BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

MORE DUPLICITY REVEALED BY LIBERAL GOVERNMENT ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE ISSUE

The movers and shakers in the Liberal government were determined to bring same-sex marriage to Canada. They realized, however, that such a proposition would meet with strong resistance from the Canadian public. Consequently, the Liberals embarked on a carefully scripted plan to manipulate the public on the issue by using both the enormous clout of the government, as well as the bottomless pit of taxpayers' money to achieve this objective.

This plan was arrived at, as early as 2002, by four individuals: Minister of Justice, Mr. Martin Cauchon, Deputy Minister of Justice, Mr. Morris Rosenberg, Clerk of the Privy Council, Alex Himelfarb, (who still occupies that position) and Paul Genest, policy adviser to then Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien (See REALity, July / August, 2004, p. 12 "Martin Cauchon Reveals the Liberal Political Strategy Behind same-sex Marriage.")

The Plan:

1. By-Passing Parliamentary Debate on Same-sex Marriage

The process to introduce same-sex marriage in Canada began in November, 2002, when Justice Minister Martin Cauchon, sent a personal letter to the House of Commons Justice Committee asking it to examine the issue of same-sex marriage. What was significant about this initiative was that the Justice Committee was requested to review the issue at the personal request of the Justice Minister, rather than by a motion of Parliament which is the usual and accepted process by which Parliamentary Committee reviews take place. The objective of Mr. Cauchon's approach was to prevent any parliamentary debate on the issue at that time: if he had introduced such a bill in the House of Commons, a debate would have had to take place. A debate at that time was not considered advantageous to the government because it might have led to the defeat of the bill. This is because the definition of marriage had been debated just 3 years previously, in June,1999. At that time, the House of Commons had voted, 216 to 55, to maintain the traditional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Therefore, it was important to delay this anti-marriage debate, until such time as Canada's liberal courts had the opportunity to place their stamp of approval on same-sex marriage, to give the revolutionary change in definition some credibility. Mr. Cauchon and his co-conspirators thus decided to proceed by letter to the committee to ensure a low profile process to begin the unraveling of traditional marriage.

2. Changing the Government's Position in the Courts

As Attorney-General of Canada, Martin Cauchon had the duty and responsibility to uphold and maintain the law - in this case, the traditional definition of marriage. However, Mr. Cauchon ignored his responsibility and, without Parliamentary approval, arbitrarily reversed the government's position before the courts and commenced to argue against the law supporting those wishing to strike down the traditional definition of marriage. To provide some legitimacy for this critical reversal in policy, however, Mr. Cauchon had to manipulate the House of Commons' Justice Committee to support his new position. He accomplished this by removing two Liberal MPs who supported the traditional definition of marriage from the Justice Committee and replacing them with two MPs who supported same-sex marriage. Consequently, when NDP homosexual MP Svend Robinson brought a motion before the committee to accept the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in favour of same-sex marriage, and not to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Committee's vote was tied (even with the hasty substitution of committee members). This required the Chairman of the Committee, Andy Scott (Fredericton, NB), acting on Cauchon's instructions, to cast the deciding vote in support of Mr. Robinson's motion. (See REALity, July / August, 2004, p. 12). The Justice Committee's vote then gave Mr. Cauchon justification for his decision to support same-sex marriage in the courts. That is, Mr. Cauchon was in the position to piously claim he was "obliged" to do so and had "no choice" but to reverse his position in the courts because of the Justice Committee's decision.

3. Securing the Supreme Court of Canada's Approval for Same-sex Marriage

Mr. Cauchon's next move was to announce at a press conference on July 17, 2004, that he planned to refer his proposed same-sex marriage legislation to the Supreme Court of Canada by way of a reference. The decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada on a reference are not binding on the government, but such decisions are highly persuasive. One of the questions on the reference was the leading question: whether "extending marriage to persons of the same sex was valid under the Charter?" With the composition of the present Supreme Court of Canada, the Court's response to this question was never in doubt. Mr. Cauchon believed that the Court's anticipated affirmative response would convince the MPs that they, too, had no choice but to vote for his same-sex marriage legislation since it was a matter of a Charter right for "equality", rather than a discretionary change in social policy.

4. Public Relations Campaign

In September, 2003, Mr. Cauchon had embarked on a cross-Canada tour to defend his proposed legislation. He visited Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta. In doing so, he hoped to contain the backlash against the legislation. He was not successful in this regard, however, as he was met with hostility and probing questions wherever he went. Apparently, his stature as Minister of Justice did not carry the weight with the Canadian public that he thought it would to provide credibility for his bill.

It is noted, when Mr. Cauchon gave a speech in Philadelphia, on May 1, 2004, before the homosexual organization which presented him with an award for his work on "equality", Mr. Cauchon referred to the fact that he had encountered much "homophobia" (anti-homosexual sentiment) in his cross-Canada tour. This was a convenient way of dismissing the public resistance to his same-sex marriage policy.

5. Implementing Deliberative Polling Techniques on Same-sex Marriage

Dr. James Fishkin, of Stanford University, has developed a polling process called "Deliberative Polling", which is alleged to eliminate the flaws present in traditional opinion polls; flaws which have the effect of limiting their usefulness for policy makers. The flaws are many, but include the problem of "ill-informed and shallowly considered" responses which, according to Dr. Fishkin, may record "non-opinions" because some people are afraid to admit they do not know and simply guess in making their responses.

Another problem is that the polling questions can be very confusing. For example, an Ipsos-Reid Poll on same-sex marriage conducted in February 2005, not only asked very leading questions on the issue, but, also attempted to assess the level of agreement or disagreement with the question i.e. whether the respondent strongly agreed, strongly disagreed etc., etc., with the statement. In fact, there were seven categories of agreement or disagreement to which the respondents were supposed to reply. This made the question very difficult to answer over the telephone, without time for reflection. This raises serious questions about the accuracy of the poll. To avoid flaws such as this, inherent in the traditional polling methods, Dr. Fishkin developed a new method of polling, which he called "Deliberative Polling." He argued that although his method would not change values, it could "change opinions."

In November 2003, a workshop was arranged by a non-profit think tank, the Public Policy Forum, on the same-sex marriage issue. It is significant that this workshop was paid for by a consulting firm called CGI Canada Inc., which, it turns out has as one of its main clients the federal government! That is, it seems that the federal government put up the funds which the company -- CGI Canada Inc -- used to cover the cost of the workshop. The purpose of the workshop was to use the Deliberative Polling technique to assist the government in promoting same-sex marriage.

Specifically, the workshop dealt with the challenges involved in framing the same-sex marriage issue before the public. This challenge required the government to acquire better knowledge of which arguments would best persuade Canadians; gain insight into the future direction of the issue, and also learn what "cover" could be used to justify the policy. This was very important information for the government to have in order to proceed with the same-sex marriage legislation. During the workshop, by the way, it was suggested that this Deliberative Polling technique could be used in the future "should the government's position for same-sex marriage be brought into question either with a change of leadership or some new development regarding the issue." Of the 24 participants at this workshop, nine were senior representatives in the federal government, including three from the Department of Justice. Also present was the Executive Director of the Law Commission of Canada (which had issued a paper in support of same-sex marriage the month previous), a Senior Adviser in the Privy Council office, and Liberal MP Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Ontario) an outspoken advocate of same-sex marriage.

Canadian Public Manipulated

There is no question that the Canadian public was deliberately manipulated and deceived by the Liberal Government on the same-sex marriage issue. It is to our credit, however, that many refused to follow along and accept the government's duplicity. Hopefully, this will be a lesson, not only for this government, but for future Canadian governments that Canadians have changed and will no longer defer to a government's arrogant attempts to restructure our society.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS