A right-wing women’s group is considering joining other organizations in a constitutional challenge to sharply curtail the powers of the federal government. Gwendolyn Landolt, national vice president of REAL (Realistic, Equal, Active, for Life) Women of Canada, told the Straight before Christmas that several groups, which she wouldn’t identify, were working together on this issue.

“I can tell you there is a coalition around this—not just REAL Women—who are looking at this matter,” Landolt said. “We’re having more meetings later on after Christmas.”

Alison Brewin is executive director of West Coast Legal Education and Action Fund, a feminist legal-rights organization that has argued on the opposite side to REAL Women in the courts.

“They won’t get court-challenges funding, that’s for sure,” Brewin quipped, referring to the Harper government’s decision to eliminate funding for legal challenges on behalf of disadvantaged groups.

Under the British North America Act, provincial governments have responsibility over such areas as health and education, and the federal government has authority over such areas as national defence, immigration, and aboriginal affairs.

When asked if the groups were meeting for the purpose of possibly launching a court challenge against the federal government’s funding for health care and education, Landolt replied, “Yes....Health and welfare are matters of provincial jurisdiction.”

When asked if the coalition might challenge the federal government’s funding of the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, she said, “Yup. That’s a possibility.”

Landolt also alleged that Status of Women Canada, a national agency, has no constitutional right to deliver women’s programs. In addition, she claimed, Ottawa has no business funding daycare because this is also an area of provincial responsibility.

“Why is the federal government funding women’s shelters, for example?” Landolt asked. “Those are strictly provincial.”

Brewin said that the purpose of the BNA Act was to clarify which level of government had authority over certain areas. However, she said that the federal government must have “some capacity to support the needs of the citizens”.

“There is a part of our constitution that says very clearly that the federal government is responsible for ensuring that services are available nationally,” Brewin said.

Brewin also claimed that the federal government has a legal duty under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to ensure that provincial-government legal-aid programs meet the needs of historically disadvantaged groups.

Landolt claimed that Ottawa hands out $26 billion per year to “special-interest groups”, adding that this includes funding for cultural activities, such as museums and art galleries, and for sports programs. She acknowledged that Ottawa has constitutional authority to fund activities in the “national interest”, which can create legal uncertainty in some areas.

Landolt said that any legal challenge would start with the filing of a statement of claim in a superior court in one of the provinces.