Native Women's Assn of Canada v Canada facts for kids
Quick facts for kids Native Women's Assn of Canada v Canada |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Hearing: March 4, 1994 Judgment: October 27, 1994 |
|
| Full case name | Her Majesty The Queen v Native Women's Association of Canada, Gail Stacey-Moore and Sharon McIvor |
| Citations | [1994] 3 SCR 627, 1994 CanLII 27, 119 DLR (4th) 224, [1995] 1 CNLR 47, (1994), 24 CRR (2d) 233, (1994), 84 FTR 240 |
| Docket No. | 23253 |
| Prior history | Judgment for the claimants in the Federal Court of Appeal. |
| Holding | |
| A claim to a positive obligation on the government under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not supported by the evidence that an interest group's freedom of expression was not denied. | |
| Court membership | |
| Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer Puisne Justices: Gérard La Forest, Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, John Sopinka, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major |
|
| Reasons given | |
| Majority | Sopinka J., joined by Lamer C.J., La Forest, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci, and Major JJ. |
| Concurrence | McLachlin J. |
Native Women's Assn of Canada v Canada was a big decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1994. It was about whether the Canadian government had to give money to a group called the Native Women's Association of Canada (NWAC). This money would have helped them share their ideas during important talks about Canada's laws.
The case looked at parts of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These parts included Section 2 (freedom of expression), Section 15 (equality rights), and Section 28 (equality between sexes). The Court decided that the government did not have to give NWAC money.
This case was a bit unusual. Usually, courts look at whether the government stopped someone from speaking freely. But here, NWAC was asking the Court to make the government help them speak. They wanted the government to provide money so they could share their views.
Contents
What Happened Before the Case?
In the early 1990s, there were important talks about changing Canada's main law, the Constitution of Canada. These talks were part of something called the Charlottetown Accord. A big topic was how to give more self-government to Aboriginal peoples in Canada.
The government gave money to four main Aboriginal groups to join these talks:
- the Assembly of First Nations (AFN)
- the Native Council of Canada (NCC)
- the Métis National Council (MNC)
- the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada (ITC)
The Native Women's Association of Canada (NWAC) was not given the same amount of money or access. Some money did go to them through other groups. This money was meant to discuss women's rights in Aboriginal communities. But NWAC felt left out of some important meetings.
NWAC believed that the other Aboriginal groups mainly spoke for Aboriginal men. They wanted to make sure that any new self-governments would respect the rights of Aboriginal women. They felt that Section 28 of the Charter (about sexual equality) meant Section 2 (freedom of expression) should make the government support them equally.
The Federal Court of Appeal first looked at the case. They thought that NWAC's treatment might have gone against Section 2 of the Charter.
The Supreme Court's Decision
The Supreme Court of Canada then heard the case. Most of the judges, led by Justice John Sopinka, disagreed with the Federal Court of Appeal. They decided against NWAC.
However, the Court did say that the Charter could apply to this situation. The government had argued that if NWAC was left out, it was the fault of the other Aboriginal groups. The government said the Charter only applies to the government itself, not to these other groups. But the Court said the real issue was how the government chose to give out its money.
Freedom of Expression and Equality
The Court looked closely at Section 2 (freedom of expression) and Section 28 (sexual equality). They agreed that talking about constitutional issues is a form of expression. But they found that the government had not stopped NWAC from speaking.
NWAC argued that since the government supported other groups, it should support them fairly and equally. They said that Section 28 meant Aboriginal women should get the same chance to express themselves.
The Court thought about an earlier case called Haig v. Canada. NWAC felt Haig meant that if the government supports expression, it must do so fairly. They also felt Section 28 made their claim stronger.
But the Court disagreed. They said that if the government had to fund every group for every study, it would cost too much money. It would also make government processes very slow.
The Court also said there was no clear proof that the other Aboriginal groups (AFN, NCC, ITC, MNC) only represented Aboriginal men. They also said there was no proof these groups were pushing for self-governments that would only help men. For example, the ITC said they represented all Inuit people, not just men. They also said another group, Pauktuutit, represented Inuit women. The Court believed the main Aboriginal groups could also share NWAC's concerns in the talks.
Other Rights Claims
The Court also quickly dismissed NWAC's claims under Section 15 (equality rights). They said these claims were very similar to the ones made under Section 2.
Finally, the Court also dismissed claims under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Section 35 protects Aboriginal rights for both men and women. But the Court said there is no Aboriginal right to debate changes to the Constitution.
Agreeing Opinions
Two other judges wrote separate opinions that agreed with the main decision.
Justice L'Heureux-Dube's Opinion
Justice Claire L'Heureux-Dube agreed with the final decision. But she had a different idea about how to understand the Haig v. Canada case. She said Haig was about voting rights in a referendum, not about whether the government must always fund groups for expression. She agreed that NWAC's freedom to speak was not stopped, even if they didn't get the support they wanted.
Justice McLachlin's Opinion
Justice Beverley McLachlin also agreed. She wrote that governments should be free to choose who they get advice from on important topics. She said that these "policy talks" are different from voting rights, which Haig was about. She felt the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not limit the government's choice in funding its advisors.
See also
- Gender equality
- List of gender equality lawsuits
