I think I should make it clear that most women are perfectly competent of speaking out and it's such an insult to say that women are stupid and we have to have government payouts to succeed.
REAL Women has been in existence for 25 years, paying all of our money ourselves. We have been in the Supreme Court of Canada many, many times. It's because we have the support of our membership.
These radical feminists are a handful of women without membership who have no one to represent them and they have taxpayers' money to use judicial fiat in order to push their own specific agenda. It is truly insulting that they're being funded to present only their special interest views and other women such as REAL Women have funded themselves for 25 years by grassroots support, which radical feminists obviously don't have, or they could survive like we have.
NDP
Bloc
Johanne Deschamps Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am still shaken from the last comment.
First and foremost, I would like to thank all of our witnesses for having accepted the invitation to appear before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. I feel it is necessary to hear your testimony. Of all of the presentations, I found those of Ms. McIvor's and Ms. Hutchison particularly moving. I believe that all of your comments portray rather well issues involving minorities.
It could be said that most of you favour the reinstatement of the Court Challenges Program. My Bloc Québécois colleague, Ms. Nicole Demers, and myself are of the same view. The two of us are our party's critics on issues pertaining to the status of women. Last fall and spring, we met with a number of women and human rights groups in Quebec and beyond. We were trying to understand why these groups were calling for the restoration of the Court Challenges Program. We have noticed that there is an entire movement that wants the Conservative government to bring back what it abolished. I am referring not only to the Court Challenges Program, but also to the Women's Program.
At issue are questions involving minorities, and above all, women's equality. I would like you to give us an overview by mentioning some of the most well-known cases in the Court Challenges Program's history. I don't know which of you would be able to do so.
President, DisAbled Women's Network of Canada
I certainly can from DAWN Canada's perspective.
There are 12 cases that I could find, and I probably will have to look farther afield for more. The very first one was Regina v. Rosenberg, in 1998, wherein the court of appeal recognized that a same-sex partner is a legal spouse. That was successful.
Regina v. Latimer was when the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal upheld a mandatory compulsory sentence of second degree murder for Robert Latimer, who killed his handicapped daughter Tracy. That was successful.
Ferrell v. Attorney General was the constitutional challenge to Ontario's repeal of the Employment Equity Act, and that was successful.
Regina v. O'Connor was a criminal case about whether a counsellor for a victim of sexual assault must disclose all counselling records that defence lawyers wished to see. That case was intervened with at the Supreme Court of Canada and was successful.
One of the most famous cases was Eldridge v. British Columbia in British Columbia. This was a Charter of Rights and Freedoms case. British Columbia attempted to refuse to pay for medical interpreter services for deaf persons who were needing medical help. There was intervention at the Supreme Court of Canada, and it was successful. I believe that the particular woman needed a caesarean section. She was in the process of giving birth and was denied this assistance.
There was the British Columbia Government and Services Employees' Union v. the Government of the Province of British Columbia. That case concerned a physical fitness standard being applied to a female firefighter who was already performing her job, and when she didn't meet the new standard, she lost her job. That was upheld.
There was Regina v. Ewanchuk, which was the “no means no” definition of consent in sexual assault, which was successfully upheld.
I think there are two others.
Bloc
Johanne Deschamps Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Ms. Hutchison, you've sketched a very good picture. For each one of these specific cases, would there have been any way of making modest progress without the Court Challenges Program? Would those people have been heard? I think these cases are incredible. We are talking about rape cases or other cases where it took the program to get the services of a sign-language interpreter for a deaf person. Without this program, what could these people have done?
President, DisAbled Women's Network of Canada
There would have been no alternative.
The other most famous case, of course, which was just recently decided, concerned VIA Rail, and it applies to all Canadians, both men and women. DAWN Canada was also an intervener in that case. There were rail cars purchased that were completely inaccessible for anyone in a wheelchair who wanted to ride VIA Rail.
National Vice-President, REAL Women of Canada
I think the point should be made that in nearly all the cases she has cited, the majority of women did not approve of the decisions. REAL Women intervened in many of those cases, and we represent mainstream Canadian women. Because they got funding, they were able to argue their own narrow, radical feminist agenda.
For example, there is employment equity. Most women do not support it. We like equal pay for equal work, but not equal pay for work of equal value. We do not agree with the Ewanchuk decision. For example, she cited the rape cases. We do not agree. So who are they to get funding to represent a special interest group only?
Johanne Deschamps Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I would like to conclude by saying that we, as a society, have the moral duty to take care of and defend our minority groups.
Ms. Landolt, how many active members are there in your group, REAL Women of Canada?
National Vice-President, REAL Women of Canada
We have been in roughly 15 cases, about 13 of them before the Supreme Court of Canada, all paid by our membership, not the government.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Irene Mathyssen
Thank you. We must move on. There will be another opportunity.
Ms. Grewal, for seven minutes.
Conservative
Nina Grewal Conservative Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, ladies, for your time and your presentations.
I have a series of short questions for you. Have you or your organization ever applied for funding under the court challenges program? Did you ever receiving funding? If so, how many times have you successfully applied for funding? What was the nature of the cases for which you received funding? Besides the court challenges program, what are your other sources of revenue?
Chair, Human Rights Committee, Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action
Can I make a suggestion about answering that question? That information is actually available. A lot of it's on the record. I'm not sure you're going to get what you want, going organization by organization, when in fact there's a lot of information available.
I might suggest that it's something that could be done better as a follow-up question that organizations could provide an answer to subsequently, if that's what Ms. Grewal wants or that's what the committee wants.
NDP