Judy Erola, 1983
Women across the country mobilize
Women across the country mobilize
The voices of Canadian women were excluded from the negotiations surrounding the patriation of the Constitution. All political decision-makers – Prime Minister Trudeau and the premiers – were men. Women fought to have their voices heard on all aspects of the Constitution – not just the Charter of Rights – during the patriation process. When the federal and provincial governments began discussing which rights and freedoms would be included in a charter, Canadian women mobilized to ensure meaningful equality rights.
Not all women’s voices were heard - “women” are as diverse as our society itself. In many cases, the women speaking were counterparts of the men who participated in the constitutional negotiations. Those voices that were heard though, made a difference.
Many individual women and women’s groups appeared before the Joint Parliamentary Committee (Hays-Joyal) The Special Joint Committee on the Constitution, chaired by Senator Harry Hays and MP Serge Joyal, in 1980 and 1981. It held three months of hearings (many televised) and took written submissions from more than 900 individuals and organizations on the federal government’s proposals for constitutional patriation. and at a conference organized in February 1981 to provide recommendations on what an equality rights section in the Charter should include, and to protect those rights from violations by the government that it could easily justify. They wanted to ensure that the language in the Charter was very clear and specific, so that it would be used in a powerful way by the courts to guarantee equality.
They wanted to ensure that the language in the Charter was very clear and specific, so that it would be used in a powerful way by the courts to guarantee equality.
Women mobilized
Once the constitutional deal was struck in November 1981, women mobilized across the country to reverse a decision made at the last minute to subject both of the equality clauses – sections 15 and 28 – to the “notwithstanding” clause (section 33). The clause allows governments to “override” rights. Including section 15 and section 28 in the override meant gender equality and other equality rights could be ignored. Women and other rights-seeking groups were outraged that the few Charter provisions they had managed to achieve were seen as so insignificant during the dealmaking process.
Lynn McDonald, President, National Action Committee on the Status of Women, 1980
Within weeks, women across Canada and across all party lines in Parliament phoned, visited, and protested to convince their provincial premiers to rescind the reach of the “notwithstanding clause” Also called the 'override clause', allows Parliament or provincial legislatures to override or ignore certain sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when they are crafting legislation. It allows legislation to exist notwithstanding that it is in breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Notwithstanding Clause can only be used in reference to section 2 (fundamental freedoms), sections 7 to 14 (legal rights) and section 15 (equality rights), and it can only be invoked for 5 years at a time. so that it would not include the equality rights sections in the Charter – sections 15 and 28. It was a crucial moment when Canadian citizens asserted that the Constitution didn’t belong just to governments. It belonged to the people.
It belonged to the people.
At the same time, Indigenous Indigenous is the collective term for the original peoples of North America and their descendants, and includes First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples. See also: Aboriginal, which is found in the Constitution. The Government of Canada has officially changed “Aboriginal” to “Indigenous” in its ministries, legislation and documents. Canada has made it clear that the term “Indigenous” covers the legal definitions of “Aboriginal” and “Indian” for most constitutional purposes. women represented through the Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC) and Indian Indian is a term historically used by governments to describe the original peoples of North America - Indigenous and Aboriginal - but it is not considered respectful or accurate. It remains in section 91(24) of the Constitution and the “Indian Act”. Rights for Indian Indian is a term historically used by governments to describe the original peoples of North America - Indigenous and Aboriginal - but it is not considered respectful or accurate. It remains in section 91(24) of the Constitution and the “Indian Act”. Women (IRIW) were very aware of Canada’s history of limiting and denying the rights of Indigenous Indigenous is the collective term for the original peoples of North America and their descendants, and includes First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples. See also: Aboriginal, which is found in the Constitution. The Government of Canada has officially changed “Aboriginal” to “Indigenous” in its ministries, legislation and documents. Canada has made it clear that the term “Indigenous” covers the legal definitions of “Aboriginal” and “Indian” for most constitutional purposes. women. They were determined that any recognition of Aboriginal Aboriginal is the collective term used in the Constitution to describe the original peoples of North America and their descendants and includes First Nations, Inuit, and Métis. See also: Indigenous. or Treaty rights in the Constitution must also protect women. Sometimes these groups were in disagreement with the constitutional protections being fought for by other Indigenous Indigenous is the collective term for the original peoples of North America and their descendants, and includes First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples. See also: Aboriginal, which is found in the Constitution. The Government of Canada has officially changed “Aboriginal” to “Indigenous” in its ministries, legislation and documents. Canada has made it clear that the term “Indigenous” covers the legal definitions of “Aboriginal” and “Indian” for most constitutional purposes. organizations.
Women’s mobilization on the Constitution reflected a significant step in the struggle for civil rights. Women fought for years for even the most basic of rights, such as the right to own property and to exercise the franchise.
Before the end of the First World War, women in Canada were not allowed to vote. After decades of campaigns that began in the 19th century, the right was finally won federally – but even then, only for women who were “British subjects.” Some provinces granted women’s suffrage earlier, while others lagged behind. Women did not gain the right to vote in Québec provincial elections until 1940. It took until 1960 for the federal government to grant voting rights to status Indians — women and men.
Judge Emily Murphy, ca. 1910
Pre-1980s
Canadian Milestones in Women's Rights
Pre-1980s
Canadian Milestones in Women's Rights
1929: THE PERSONS CASE
In the late 1920s, Emily Murphy was the first woman in the British Empire to be appointed a judge under Western law ( Indigenous Indigenous is the collective term for the original peoples of North America and their descendants, and includes First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples. See also: Aboriginal, which is found in the Constitution. The Government of Canada has officially changed “Aboriginal” to “Indigenous” in its ministries, legislation and documents. Canada has made it clear that the term “Indigenous” covers the legal definitions of “Aboriginal” and “Indian” for most constitutional purposes. legal systems had different recognition of the role of women in legal systems, which was undermined by the imposition of Canadian-Western law). She joined the so-called ”Famous Five”, a group of five activist women from Alberta. They petitioned the Supreme Court to rule on whether women could be considered “qualified persons” for appointment to the Senate. The Supreme Court said no, but the “Persons Case” was appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (Great Britain’s highest court), which decided in the women’s favour. Women were finally considered “persons” capable of being considered for Senate appointments.
Women were finally considered “persons” capable of being considered for Senate appointments.
Struggle for equality
1967: The Royal Commission
A watershed moment in Canadian women’s struggle for equality came in 1967 with the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. Its wide-ranging research and series of recommendations for both federal and provincial governments led to the creation of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, and in 1971, the post of Minister Responsible for the Status of Women. Outside government, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC) was formed, along with countless new women’s groups across Canada.
1979: Indigenous Women Petition United Nations
While these developments were a first in Canadian and British law, it is important to note that within many Indigenous Indigenous is the collective term for the original peoples of North America and their descendants, and includes First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples. See also: Aboriginal, which is found in the Constitution. The Government of Canada has officially changed “Aboriginal” to “Indigenous” in its ministries, legislation and documents. Canada has made it clear that the term “Indigenous” covers the legal definitions of “Aboriginal” and “Indian” for most constitutional purposes. legal systems, women had prominent decision making roles long before. Canadian law and policy had long targeted Indigenous Indigenous is the collective term for the original peoples of North America and their descendants, and includes First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples. See also: Aboriginal, which is found in the Constitution. The Government of Canada has officially changed “Aboriginal” to “Indigenous” in its ministries, legislation and documents. Canada has made it clear that the term “Indigenous” covers the legal definitions of “Aboriginal” and “Indian” for most constitutional purposes. women and had deliberately displaced them from roles of power within their own legal and governance traditions as a way of controlling Indigenous Indigenous is the collective term for the original peoples of North America and their descendants, and includes First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples. See also: Aboriginal, which is found in the Constitution. The Government of Canada has officially changed “Aboriginal” to “Indigenous” in its ministries, legislation and documents. Canada has made it clear that the term “Indigenous” covers the legal definitions of “Aboriginal” and “Indian” for most constitutional purposes. Peoples. Provisions of the Indian Indian is a term historically used by governments to describe the original peoples of North America - Indigenous and Aboriginal - but it is not considered respectful or accurate. It remains in section 91(24) of the Constitution and the “Indian Act”. Act, for example, said that any Indigenous Indigenous is the collective term for the original peoples of North America and their descendants, and includes First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples. See also: Aboriginal, which is found in the Constitution. The Government of Canada has officially changed “Aboriginal” to “Indigenous” in its ministries, legislation and documents. Canada has made it clear that the term “Indigenous” covers the legal definitions of “Aboriginal” and “Indian” for most constitutional purposes. woman who married a non- Indigenous Indigenous is the collective term for the original peoples of North America and their descendants, and includes First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples. See also: Aboriginal, which is found in the Constitution. The Government of Canada has officially changed “Aboriginal” to “Indigenous” in its ministries, legislation and documents. Canada has made it clear that the term “Indigenous” covers the legal definitions of “Aboriginal” and “Indian” for most constitutional purposes. man (and her children and grandchildren) would be denied Indian Indian is a term historically used by governments to describe the original peoples of North America - Indigenous and Aboriginal - but it is not considered respectful or accurate. It remains in section 91(24) of the Constitution and the “Indian Act”. status and so could no longer live on reserves or participate in local governance. In the case of Sandra Lovelace v. Canada, Indigenous Indigenous is the collective term for the original peoples of North America and their descendants, and includes First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples. See also: Aboriginal, which is found in the Constitution. The Government of Canada has officially changed “Aboriginal” to “Indigenous” in its ministries, legislation and documents. Canada has made it clear that the term “Indigenous” covers the legal definitions of “Aboriginal” and “Indian” for most constitutional purposes. women successfully challenged this legislation before the U.N. Human Rights Commission. This was after Jeannette Lavell and others failed in their attempts to have that section of the Indian Act changed at the Supreme Court of Canada using the Bill of Rights.
The Hays-Joyal Committee, 1980
Women Mobilize On The Constitution
1980-1981
Women Mobilize On The Constitution
1980-1981
1980: The Hays-Joyal Committee
In October 1980 after Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau introduced his “People`s Package” Pierre Trudeau’s expression for the parts of his 1980 patriation resolution that included his vision for constitutional renewal, patriation itself, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and a plan to settle on an amending formula through a referendum. – a resolution to unilaterally patriate the Constitution from Britain, and to add to it a charter of rights – a special Joint Parliamentary Committee of the House of Commons The “lower” legislative assembly of Parliament (relative to the Senate’s “upper” house) in the Canadian Parliament. The House is composed of the popularly elected representatives of ridings (electoral districts) across Canada. and Senate The “upper house” of the Canadian Parliament, which reviews and approves all federal legislation initiated in either House. (It does not usually initiate legislation, although it has that power.) The Senate is comprised of 105 senators, who are appointed until the age of 75 by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister. Senate seats are proportioned by region, in an attempt to balance the population-based membership of the House of Commons and improve regional equality in government. was struck, known as the Hays-Joyal Committee The Special Joint Committee on the Constitution, chaired by Senator Harry Hays and MP Serge Joyal, in 1980 and 1981. It held three months of hearings (many televised) and took written submissions from more than 900 individuals and organizations on the federal government’s proposals for constitutional patriation. . As Jean Chrétien, Minister of Justice, later explained, it provided a forum for the “normally unpowerful and unorganized” to have input into the Charter.
The Hays-Joyal Committee The Special Joint Committee on the Constitution, chaired by Senator Harry Hays and MP Serge Joyal, in 1980 and 1981. It held three months of hearings (many televised) and took written submissions from more than 900 individuals and organizations on the federal government’s proposals for constitutional patriation. travelled across Canada, and for the first time in history, many of its sessions were televised. It surprised everyone that so many Canadians appeared in person and submitted written input and ideas on constitutional changes, and specifically, on the proposed charter. The committee heard from the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women (CACSW), the National Action Committee (NAC), National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL), the Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC), Indian Rights for Indian Women (IRIW), several other Indigenous groups, civil liberties groups, organizations of lesbian and gay persons, organizations of persons with disabilities, and many others. But by far the greatest number of submissions and appearances before the Committee dealt with the equality rights provisions in the Charter. Most lobbied for a broader list of rights to be included, for wording in an equality rights section that made the effects of discrimination against women and other disadvantaged groups unconstitutional, and for fewer justifications for violations of rights by governments.
Lucie Pepin, President, Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, 1981
Within Indigenous communities, the Native Women’s Association (NWAC) was especially concerned to fight the cultural and economic effects of discrimination against Indigenous women under the Indian Act. During the constitutional debates, it navigated between the interests of the larger Indigenous community and women’s lobby groups for support. NWAC argued that Indigenous laws (which had been denied and undermined by Canadian law and policy) recognized the role and prominence of Indigenous women in law and governance systems.
Marilou McPhedran, Counsel for the Ad Hoc Committee of Canadian Women on the Constitution (1980-1982)
After one presentation by the NAC, the Joint Parliamentary Committee co-chair, Senator Harry Hays, remarked, “I was just wondering why we don’t have a section [in the Charter] for babies and children. All you girls are going to be working, and you’re not going to have anybody looking after them.” His condescending comment made national news and helped motivate women across the country to fight harder for their equality rights.
His condescending comment made national news and helped motivate women across the country to fight harder for their equality rights.
Early 1981: The Ad Hoc Committee
Another mobilizing event for women across the country was the decision to cancel a constitutional conference organized by the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women (CACSW). In addition to making several oral and written submissions to the Joint Parliamentary Committee, the CACSW organized a conference where women could gather to deliberate about constitutional protections.
The federal government put pressure on the organization to cancel the conference, worried that it would jeopardize agreement between the federal and provincial governments at a critical juncture in the constitutional negotiations. The conference was cancelled, and Doris Anderson, the president of CACSW, resigned in protest.
But the women met anyway. Determined not to be deterred, a group of women called the “Ad Hockers” quickly organized another. On February 14, 1981, 1,300 women from across Canada attended a constitutional conference in Ottawa.
As a result of a resolution passed at that meeting, an Ad Hoc lobbying effort was ignited, and the Charter now includes a clause – section 28 – that states all rights in the Charter will be guaranteed equally to women and men.
section 28 – that states all rights in the Charter will be guaranteed equally to women and men.
April, 1981: Section 28, The Equal-Rights Amendment
The Hays-Joyal Committee submitted an amended version of the Charter to the House of Commons in April 1981. Thanks to Canadian women’s efforts, it included much stronger wording for an equality rights clause and a new measure, section 28, which read: “Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.” It also limited the circumstances in which the government could justify limiting rights.
Marilou McPhedran, Counsel for the Ad Hoc Committee of Canadian Women on the Constitution (1980-1982)
November, 1981: Women Swing Back Into Action
After the November 1981 constitutional accord was signed, amendments to it were tabled in late November. One of those amendments ensured that the section 33 override provision would include not only the section 15 equality rights provision in the Charter, but also section 28 which stated that all rights in the Charter would be guaranteed equally to women and men. That meant that any government could use the clause to override or ignore equality rights. This was contrary to the deal initially arrived at by the first ministers on November 5th.
By insisting on an override provision, the premiers were protecting their powers to pass laws that might contravene the Charter in their provinces. Women felt betrayed and were enraged.
Women felt betrayed and were enraged.
The Insider: Judy Erola
Judy Erola was the first woman to serve as Minister Responsible for the Status of Women. Believe it or not, the first two people Trudeau had appointed to the position had been men.
Erola first discovered the problem while she was at an official ceremony to celebrate the constitutional accord, seated behind Trudeau with her fellow Cabinet ministers. She tried to keep her cool, but at a meeting afterwards, Erola interrupted her fellow Liberals’ self-congratulations to express her dismay. Trudeau was taken aback, insisting the rights of women were still protected in the Charter. Erola said women’s rights must be free and clear from any override. She suggested convincing the premiers to change it. Trudeau was astonished.
She suggested convincing the premiers to change it. Trudeau was astonished.
As a member of Cabinet, Erola couldn’t be seen actively opposing her own government’s patriation The process of bringing the British North America Act, 1867 – the Constitution of Canada – under full domestic control, rather than having it remain as an act of the British Parliament. After decades of effort, patriation was completed with the 1982 passage of the Canada Act in Britain and the Constitution Act in Canada. It includes a means of amending the Constitution in Canada. The new Constitution was not endorsed by the government of Québec. agreement. Her public statements would have to be careful. Her work would have to be underground. It was understood that should an attempt to amend the agreement fail (as most of her fellow ministers expected), she would have to resign. Fine, Erola thought: “Who would want to be the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, if women had no status?” She immediately activated every resource in her own offices and among her provincial counterparts.
She immediately activated every resource in her own offices and among her provincial counterparts.
A National Network
Female members of Parliament – though a small number in 1981 – were powerful and well-connected. Progressive Conservative Flora MacDonald and New Democrats, Pauline Jewett and Margaret Mitchell, in particular, went to work.
Officially, using the department’s resources for political purposes violated the rules. But Erola decided she’d face that music after the battle was over. “When something’s wrong, you try to fix it,” she said later. “Isn’t that why you go into public life?” Led primarily by the Ad Hockers, women from across party lines throughout the country, worked tirelessly to convince their premiers to remove the reach of the override clause to section 28. They took on their caucuses, their party counterparts in the provinces, and worked hard.
They took on their caucuses, their party counterparts in the provinces, and worked hard.
In the House of Commons The “lower” legislative assembly of Parliament (relative to the Senate’s “upper” house) in the Canadian Parliament. The House is composed of the popularly elected representatives of ridings (electoral districts) across Canada. , Jewett referred to the constitutional conference’s famous Kitchen Accord and exclaimed, “If ever there was a time when a woman should have been in the kitchen!”
Later she asked, “What does this tell us about the position of Canadian women in society? Are we simply a detail, a drafting error?”
Pauline Jewett asks Trudeau a question about Section 28, 1981
These women gained the support of both federal Opposition leaders, Joe Clark of the Progressive Conservatives and Ed Broadbent of the New Democratic Party Formed to succeed the CCF in 1961, the New Democratic Party is the main left-wing, social-democratic federal and provincial party in Canada. It has never formed a federal government, but has won office many times at the provincial level, particularly in western Canada, but also in Ontario and Nova Scotia. . Both argued to lift the override clause from section 28.
To the disappointment of many, they would not lift the override clause from the section 15 equality rights provision.
Winning Over the Premiers
Though they did not want to amend their original accord, the provincial premiers could hardly risk losing the support of more than half the population. Several began to support the women’s campaign with Peter Lougheed of Alberta, who was reminded that the historic Persons Case had sprung from his province, and Bill Davis of Ontario leading the way.
One by one, the premiers agreed to make it clear that the notwithstanding clause Also called the 'override clause', allows Parliament or provincial legislatures to override or ignore certain sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when they are crafting legislation. It allows legislation to exist notwithstanding that it is in breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Notwithstanding Clause can only be used in reference to section 2 (fundamental freedoms), sections 7 to 14 (legal rights) and section 15 (equality rights), and it can only be invoked for 5 years at a time. would not apply to section 28. Surprisingly, the last holdout was Allan Blakeney of Saskatchewan, the only NDP premier in the country at the time.
In part, Blakeney was concerned that because section 28 applied Charter rights “equally” to men and women, courts might challenge affirmative action programs meant to benefit women. More importantly, he was pushing for the constitutional entrenchment of Indigenous Indigenous is the collective term for the original peoples of North America and their descendants, and includes First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples. See also: Aboriginal, which is found in the Constitution. The Government of Canada has officially changed “Aboriginal” to “Indigenous” in its ministries, legislation and documents. Canada has made it clear that the term “Indigenous” covers the legal definitions of “Aboriginal” and “Indian” for most constitutional purposes. rights. He was strategically withholding consent in order to put pressure on his fellow leaders to stand up for the inclusion of a section that protected Indigenous Indigenous is the collective term for the original peoples of North America and their descendants, and includes First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples. See also: Aboriginal, which is found in the Constitution. The Government of Canada has officially changed “Aboriginal” to “Indigenous” in its ministries, legislation and documents. Canada has made it clear that the term “Indigenous” covers the legal definitions of “Aboriginal” and “Indian” for most constitutional purposes. rights.
Meanwhile, Indigenous Indigenous is the collective term for the original peoples of North America and their descendants, and includes First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples. See also: Aboriginal, which is found in the Constitution. The Government of Canada has officially changed “Aboriginal” to “Indigenous” in its ministries, legislation and documents. Canada has made it clear that the term “Indigenous” covers the legal definitions of “Aboriginal” and “Indian” for most constitutional purposes. Peoples across the country were protesting the exclusion of a section in the Constitution that would protect their rights. There had been much discussion about Aboriginal Aboriginal is the collective term used in the Constitution to describe the original peoples of North America and their descendants and includes First Nations, Inuit, and Métis. See also: Indigenous. and Treaty rights by the first ministers The leaders of the ruling parties in the federal, provincial and territorial governments, including the Prime Minister and the premiers of each province and territory. Canada has fourteen first ministers. , and the decision to exclude a proposed section had been made at the last minute in the final negotiations. Though they had agreed to the final deal, several first ministers The leaders of the ruling parties in the federal, provincial and territorial governments, including the Prime Minister and the premiers of each province and territory. Canada has fourteen first ministers. were uncomfortable with this decision.
Final Victory
On a frigid day near the end of November, women marched on the Saskatchewan legislature grounds in Regina and held a candlelight vigil, demanding that Blakeney support lifting the override on section 28. He finally agreed after B.C. and Alberta agreed to the reinsertion of section 35, the Aboriginal Aboriginal is the collective term used in the Constitution to describe the original peoples of North America and their descendants and includes First Nations, Inuit, and Métis. See also: Indigenous. and Treaty Rights section, on condition that the word “existing” be added to Aboriginal Aboriginal is the collective term used in the Constitution to describe the original peoples of North America and their descendants and includes First Nations, Inuit, and Métis. See also: Indigenous. and Treaty rights in the section.
On November 23, Justice Minister Jean Chrétien announced that all nine provincial signatories agreed that the override would not apply to section 28, and that the Aboriginal Aboriginal is the collective term used in the Constitution to describe the original peoples of North America and their descendants and includes First Nations, Inuit, and Métis. See also: Indigenous. rights provision (section 35) would be reinserted into the Constitution.
The women of Canada had mobilized to protect their rights, and the politicians of Canada had listened.
The final version of the patriation The process of bringing the British North America Act, 1867 – the Constitution of Canada – under full domestic control, rather than having it remain as an act of the British Parliament. After decades of effort, patriation was completed with the 1982 passage of the Canada Act in Britain and the Constitution Act in Canada. It includes a means of amending the Constitution in Canada. The new Constitution was not endorsed by the government of Québec. agreement was adopted in the House of Commons The “lower” legislative assembly of Parliament (relative to the Senate’s “upper” house) in the Canadian Parliament. The House is composed of the popularly elected representatives of ridings (electoral districts) across Canada. on Wednesday, December 2, 1981
Women's March, Toronto, 2017
After 1981
Women's Rights in a Post-Charter Canada
After 1981
Women's Rights in a Post-Charter Canada
Section 28 has not been used extensively, and when it has, it rarely has been interpreted to advance women’s rights, disappointing feminists.
For the most part, women seeking equality rights have used section 15, which protects against discrimination on the basis of sex, as well as other grounds such as disability, race, colour or age. They have also used section 7 (life, liberty and security of the person) on issues such as abortion rights and the legality of criminal laws concerning prostitution.
Judy Erola, the cabinet minister who vowed to Trudeau that the women of the country would together convince the premiers to protect gender equality, believes that there is still much to be fought for — first and foremost, for example, a national child care program.
Far from over
The number of women elected to Canadian Parliament has risen significantly since the days of Judy Erola and Pauline Jewett, though women still hold only a quarter of the seats in Canada’s parliament and legislatures. And while women have made significant gains as result of the entrenching of equality rights provisions in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms The Charter sets out the rights and freedoms that are officially guaranteed by the Canadian Constitution, “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” It is Part 1, sections 1-34 of the Constitution Act, 1982. , there is also a greater awareness that women’s rights have to be defined more inclusively than they often were in 1981, to recognize intersecting layers of inequality. For women of colour, Indigenous Indigenous is the collective term for the original peoples of North America and their descendants, and includes First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples. See also: Aboriginal, which is found in the Constitution. The Government of Canada has officially changed “Aboriginal” to “Indigenous” in its ministries, legislation and documents. Canada has made it clear that the term “Indigenous” covers the legal definitions of “Aboriginal” and “Indian” for most constitutional purposes. women, immigrant women, women living with disabilities, lesbian and bisexual women, non-gender-conforming people, women in poverty, and others, the quest for gender equality is far from over.
Women Demand Equality
The voices of Canadian women were excluded from the negotiations surrounding the patriation of the Constitution.
Women Across Country Mobilize
Canadian Milestones in Women's Rights
Women Mobilize On The Constitution
Women's Rights in a Post-Charter Canada
