Cover Image: Illustration by Dakota – Ojibwa Productions and Womynly Way Productions. Poster for "Native Women’s Festival, a celebration of the strength and power of Native Women: through music, theatre, story and dance." Originally from the Women's Information Center collection in Toronto, 4 August 1985, CWMA Collection (10-001), Archives and Special Collections, University of Ottawa.
Beginning at their inaugural conference in Winnipeg, 1975, the women of NAWL had committed themselves to protecting Indigenous women’s rights. At this conference, themed around “Women and Work,” NAWL hosted a workshop on “The Role of Métis Women,” facilitated by Rita Cuiboche, then-president of the Métis Women's Association of Manitoba. The workshop began with an overview of the history of Métis women and their subjugated status. Cuiboche argued that “The Manitoba Métis Federation (a male run organization) strives for the advancement of the men” while “the women have literally been left behind.” [1]
This year, in partnership with NAWL, the University of Ottawa Archives and Special Collections celebrates NAWL’s 50th anniversary by delving into the organization’s history, including their landmark achievements, legal interventions, organizational challenges, and their undeniable impact on Canadian society. This section of the exhibit will focus on Marriage Equality in Indigenous and lesbian contexts; on intersectionality; and the future of NAWL. You may click the following links to learn about The Founding of NAWL, and their important contributions to legislation surrounding Women and Work, Violence Against Women, and Reproductive Justice.
While Cuiboche explained that Métis women had begun to organize themselves, part of the problem was a lack of funding: “the men’s organizations which purport to represent both men and women (but don’t) are given high priority for funding, and... the Secretary of State does not grant funds for core funding.” Despite these challenges, she noted that the Métis Women’s Association of Manitoba had set up family planning centres and counselling services in several Métis communities, staffed by Métis women. [1]
Discussion at this workshop focused on improving the conditions of Métis women and ending discrimination against them. Women at this workshop also stressed the fact that, although they were frequently lumped together as Native peoples, there were “great differences in characteristics as well as different problems and aims” between “treaty Indians,” “non-status Indians,” and “Métis.” [1] Significantly, this discussion took place at a time when Indigenous women were disadvantaged by gender discrimination in the Indian Act:
Until 1985, women with Indian status who married someone without status lost their status rights. Men, on the other hand, did not lose Indian status in the same way. Even after Bill C-31 reinstated the status rights of many women in 1985, the Act still discriminated against women by privileging male lines of descent." [2]
Left Image: Holly Penner, Cover of "Background Paper on Bill C-31: An Act to Amend the Indian Act, 1988, box 22, file 20, NAWL fonds (10-036), Archives and Special Collections, University of Ottawa.
The Indian Act’s codification of male bloodlines as the defining feature of Indigeneity disadvantaged Native women by prohibiting them from participating in the band system, which replaced Indigenous models of governance that had been more inclusive.
Several resolutions grew out of NAWL’s workshop on Métis women, all of which were ratified at the plenary session:
WHEREAS The Canadian Bill of Rights recognizes the equality of women in Canadian society:
AND WHEREAS the particular concerns of Métis and of non-status Indian women are not presently recognized by the Secretary of State department as independent;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this conference urge the Secretary of State Department to support the independent applications of Métis and of non-status Indian women for core funding.
WHEREAS the Métis people are struggling for recognition as an independent culture; BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian census include the category of Métis.
BE IT RESOLVED that the proposed Women and the Law Association support and actively assist the Métis, non-status Indian, and the status Indian Women’s Organization of Canada, through local caucuses.
BE IT RESOLVED that this conference endorse the active participation of Métis, non-status Indian women, and status Indian women in the rewriting of the Indian Act. [1]
In 1982, through lobbying efforts lead by Quebec representative Monique Charlebois, NAWL would submit their statement on “Discrimination Against Native Women Under the Indian Act” to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. This statement began by noting that “it is difficult to imagine any law with more blatantly discriminatory language” than the Indian Act, a fact that had been recognized by the United Nations Human Rights Commission in the previous year. NAWL also argued that “the enforced alienation and overall human misery caused by these provisions have been well-documented by native women’s groups” and “despite government arguments to the contrary in the 1970s, these studies clearly demonstrate that the Indian Act did not reflect family and tribal customs with respect to racial identity but was imposed by a male-dominated, paternalistic, white 19th century culture.” [3]
NAWL accused the Canadian government of resisting elimination of “this shameful blot in our history,” and condemned their “consistent refusal to include native women in the process of negotiations on status and membership... even though they are the most affected by the present system.” [3]
Left Image: Monique Charlebois, Introduction to “Discrimination Against Native Women Under the Indian Act,” 1982, box 14, file 10, NAWL fonds (10-036), Archives and Special Collections, University of Ottawa.
NAWL then put forward a list of demands that they viewed as essential to addressing the harms of such divisive laws:
That sections 10, 11(1)(f), 12(1)(b), 14 and 109 be repealed as a high priority of the next session of Parliament;
That these sections be replaced with provisions acceptable to Native Women’s Associations upon consultation with their representatives, to allow for humanitarian and non-discriminatory determination of Indian status, and;
That Indian women having lost their status through marriage to a non-Indian be reinstated. [3]
In this way, NAWL supported the efforts and demands of key Indigenous women’s activists, including Mary Two-Axe Earley, Yvonne Bédard, Jeannette Corbiere Lavell, and Sandra Lovelace Nicholas.
It was not until 1985 that these demands were finally met, through the introduction of Bill C-31: An Act to Amend The Indian Act, which reinstated status for many Indigenous women. However, a background paper on the bill written by NAWL’s Holly Penner in 1988 describes the legislation as “a compromise between the collective rights of Indians to self-government and the individual and collective rights of Indian women to equal treatment, Indian status, and band membership. While these interests do not need to conflict,” she argued, “the structure of Bill C-31 (in combination with the effects of early Indian Acts) creates a competition between various Indians and Indian groups which serves to divide Indian people against themselves.” [4]
Bill C-31 sought to bring The Indian Act in line with equality provisions in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (which had just come into effect in 1985) and to rectify the fact that Indigenous women who lost status were cut off from their cultures, forced to leave reserves, and prevented from participating in their family traditions and cultures. However, Bill C-31 soon caused new problems by bringing an influx of people onto reserves, while providing no specific funding for this new demand on resources. Moreover, by separating the categories of band status and Indian membership, many Indigenous women were still denied access to their traditional lands and prevented from influencing the governance of their communities. [2]
Right Image: Louise Shaughnessy, correspondence with Minister of Human Resources Development Canada in support of Pauktuutit Inuit Women's Association of Canada, box 66, file 37, NAWL fonds (10-036), Archives and Special Collections, University of Ottawa.
In addition to supporting Native Women’s groups’ struggle to reform The Indian Act, in the late 1990s, NAWL wrote to various law schools and law societies about discrimination present in the LSAT and Bar Exams. These letters were designed to provide NAWL with an understanding of the relationship between Indigenous women and law schools across the country, as well as the programs in place to assist Indigenous women in entering the legal profession. NAWL also sought to address the discrimination experienced by Indigenous, Black, and racialized women in finding employment in the private bar after law school. [5]
In the early 2000s, NAWL was joined by Sharon McIvor, a leading Indigenous activist and member of the Lower Nicola band. After the passage of Bill C-31, McIvor continued to fight against discrimination present in The Indian Act, which still denied status rights to her children and grandchildren. In 2004, in partnership with the Feminist Alliance for International Action (FAFIA), NAWL helped to send McIvor to the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in New York. Here, McIvor was able to network with other Indigenous activists, and heard talks by Native women on several key issues including “racialized violence against Canada's Indigenous women.”
Right Image: NAWL & FAFIA Report to Nancy Ruth Foundation, 2004, box 58, file 8, NAWL fonds (10-036), Archives and Special Collections, University of Ottawa.
McIvor was also present for the presentation of an NWAC brief on “the significant phobia and subsequent discrimination faced by Indigenous women who identify as lesbian, Two-Spirit, transgendered, and women who are disabled,” exemplifying the fact that many women’s groups had begun thinking about intersectional issues in this period. Through her attendance at this forum, McIvor gained “a more in-depth knowledge of the ways Aboriginal women can affect UN processes.” [6]
Throughout their other campaigns for women’s legal rights, such as criminal law reform, NAWL had to ensure that proposed amendments would not disproportionately affect Indigenous, Black, and racialized women. Since their inauguration, NAWL strove to address racial discrimination in the legal profession and the judiciary, often reaffirming their opposition to racial stereotypes which perpetuated myths about violence against women. For example, in their writing about protective legislation for sexual assault victims, NAWL noted that immigrant women, Indigenous women and women on welfare would be particularly susceptible because they are often subject to extensive legal surveillance and record-keeping.
NAWL often attempted to balance their desire for more serious sanctions in sexual violence cases with their understanding that racialized men were often subject to the harshest sentences, as racialized stereotypes played into sentencing decisions for men accused of violence. Before they were defunded by Stephen Harper’s federal government in 2006, NAWL also sought to include lesbian women in their analyses of gender inequality and began learning about the kinds of legislation that affected transgendered women.
Throughout the 1990s, NAWL actively lobbied for the legal recognition of same-sex marriages. They also created a Lesbian Rights Working Group to analyze historical patterns of lesbian repression; actual patterns of discrimination against lesbians; the political significance of lesbianism in a patriarchal society; lesbian oppression as sexual discrimination; and the need to specifically address the subordination of lesbians. [7]
Left Image: barbara findlay, Notes from the Lesbian and Gay Working Group, 3 March 1992, NAWL fonds (10-036), Archives and Special Collections, University of Ottawa.
By 1990, NAWL had already developed their official position that sexual orientation should become a protected category under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In a media statement released in December 1990 titled ”Human Rights in Canada Deficient,” NAWL stated that, in addition to the ironic bias against women demonstrated in Canadian Human Rights Tribunal selections, gay and lesbian groups had been ”expressly excluded” from official discussions on reforming the Canadian Human Rights Act. [8]
Right Image: NAWL Press Release, "Human Rights in Canada Deficient," 11 December 1990, NAWL fonds (10-036), Archives and Special Collections, University of Ottawa.
In the mid-1990s, NAWL vehemently expressed their support for Bill C-33, which would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination. According to NAWL’s paper on “Bill C-33: An Act Respecting Human Rights in Canada, A Promise Finally Fulfilled,” such amendments had been promised “by a succession of governments, Liberals included, since the late 1970s.” NAWL had been actively urging the federal government to amend the CHRA to include protection for gays and lesbians since 1977. [9] In 1996, NAWL’s Director of Legislation and Law Reform, Louise Shaughnessy, wrote directly to then-Prime Minister Jean Chretien in response to the federal government’s indication that they would consider allowing a free vote on the proposed amendment: “We are outraged that this is being considered,” Shaughnessy wrote:
Human rights are a matter of universal principle and not of individual conscience. The Canadian people expect the government to show moral leadership. Allowing a free vote on this issue is an abdication of this responsibility. The principles and spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrine within Canadian society basic recognition of government support for everyone’s right to dignity and respect. We urge your government to take a position of principle.” [10]
Ultimately, a free vote was not called, and Bill C-33 would be granted royal assent in June 1996.
In March 2000, NAWL appeared again before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in response to the Liberal government’s introduction of Bill C-23, the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act. The Act would give same-sex couples who lived together for more than a year the same benefits and obligations as common-law couples. However, in March of that year, Justice Minister Anne McLellan announced that the bill would also include a definition of marriage as "the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others," in order to reassure the public that the bill would not effect traditional marriage. [11]
According to an op-ed by Andrew Coyne and published in the National Post, the language of the bill would essentially erase legal distinctions between married and common law couples, while allowing the Liberals to “cover their right flank by reserving the symbolic form of marriage to heterosexual unions—thereby sustaining the insult to gays and lesbians—while emptying it of any content.” [11]
In their presentation to the Standing Committee, NAWL agreed with this assessment, stating that “Bill C-23 presumably purports to establish formal equality for gay and lesbian couples. While we do not discount the value of formal equality, this Bill is incomplete and it fails to live up to its own promise. Indeed, it maintains the ongoing ban on lesbian and gay marriage, despite the fact that the Supreme Court has stated that governments must respect the equality of same-sex spouses.” [12]
Similarly, John Fisher of the gay and lesbian rights group Egale, interviewed about the Bill for The Ottawa Citizen in March 2000, stated that “The first thing gays and lesbians will see when they open this legislation is an express statement that our relationships are not seen as equally worthy and that we’re banned from the institution of marriage. It’s a clear sellout to the dinosaurs in the caucus.” [13] These statements seem to echo criticisms which NAWL had lobbed at the federal government years earlier, when they stated that vague, imprecise, and piecemeal reproductive justice laws were a deliberate tactic which attempted to please “both sides” of an issue and therefore avoid moral controversy.
In April 2003, NAWL also submitted a brief on Marriage and the Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Unions to the Standing Commission on Justice and Human Rights in Sudbury, where they stated their concern about “the impact of the prohibition against same-sex marriage on lesbians, bisexual women and transgendered women” and strongly recommended “the exclusive preserve of marriage to heterosexual couples be abolished, and that all women have the right to marry the person of their choice.” [14]
They argued that discrimination against same-sex marriage could not be justified in a free and democratic society, and that “the objective of fostering heterosexual marriages to the exclusion of same-sex marriages is a reflection of heterosexist values inherited from religious dogma and patriarchal laws. It is the expression of social prejudice and hatred and serves no other purpose than excluding those members of society who are deemed to be ‘deviant’ from the dominant heterosexual model.” [14]
However, NAWL was "gravely disappointed” by the Committee's response, and reported to their members that the Standing Committee had refused to engage in discussion about the principles of democracy, freedom, and non-discrimination. Instead, NAWL reported, the MPs “resorted to degrading myths and stereotypes,” and “were quick to respond with uninformed, irrelevant and blatantly homophobic questions and claims that had nothing to do with the principles we were asking them to consider and to apply,” including a question from MP Chuck Cadman which associated same-sex marriage with polygamy and incest. [15]
Moreover, according to the report, “NAWL was made to participate alongside individuals who spoke of so-called biblical ‘truths’ about the sin of homosexuality,” and as such, “the consultations were made into a circus that staged a contest between conflicting rights and interests of equality and religious beliefs, even though such beliefs had nothing to do with the mandate of the Committee.” In this circulation, NAWL expressed their lack of faith in the Committee and its ability to fulfill its mandate for justice and human rights. [15]
Left Image: "Examples of Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation," creator unknown, NAWL fonds (10-036), Archives and Special Collections, University of Ottawa.
Through the combined efforts of Egale, NAWL, and other human rights groups, same-sex marriage would be legalized with the passing of the Civil Marriage Act in July 2005. Shortly thereafter, NAWL would be defunded by then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper in 2006, a vocal opponent of gay and lesbian marriage rights. Nevertheless, the conclusion of their presentation to the Standing Committee in 2005 gives a beautiful summary NAWL’s accomplishments since 1974, as well as their hopes and dreams for a society free from the enshrined discrimination which they had struggled against for the past three decades:
In almost three decades of work as a feminist, equality-seeking organization, NAWL has been critical of the extent to which the institution and regulation of marriage has been implicated in structures of gender inequality. We have recognized that, historically, marriage has been used to reinforce women’s social and economic subordination to, and dependence on, men. In the past, its rules and regulations have facilitated the appropriation and devaluation of women’s work, and the denial of women’s rights to independent earnings, to property, and to custody of her children...
... up until 1985, marriage has been used to further the colonialist and racist policies of the Canadian state, by disenfranchising Indian women who married white men, and excluding them from their Aboriginal heritage. The discrimination and inequality that were engendered by these policies have severe impacts that are ongoing and create untold hardship for women and their children to this very day. Such inequalities have been reflected in, and exacerbated by, the ongoing gendered division of labor in the family, the systemic sexual and racial discrimination in the labour market, the cuts to social security programs and the increasing trend in favor of privatization, which still result in the “feminization” of poverty and the ongoing inequality of women.
Even though marriage has been infused with archaic ideologies and social prejudices regarding sex roles and behaviors, over the years we have seen substantial changes, both in the courts and before provincial and federal legislatures, which have brought reform to family law and that have gradually introduce egalitarian principles. NAWL applauds those developments that are in keeping with Constitutional equality guarantees and that aim to prevent the imposition of disadvantage and to promote a society in which all persons enjoy equality recognition at law as human beings or as full participants in Canadian society, equally deserving of concern and respect.
At the dawn of the 21st century, it is imperative that this movement toward women’s equality in the family and in society not be blocked by discriminatory legislation and policies. It is imperative that the Canadian government recognize the rights and the dignity interests of lesbians, bi-sexual women and transgendered women, and that it remove all legal barriers to their equality. A just, fair and equal society is one which respects the dignity and the human rights of lesbians, and that fully recognizes their right to marry the person of their choice. Nothing short of this will suffice. We count on you to be the advocates for justice and human rights, and to recommend that the government effectively protect and promote the equality rights of all Canadians. [16]
Like many second-wave feminist organizations which coalesced in the late-20th century, NAWL had to contend with its own policies and biases and began working diligently toward the full inclusion for bisexual women, transgendered women, and Indigenous, Black, and racialized women in their legislative efforts. While this work led to challenges and heated debate between members, such controversies are fundamental to the development and maturation of social movements, and NAWL’s archival materials demonstrate that members did not shy away from the hard conversations required for organizational change. In 2017, NAWL was re-funded by the federal government, and immediately renewed its efforts for feminist law reform in Canada. To learn more about NAWL’s current work, visit their website at https://nawl.ca/
This exhibit was created by Meghan Tibbits-Lamirande, ARCS storyteller-in-residence
**Copyright Permission to display and share the content of items for which we do not have copyright has been obtained where possible, however, the University of Ottawa does not represent or guarantee this to be the case for every individual item. You agree that any use of this content will be at your sole risk, and that the University of Ottawa will not be responsible or liable for any damages that may occur due to your use. If you are the owner of content that you believe has been improperly attributed or is being used without permission, please get in touch by email: arcs@uottawa.ca. You can also fill out the Request for Takedown of Library Materials and Archives.
WORKS CITED
[1] Cuiboche, Rita. Workshop on “The Role of Métis Women,” National Association of Women and the Law, Women and Work Conference Program. Winnipeg, MB, January 30-February 2, 1975, box 9, file 12, NAWL fonds (10-036), Archives and Special Collections, University of Ottawa.
[2] The Canadian Encyclopedia, “Indian Act,” https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/indian-act
[3] Charlebois, Monique. “Discrimination Against Native Women Under the Indian Act,” NAWL’s submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, 1982, box 14, file 10, NAWL fonds (10-036), Archives and Special Collections, University of Ottawa.
[4] Penner, Holly. "Background Paper on Bill C-31: An Act to Amend the Indian Act," 1988, box 22, file 20, NAWL fonds (10-036), Archives and Special Collections, University of Ottawa.
[5] National Association of Women and the Law. Short description of Racism in the Legal Profession Working Group, c. 1992-1997, box 58, file 20, NAWL fonds (10-036), Archives and Special Collections, University of Ottawa.
[6] NAWL & FAFIA, “Report to Nancy Ruth Foundation,” 2004, box 58, file 8, NAWL fonds (10-036), Archives and Special Collections, University of Ottawa.
[7] National Association of Women and the Law, Outline for brief on Bill C-23, 9 March 2000, NAWL fonds (10-036), Archives and Special Collections, University of Ottawa.
[8] NAWL Press Release, "Human Rights in Canada Deficient," 11 December 1990, NAWL fonds (10-036), Archives and Special Collections, University of Ottawa.
[9] National Association of Women and the Law, "Bill C-33: An Act Respecting Human Rights in Canada, A Promise Finally Fulfilled," 1 May 1996, box 72, file 6, NAWL fonds (10-036), Archives and Special Collections, University of Ottawa.
[10] Shaughnessy, Louise. Letter to Prime Minister Jean Chretien, 1996, box 48, file 16, NAWL fonds (10-036), Archives and Special Collections, University of Ottawa.
[11] Coyne, Andrew. "Destroying Marriage to Save It," The National Post, 24 March 2000, NAWL fonds (10-036), Archives and Special Collections, University of Ottawa.
[12] National Association of Women and the Law. The Importance of Respecting the Substantive Equality Rights of Lesbians NAWL’s presentation to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Bill C-23 L'importance de respecter les droits des lesbiennes à l'égalité matérielle | National Association of Women and the Law.1 February 2000.
[13] O’Neill, Juliet. "Marriage definition 'just cosmetic," The Ottawa Citizen, 24 March 2000, NAWL fonds (10-036), Archives and Special Collections, University of Ottawa.
[14] National Association of Women and the Law, Sudbury, 9 April 2003, SubmissionofNAWLonMarriageandtheLegalRecognitionofSame-SexUnionstotheStandingCommitteeonJusticeandHumanRights.pdf
[15] National Association of Women and the Law, Report to membership on Same-Sex Marriage Hearings, 14 July 2003. Same-Sex Hearings | National Association of Women and the Law (nawl.ca)