Trial Balloon On Same-Sex Benefits

The federal Liberal party appears to be working in collusion with homosexual activist groups to bring in same-sex benefits for everything from pensions to bankruptcies and the Criminal Code.

The initiative for these proposed monumental changes appears to be coming directly from Justice Minister, Anne McLellan, well-known for her feminist beliefs and the feminist lawyers within her department.

According to a story in the Globe and Mail (January 20, 1999), the following reasons were given for these proposed amendments:

1. A growing stack of court cases giving homosexual rights in federal laws. However, in May, 1995, the Supreme Court of Canada, in Nesbit and Egan, concluded that it was not discrimination for the government to give special benefits to traditional spouses of the opposite sex.

Moreover, the Supreme Court of Canada has yet to hand down its decision in M v H dealing with the legality of a lesbian couple receiving family benefits. Any lower court decision which contradicts the Supreme Court decision, of course, is not binding on the government and the government is fully aware of this.

2. An apparent absence of backlash when Immigration Minister Lucienne Robillard announced that the government would admit same-sex families to Canada as "spouses" was cited as a reason to proceed. Yet, that announcement from Ms. Robillard was included among several proposed amendments to the Immigration Act, only two weeks previously -- scarcely time to measure the public's response to it.

Moreover, since 1992, in all polls on the awarding of same-sex benefits, the majority of Canadians have not been in support of it. The one exception is the poll commissioned by the Justice Department last October. We all know that the results of polls depends on the questions asked, and even the uninitiated would recognize that this Justice poll skewed its questions, designed to obtain the desired results -- which widely differed from all other polls in Canada.

It is significant that this attempt to change the law follows hard on the heels (two weeks) of a homosexual group announcement that it is challenging 58 federal laws. The homosexual group, "Foundation for Equal Families" has stated that it is willing to drop the case if the government proceeds with changes under a set time line.

The Justice Department, according to the news report, is now trying to determine how it will bring about these massive changes. "High level" decisions are alleged to be underway in a number of government departments to decide best how to implement them. It could bring in a massive omnibus bill, but this might create a focal point for these opposed to these changes. The alternative is to proceed case by case on a piecemeal basis which the government believes will likely get specific legislation amended faster than one large bill, and will dissipate public opposition to these changes -- by way of simple attrition.

The larger question is why is the government doing this? By giving recognition and benefits to homosexual couples, it is obviously proposing to discriminate against all other family arrangements such as households of parent/child, two siblings or two individuals of the same sex who are not homosexual/lesbian in orientation, but who are cohabiting and sharing in a loving commitment to each other. Why this artificial distinction and generosity to same-sex couples at the expense of other, committed Canadians?

Clearly, there is neither logic nor reason behind this initiative.

These proposals are contemptuous of both the public's views and their pocketbook, and indicates a willingness to submit to pressure from special interest groups.

There is always the possibility, however, that this announcement may be a trial balloon to determine public reaction to such a proposal.

It is known, however, that there are individuals prominently placed within the liberal government who have a particular interest in this issue and who are pushing it, together with Ms. McLellan -- clearly of the belief that it is now or never -- despite the Supreme Court of Canada decisions and what public opinion polls say on the issue.

Certainly Prime Minister Chrétien has managed to confuse the situation by stating that same-sex benefits is not on the agenda of the government (National Post, January 21, 1999), contradicting Justice Minister Anne McLellan in doing so. This statement, however, is not necessarily reassuring as he made a similar disclaimer just before his government moved to amend the federal Human Rights Act in 1996 to include protection for sexual orientation. One explanation for Mr. Chrétien's contradictory statement was made by one of the leaders of a homosexual group who tartly stated that he believes that the Prime Minister had not been briefed on the subject. Apparently, he is intimating that all Mr. Chrétien needed was to be brought up to speed by his staff as to what's happening.

We have a duty and obligation to present and future generations to stop any reckless descent into this discriminatory legislation against the family, which latter, according to Mr. J. Laforest in the Nesbit and Egan case, is the social unit fundamental to the stability and well being of society. We must let the government know that its proposal will not be tolerated. It must know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Canadians do not want any such legislation forced on us.

Please write:

The Right Honourable Jean Chrétien

Office of the Prime Minister

80 Wellington Sweet, 2nd Floor

Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6

Fax: (613) 941-6900

The Hon. Anne McLellan

Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Justice Building

239 Wellington street

Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H8

Fax: (613) 990-7255

Your MP

House of Commons

Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6

objecting to the awarding of same-sex benefits.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS