Institué en 1992 par le gouvernement du Canada, le mois de l’histoire des femmes est l’occasion d’approfondir nos connaissances sur la contribution des femmes à la société canadienne. On prend souvent pour acquis ces libertés et ces droits pour lesquels nos aïeules se sont si durement battues. Les élections étant d’actualité, une révision de l’histoire du droit de vote trouve toute sa pertinence. Après tout, cela fait moins de 20 ans que le droit de suffrage s’applique à tous les résidents du Canada.

Le droit de vote

Ces changements ont entraîné de la résistance. À partir de 1860, un élan de militantisme résulte de la volonté des femmes à contribuer au bien-être moral et social. Cela marque le début du mouvement en faveur du droit de vote des femmes. La Ligue littéraire des femmes, fondée en 1886 à Toronto, est la première organisation luttant pour les droits des femmes au Canada. Les suffragettes, nom donné aux femmes qui luttaient pour le droit de suffrage, ont mené des campagnes, tenu des conférences, organisé des manifestations et des pétitions sans relâche. Elles ont affronté les politiciens et la violente opposition de l’opinion publique et du clergé.

Le système parlementaire canadien exige une reconnaissance des gouvernements provinciaux et fédéraux. Ce sont les Manitobaines qui ont été les premières à obtenir le droit de vote, le 14 mars 1916. Un an plus tard, le 12 avril 1917, le droit de suffrage est accordé aux Ontariennes. Il faudra que les Québécoises attendent 22 ans pour avoir une voix au gouvernement provincial!

Lors de la guerre, il y a eu deux législations qui permettaient à certaines femmes de voter au niveau fédéral. En 1917, le Wartime Elections Act, donnait un droit électoral conditionnel aux femmes de plus de 21 ans. Il fallait qu’elles soient la femme, la mère ou la fille d’un homme ou d’une femme au service des forces armées canadiennes. Le 24 mai 1918, les canadiennes obtiennent le droit de vote au niveau fédéral. Le problème de la représentation électorale des femmes n’est pas résolu car beaucoup d’entre elles sont encore exclues des listes.

En 1967, la Commission Royale sur la situation de la femme est mise sur pied. Cette enquête est à l’écoute des préoccupations des groupes de femmes, des organismes communautaires et des citoyennes et citoyens du Canada.

Le rapport final paraît en 1970, il comprend 167 recommandations pour le gouvernement. Suite à ces conseils, le ministère fédéral de la Condition féminine est créé. Le 17 avril 1985, l’article 15 est intégré à la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne. Cet article indique que tous sont égaux devant la loi, sans distinctions fondées sur le sexe, la race, la religion, les déficiences et l’origine nationale ou ethnique.

Le mois de la femme incite à célébrer les réussites du passé, mais c’est aussi l’occasion de prendre conscience du travail qui reste à faire.

L’égalité n’est pas une réalité. L’écart salarial entre les hommes et les femmes reste considérable. Selon Statistiques Canada: « Les femmes représentent une fraction disproportionnée de la population à faible revenu du Canada. » En effet, 53% des familles où le revenu est assuré par une femme vivent dans la pauvreté, en dessous du seuil de faible revenu (SFR) fixé par Statistique Canada.

Pourtant il n’est pas seulement question d’argent mais aussi des conséquences liées au manque de moyens financiers, tel l’accès aux études supérieures. Sans éducation l’incidence de pauvreté augmente, et le cycle se perpétue. A. Davis, mère de deux enfants, explique « Je ne peux pas trouver un emploi à plus de 13$ par heure, en faisant tout juste 500$ par semaine, j’ai du mal à payer toutes mes factures. J’aimerais que mes filles aillent à l’université, mais je ne pourrai jamais les aider. »

La femme, une personne depuis 74 ans !

Les « Célèbres cinq »: Irene Parlby, Emily Murphy, Nellie McClung, Henrietta Muir Edwards et Louise McKinney, faisaient cette démarche afin de savoir si les femmes pouvaient être nommées au Sénat. À la suite du jugement de la Cour établissant que le terme « personne » n’incluait pas les femmes, les requérantes ont demandé que l’on fasse parvenir un appel au Comité judiciaire du Conseil privé d’Angleterre.

Le 18 octobre 1929, le Comité judiciaire a renversé la décision de la Cour suprême pour statuer que le terme « personne » de l’article 24 incluait les femmes et qu’elles étaient « admissibles à être appelées par le Sénat canadien et à en devenir membre » (Dominion Law Reports [1930]).

-------

Condition Féminine Canada ; www.swc-cfc.gc.ca
Claire du Sablon, Chronologie Historique des femmes du Québec, Bibliothèque nationale du Canada (2003), Série de profils du Centre canadien de la statistique juridique, « Les Femmes au Canada »

Translation

The right to vote

The Constitutional Act of 1791 (/1791 Constitutional Act) [4] gave the right to vote to women property owners (/women property owners the right to vote). This right was revoked in 1849 (/In 1849 this right was revoked), a victory for the Patriots who had several times tried to get a bill to this effect passed [4a]. Another attack on women's rights was the adoption in 1866 of the new French Civil Code (/civil code) of 1804. At that time a woman was entirely subject to her husband, she couldn't practice (/practise [5]) a profession different from his [6], she had to take (/adopt) his nationality, etc. [7]

These changes led to (/met with) resistance. Starting in 1860 a surge of militancy resulted from the desire (/wish) of women to contribute to moral and social welfare (/to the moral welfare of society [8]). It marked the beginning of the movement for (/in favour of) women's right to vote (/of the suffragette movement). The Toronto Women's Literary League [9], founded in 1866, was the first Canadian organization to fight for the rights of women. The suffragettes, a name given to women fighting for the right to vote, tirelessly led campaigns, held conferences, organized protests (/demonstrations [3]) and petitions. They confronted [10] politicians, and faced the violent opposition of public opinion and the clergy.

The Canadian parliamentary system requires recognition from (/the recognition of) both federal and provincial governments. Manitoban women (/Women in Manitoba) were the first to obtain the right to vote, on 14 March 1916. A (/One) year later, on 12 April 1917, women in Ontario (/Ontario women /Ontarian women) were granted this right. Quebec women had to wait 22 years to have a voice in provincial government!

During the war, two pieces of legislation [11] were passed that gave a federal vote to certain women. In 1917 the Wartime Elections Act gave a conditional electoral right to women over ((the age of)) 21. They had to be the wife, mother or daughter of a man or a woman serving in the Canadian armed forces. On 24 May 1918 Canadian women in general [12] obtained the right to vote at the federal level. The problem of the electoral representation of women (/women's electoral representation) was ((however [13])) not resolved as many of them were still excluded from the lists.

In 1967 the (/a) Royal Commission on the Status of Women was set up. This inquiry [14] addressed (/paid attention to) the concerns of women's groups, of community organizations [15] and of Canadian citizens of both genders.

The final report appeared in 1970, comprising 167 recommendations to the Government. Following this advice, a federal department, the Status of Women Canada (SWC), was created. On 17 April 1985 Section (/section) 15 [16] was incorporated into the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This section specifies that every individual is equal before the law, without discrimination based on sex, race, religion, mental or physical disability, national or ethnic origin [17].

Women's History Month is a call to celebrate the successes (/victories) of the past, but it is also an opportunity to become aware of the work that remains to be done.

Equality is not a reality. The pay diffential between men and women is still considerable. According to Statistics Canada "Women make up a disproportionate share of the population in Canada with low incomes." [18] In effect, 53% of families in which income is earned by (/depends on) a woman live in poverty, beneath the low income cut-offs (LICOs) [19] determined by Statistics Canada.

It is however not just a matter (/question) of money but also of the consequences of [19a] a lack of financial means, such as access to higher (/post-secondary) education. Without education the incidence of poverty increases, and the cycle repeats itself (/perpetuates itself). A. Davis, a mother of two children, explains: "I can't find a job at more than (/over) $13 an hour – with barely $500 a week I have a hard time paying all my bills. I'd like my daughters (/girls) to go to university (/I'd like for my daughters to go to university [19b]), but I'll never be able to help them." [19c]

Women, "persons" for only 74 years!

October 18 marks the 74th anniversary of the "Persons Case" [20]. In 1927 five suffragettes asked the Supreme Court of Canada to give an interpretation of the meaning of the word "person" (/"persons"  [21]) in Section 24 of the British North America Act of 1867 (/the 1867 British...).

The "Famous Five" – Irene Parlby, Emily Murphy, Nellie McClung, Henrietta Muir Edwards and Louise McKinney – took this step in order to know if (/whether) women could be appointed to the Senate. When the Supreme Court handed down (/rendered) its ruling (/decision /judgment /judgement) that the term "person" (/"persons") did not include women, the applicants requested that an appeal be lodged with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of (/in) England.

On 18 October 1929, the Judicial Committee (/Privy Council) reversed the decision of the Supreme Court ruling that the term "person" (/"persons") in Section 24 included women, and that they were "eligible to be summoned to and become members of the Senate of Canada" (Dominion Law Reports [1930]) [22]. [23]

Notes.
1. Besides Condition Féminine Canada (see above), see also "60th Anniversary of women's right to vote" (document du bureau du Directeur général des élections du Québec). It is obvious that the writer of the article, Noémie Dorn, has gathered much of her documentation from the Web, in particular from federal and provincial government sites (e.g. Statistics Canada). The translator then must do the same. One of the big advantages that the Canadian translator has with this type of text is that all government sites are bilingual, and one can often, though not always, go directly from a French page to the corresponding English one.
2. The French aïeules poses a problem of translation : the full, literal translation would be something like "female forebears" or "female ancestors", both of which are stylistically somewhat ugly. Either one retains the full semantic content through modulation ´: "grandmothers" ; or else one accepts a partial loss : "forebears" (the spelling forbears is considered by the Oxford Guide to Canadian English Usage to be "an uncommon spelling variant"). The modulation solution is probably preferable.
3. Faux amis contextuels (cf. note 10) : révision et revision (révision est la nominalisation et de revoir et de réviser) ; F. manifestation et A. manifestation.
3a. The French is inaccurate since only Canadian citizens among residents of Canada have the vote (see "Right to vote" page of Elections Canada Web site; see also Citizenship and Immigration Canada for the difference between citizenship and residency).
4. See full text of the Constitutional Act at site 1 or site 2.
4a. The French is incorrectly elliptical.
5. "[M]ost Canadians spell the noun practice and the verb practise. [....] However, many Canadians spell the verb with a c, and this variant is recommended by some Canadian newspaper style guides." (Oxford Guide to Canadian English Usage. "Practice. Both noun and verb."} (The Globe and Mail Style Book, a Guide to Language and Usage).
6. The French is incorrect : it should read "une profession différente de celle de son mari".
7. In the first clause one can either say "women" or "a woman" ; however the next two clauses make it impossible to use the plural (ambiguity of "their").
8. "Moral welfare" poses no problems, either historically, or in the context of today. "Social welfare", though historically accurate, may be misunderstood because of present usage ; the suggested variant "the moral welfare of society" avoids this. The term "well-being", invented because of the perceived negative connotation of "welfare", is to be avoided at all costs : it would be a glaring anachronism, and also incorrect if associated with the word "moral".
9. See the page of the Government of Ontario Archives on "Les Droits de la femme".
10. Faux amis absolus (cf. note 3) : affronter et affront (en revanche, le nom français affront a le même sens que le nom anglais affront).
11. Attention au nombre : alors que la législation se dit legislation en anglais, le singulier une législation équivaut à ce que Vinay et Darbelnet appellent le singulatif en anglais : a piece of legislation. V&D notent les nombreux cas où on a un singulier et un pluriel en français alors que l'anglais utilise le singulatif et le collectif (ex. une information = a piece of information, des informations = information).
12. The French is poor in two respects : a) "les canadiennes" should have a capital "C" ; b) the comparison of 1917 and 1918 needs to be explicitly contraated : "les canadiennes" should more logically be stated "les Canadiennes en général".
13. The writer was in a hurry. The last sentence of the paragraph needs the qualification cependant/pourtant/néanmoins.
14. "Canadian writers [...] tend to distinguish the nouns inquiry and enquiry, preferring the former for formal investigation and the latter for scholarly research or intellectual work." (Oxford Guide to Canadian English Usage).
15. The English organization encompasses both organisation (action) and organisme (corps résultant) in French.
16. The French seems to indicate that Section 15 was numbered thus in the report, whereas the quoted section is in fact number 15 of the Charter. Coincidence or poor French?
17. The Charter states, in Section 15 : "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."
18. See corresponing page on Statistics Canada Web site.
19. See Statistics Canada Web page.
19a. The French "conséquences liées à" is a false étoffement of the simple, and correct, "conséquences de".
19b. What did A. Davis in fact say? As likely as not she spoke in English. Whereas correct English would demand "I'd like my daughters to go to university", she may well have used the common, though incorrect, turn of phrase "I'd like for my daughters to go to university" (cf. note 19c).
19c. The Express article is probably quoting from an English-language source, unfindable on the Web. All the translator can do is stay close to the register (and, of course, the meaning) of the French. One given is that this is spoken language. Analysis of the French shows that it is unmarked, neither formal nor familiar. In spoken English contraction of pronoun subject and auxiliary is unmarked (neutral); full forms would not be. The marked syntax of the sentence – i.e. lack of syntactically correct punctuation – is a feature of the written transcription, and not of the original. (Punctuation is, in the first place, the imperfect attempt by the written code to reproduce the subtle pauses and intonations of the oral language; it owes more to the logical analysis of complex syntax than to the situational features of oral communication.)
20. For information on the "Persons Case", see, for example, the page "Celebrating Women's Achievements" of the National Library of Canada, "the page "The "Famous Five" and the Persons Case" on the Status of Women Canada Web site, the page "Background on the 'Persons' Case" on the Senate of Canada site, "The Persons Case" on Canada Online.
21. In fact Section 24 uses the plural "persons" (to be precise "qualified persons"), the singular, used elsewhere, always being qualified by the masculine pronoun "he" or "him".
22. See the complete text of Section 24 of the 1867 BNA Act, of the key parts of the Senate's decision, and of the ruling of the Privy Council on a page entitled "Famous Five Persons’ Case", on a Web site of St. Thomas University, Fredericton.
23. Postscript. As an exercise in simulated professional translation, the text leaves much to be desired : on the one hand, the French is defective in form and content (cf. notes 3a, 4a, 6, 12, 13) ; and, on the other hand, more accurate and comprehensive information is already plentifully available in English. As a demonstration of the riches of the Web for the documentation and translation of this type of subject however, one could hardly find better.