BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE SAME-SEX SAGA CONTINUES

On September 16, 2003, the day after the House of Commons opened for the fall session, Alliance opposition leader, Stephen Harper, introduced a non-binding motion on the definition of marriage, identical to the motion voted on in the House of Commons on June 8, 1999. That motion read:

That in the opinion of this House it is necessary in light of public debate around recent court decisions, to reaffirm that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament take all necessary steps within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to preserve this definition.

This motion was passed in 1999 by a huge margin, 216-55, with all the Cabinet supporting it. The then Minister of Justice, Anne McLellan, stated the government's position:

Let me clearly state that the Government of Canada will be supporting the motion in the House today. The fact that we will be supporting the motion should come as a surprise to no one. I would like to thank the hon. Member for tabling the motion for the consideration of the House and for giving the government the opportunity to clarify our position on this important issue ... We on this side agree that the institution of marriage is a central and important institution in the lives of many Canadians. It plays an important part in all societies worldwide, second only to the fundamental importance of family to all of us …

The definition of marriage, which has been consistently applied in Canada, comes from an 1866 British case which holds that marriage is the "union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others." That case and that definition are considered clear law by ordinary Canadians, by academics and the courts. The courts have upheld the constitutionality of that definition …

Marriage has fundamental values and importance to Canadians and we do not believe on this side of the House that importance and value is in any way threatened or undermined by others seeking to have their long term relationship recognized. I support the motion for maintaining the clear legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others … (emphasis ours)

However, under current Justice Minister Martin Cauchon, it was a different story. Early in the debate, It quickly became apparent that the Liberals were taking the position that the part of the motion which provided that Parliament take all necessary steps within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to preserve that definition," was being interpreted by the Liberals to mean the endorsement of the "notwithstanding" (s.33) clause in the Charter (whereby Parliament could override a court decision). The Liberal government argued that to agree to this would destroy the Charter of Rights and all the protection it gives to the Canadian people.

Consequently, the Alliance party proposed an amendment to eliminate this particular reference. The vote on this amendment was a tie with the MPs deadlocked 134-134. House of Commons Speaker, Liberal MP Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands), a self-acknowledged homosexual, broke the tie by casting the deciding vote to defeat the Alliance amendment. When the main Alliance motion to retain the present definition of marriage was voted on, it was narrowly defeated 137-132. All 63 Alliance MPs voted to keep marriage as a union of a man and a woman. They were joined by 53 of the 150 Liberals who turned up to vote, 10 of the 14 Tories (including its leader, Peter Mackay) and three of the 23 Bloc Quebecois MPs, and three Independents.

The Liberal vote was supposed to be a free vote - but, of course, it was not, and never is, as the Cabinet were ordered to vote against the motion and also great pressure was placed on many of the Liberal backbenchers.

Effect of the Alliance Marriage Motion

An unfortunate fall-out of the Alliance motion on marriage is that it has cleared the way for the Liberal government to introduce its same-sex marriage legislation if it wishes to do so.

According to newspaper reports, Mr. Chrétien admitted at the Liberal caucus meeting on September 16, that he had agreed with the request from Ontario Liberal leader, Dalton McGuinty, not to take any action on the same-sex marriage issue until after the Ontario election on October 2. Shortly after that date, Minister of Justice Martin Cauchon may be introducing a same-sex marriage bill in the House of Commons, which the government is now free to do, since the Alliance motion on marriage defeated on September 16, has resulted in the removal of the House of Common's former position in support of the traditional definition of marriage, passed in June 1999. The Alliance motion on September 16 also provided the Liberals with a "roadmap" of MPs voting on the same-sex marriage issue, which has convinced the Liberals that pressure on a few select MPs will ensure the passage of their same-sex marriage bill.

If he does introduce the bill, Mr. Chrétien will have to ram it through Parliament in four weeks (two weeks in the House of Commons and two weeks in the Senate) before Parliament closes on either November 7 or November 12 - prior to the Liberal national leadership convention.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS