OTTAWA (CP) _ After battling to a virtual draw on same-sex marriage Tuesday, the Liberal government and Canadian Alliance agreed to a rematch at the ballot box next year.
The divided Liberal government's plan to legalize gay marriage barely passed a critical first test as MPs voted 137-132 against an Alliance motion to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.
The result could have been a dead heat, if not for NDP dissidents who did not attend and several backbench Liberals who switched votes at the last minute.
Tuesday's apparent deadlock now turns the explosive issue over to voters in next year's federal election, Alliance Leader Stephen Harper said.
``It's obvious now that this will be an issue in the next federal election,'' Harper said.
The narrow victory keeps the government's groundbreaking initiative to redefine marriage alive. But the tissue-thin margin of victory in Tuesday's vote also signals the very real possibility that members of Prime Minister Jean Chretien's own caucus could scuttle legislation he hoped would be part of his legacy package.
Over 50 Liberals voted in favour of the Alliance motion to preserve the traditional definition of a marriage as a union between man and woman.
Harper said those numbers will make it impossible for opponents to level accusations of homophobia at the Alliance during the campaign.
``If they're going to say those things they will be saying them to alot of people who have traditionally considered themselves Liberals.
``I think that's the problem they've got here.''
The Liberal schism on the issue almost certainly eliminates any chance the Liberals would fast-track their marriage legislation to prevent it from becoming an issue that will dog the presumed prime minister in waiting, Paul Martin, in the next election.
Justice Minister Martin Cauchon said the government will gladly fight that campaign on the issue of gay rights.
``I would have no fear whatsoever of campaigning on fundamental principles like equality and the freedom of religion,'' Cauchon said.
``I would also have no fear of campaigning on the entire track record of the government since 1993.''
Cauchon admitted Tuesday's victory was miniscule, but he added that it is an eloquent testament to how far society has evolved in recent years.
A similar motion was adopted 216-55 in the House of Commons just four years ago.
But the level of drama cranked up several notches this time around until it reached historic proportions.
The House of Commons experienced the sixth tied result in its history and its first since December 1963 on a proposed amendment tabled just moments before the motion.
If that 134-134 split had gone differently, the wording of the Alliance motion would have been altered to make it more acceptable to backbench Liberals. That could have doomed the government's same-sex marriage initiative before it even had a chance to table the legislation.
Several Liberal MPs voted alongside the Alliance on the proposed amendment and then switched their support on the final vote.
One of those MPs who finally voted against the motion declared he is against same-sex marriage.
He said he merely took exception to the wording of the motion, which called on Parliament to take ``all necessary steps'' to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.
Ontario MP Roy Cullen said the final wording was unacceptable because it invited politicians to override the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
``Faced with the prospect of basically agreeing to use the notwithstanding clause I decided to vote against the main motion,'' Cullen said. He added he would also vote against eventual same-sex marriage legislation.
The Liberal government announced plans to legalize gay marriage after several courts ruled that the current definition of marriage _ the union of one man and one woman _ was unconstitutional.
Opponents of same-sex marriage saw Tuesday's result as a democratic reflection of the split in public opinion.
``There's no question the country's split on the issue and the Liberal party is certainly split,'' said Ontario MP Pat O'Brien.
He interpreted the result as a warning for Ottawa to proceed cautiously on same-sex marriage.
The government had long fought same-sex couples in court, but threw in the towel after legal losses in Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec.
Canada is now poised to become the world's third country to sanctify same-sex unions.
The legislation will likely be introduced next year after it is examined by the Supreme Court in a reference case requested by Ottawa.
Many Liberal backbenchers fear a revolt at the ballot box in next year's election and urged the government to reconsider its plan.
O'Brien said the government should see Tuesday's result as a warning.
``This proves that there's an awful lot more concern in the country and in the Parliament of Canada than the government would like to let on,'' O'Brien said.
``They're trying to pass it off as a minor change that's no big deal. But you saw in the result tonight that pretty much half the Parliament considers this a major issue.''
The same-sex debate raged all day in the House of Commons, finally playing out before Parliament after a summer where the issue monopolized political headlines.
Harper said he was disgusted by attempts to paint gay marriage as a civil-rights issue.
``Regarding sexual orientation or, more accurately, what we are really talking about, sexual behaviour, the argument has been made . . . that this is analogous to race and ethnicity,'' Harper said.
``(For) anyone in the Liberal party to equate the traditional definition of marriage with segregation and apartheid is vile and disgusting.''
Such comparisons were made numerous times Tuesday by proponents of same-sex marriage. One opposition MP even accused the Alliance of homophobia.
``Nobody is forcing the leader of the Canadian Alliance to marry a man if he doesn't want to,'' said New Democrat MP Libby Davies. ``I think this motion does display a very homophobic attitude.''
OTTAWA (CP) _ Canada's likely next prime minister declared the national fabric strong enough to withstand the same-sex marriage debate, but MPs tugged hard in contrary directions Tuesday.
Paul Martin expressed that conviction, even as other parliamentarians participated in a sometimes-bitter debate in the hours leading to a landmark vote on same-sex marriage.
``I believe that the social fabric of this country is very, very strong,'' Martin said.
He reiterated his support for the government's same-sex marriage legislation but added he's willing to hear MPs argue for other solutions to what has become a complex legal problem.
Parliament has never endorsed gay marriage but that could end later Tuesday, as MPs participate in what should be a tight vote on the issue. The Commons will vote on a recycled Canadian Alliance motion, asking MPs to reaffirm the traditional definition of marriage, an issue that has sliced across party lines.
Like most high-ranking Liberals, Martin said he will vote against the motion which is similar to one he supported in 1999.
Those votes will face stiff resistance from members of the Alliance, along with most Tories, many Liberals and some members of the Bloc Quebecois. Some NDP members opposed to gay marriage were not expected to be present for the vote.
Alliance Leader Stephen Harper said he was disgusted by attempts to paint gay marriage as a civil-rights issue.
``Regarding sexual orientation or, more accurately, what we are really talking about, sexual behaviour, the argument has been made ... that this is analogous to race and ethnicity,'' Harper said.
``(For) anyone in the Liberal party to equate the traditional definition of marriage with segregation and apartheid is vile and disgusting.''
Such comparisons were made numerous times Tuesday by proponents of same-sex marriage. One opposition MP even accused the Alliance of homophobia.
``Nobody is forcing the leader of the Canadian Alliance to marry a man if he doesn't want to,'' said NDP MP Libby Davies. ``I think this motion does display a very homophobic attitude.''
A Bloc Quebecois MP also apparently wrote off opponents of same-sex marriage as homophobes.
``It's like a father who tells his daughter, `I'm not a racist but I don't want you to marry a black person','' said MP Real Menard.
``Or a husband who says to his wife, `I'm for equality but I don't want you to have the right to work.'
``Isn't there a point somewhere when you have to walk the walk, talk the talk?''
Tuesday's motion was similar to one passed overwhelmingly by the House in 1999, but the result was expected to be very different because the government now supports same-sex marriage.
The 1999 motion passed 216-55, getting near-unanimous support from top-level Liberals.
The Liberals did an about-face earlier this year after a string of court losses in their fight against gay marriage, unveiling draft legislation that would allow homosexuals to wed from coast to coast. Liberal MPs are to be allowed a free vote on the legislation.
A loss Tuesday wouldn't derail the Liberal plan to introduce same-sex marriage legislation, but it could make passage much more difficult.
Aware that his caucus is divided on the issue, Prime Minister Jean Chretien invited MPs on Monday to use the wording of the Alliance motion as an excuse to vote against it.
He said the call for Parliament to take ``all necessary steps'' to preserve the traditional definition of marriage was an invitation to override the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by using the Constitution's notwithstanding clause to overrule the courts.
Liberals are philosophically opposed to using the clause and no federal government has ever used the controversial escape hatch.
In an attempt to undermine the government's argument, the Alliance proposed an amendment to strike the phrase ``all necessary steps'' and refer only to support for the traditional definition of marriage.
The Alliance gleefully boasted of having pulled a parliamentary ace out of its pocket.
``It was part of our strategic plan all the way along,'' said Alliance House Leader John Reynolds.
``We manage to get the government to tell us what was wrong with it, and now they'll find out there is nothing wrong with it and we'll see how they vote tonight.''
Alliance justice critic Vic Toews said his amendment would clear away the parliamentary tricks and set the stage for the vote late Tuesday afternoon.
``With my amendment the motion is clear: Do you support the traditional definition of marriage?''
Two Liberal opponents of same-sex marriage, Murray Calder and Paul Szabo, immediately declared their support for the amendment.
The Alliance has argued that the government should have appealed the same-sex court rulings to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Justice Minister Martin Cauchon disagreed.
``I believe it is about equality, dignity and respect for all Canadians,'' he said.
Cauchon noted that it wasn't that long ago that woman were denied the right to vote, largely due to prejudice.
OTTAWA -- Paul Martin is facing his first questions in the Commons as soon-to-be Liberal party leader.
Trouble is, Martin isn't officially the leader yet.
And, since he's also not a cabinet minister, he wasn't able to answer questions today from Canadian Alliance Leader Stephen Harper.
But Harper complained that Martin should be ready to answer questions in the Commons, since he is now the de facto leader of the government.
The Speaker reminded Harper that Martin could not answer questions under House rules.
And Transport Minister David Collenette, who is acting as prime minister while Jean Chretien is in New York, criticized Harper for not having questions for the current prime minister.
Over the weekend, Martin won the majority of delegates to his party's November convention, making it mathematically impossible for him to lose the Liberal leadership race.
WASHINGTON -- Prime Minister Chretien says he's not changing his plan to leave office in February.
There has been speculation Chretien might move up the date after Paul Martin locked up the Liberal leadership race during delegate selection over the weekend.
But Chretien said in Washington today he sees no reason to change his retirement plans.
He says both Martin and rival Heritage Minister Sheila Copps have said they were comfortable with his plan to step down in February.
Copps says she's staying in the race, even though Martin got about 90 per cent of the delegates chosen in weekend voting.
Chretien says he talked with both Martin and Copps today and congratulated them for the work they have done.
He says he also told them the November convention will be important for getting the party in shape for the next federal election.
(BN)
OTTAWA (CP) _ Paul Martin wasn't in the House of Commons as it resumed work Monday, but he was on the minds of the people who were.
Canadian Alliance Leader Stephen Harper, after a frustrating question period in which he made little headway against Prime Minister Jean Chretien, complained the real problem is that nobody's in charge on the government side of the aisle.
``The prime minister is coming back and presenting the House with virtually no agenda, and Mr. Martin . . . . is nowhere to be seen,'' said Harper.
``So the country limps along in limbo.''
It's likely to be a recurrent theme through the fall session, as the Chretien regime nears its end and Martin heads for almost certain victory in the Liberal leadership convention set for Nov. 15.
Stan Keyes, chairman of the Liberal caucus, did his best to paper over the problem.
``We have a leader, his name is Jean Chretien, he's the prime minister of Canada. . . . We're going to do what's best for the Canadian public, we are going to continue to work on legislation.''
But Keyes, long known as a fierce Martin partisan, acknowledged it will be harder to avoid conflict if Chretien, who plans to retire in February, insists on remaining as head of government after Nov. 15.
``We can only have one leader at a time,'' said Keyes. ``Let's see what the prime minister says or does . . . . I think we just have to wait and see.''
Some Liberal backbenchers _ most recently Nick Discepola of Quebec and Dan McTeague of Ontario _ have suggested Chretien should revise his plan to wait until February before handing over power to Martin.
Others, however, are reluctant to reopen old wounds by bickering over the prime minister's departure date.
``We have a responsibility to govern,'' said Toronto MP Derek Lee. ``If we start dividing over silly, interim things we're not going to be able to do our job.''
Winnipeg MP John Harvard, chairman of the Western party caucus, said passing the reins from Chretien to Martin will be no harder than it is for the United States to make the transition from outgoing to incoming president.
``They elect a president in November and they don't have a change of power until Jan. 20,'' noted Harvard. ``If the Americans can somehow deal with this, surely we can finesse it.''
Meanwhile, the best the opposition could manage Monday was a few passing swipes at the absent Martin.
Harper, renewing past demands for a public inquiry into federal advertising contracts that went to Liberal-friendly firms in Quebec, met the usual brush-off from Chretien.
The Alliance leader's follow-up jibe _ that perhaps Martin would favour such an inquiry _ fell flat as Chretien refused to take the bait.
The closest thing to a direct attack on the
prime-minister-in-waiting came from Jay Hill, the Alliance defence
critic, who noted that Martin was responsible as finance minister
for drastic cuts to the armed forces budget.
``Is this what our military can expect once he achieves leadership?'' asked Hill _ to no effect, as Defence Minister John McCallum ignored the query.
Martin aides said he skipped the opening day of the session to work on a major speech on economic policy to be delivered later this week in Montreal.
He also spent time in leadership-related meetings and on the phone lining up delegate support for the November election.
Martin plans to be in the House on Tuesday, and his strategists say he will line up with Chretien to vote against a contentious Alliance motion on same-sex marriage.
--
Canada News - The latest news in the country
Canada News - The latest news in the country (2)
Kuumad uudised | 22 Sep 2003 | EWR
Viimased kommentaarid
Kommentaarid on kirjutatud EWR lugejate poolt. Nende sisu ei pruugi ühtida EWR toimetuse seisukohtadega.
See artikkel peaks ka nimetama Svend Robinsoni uut hate crimes seadust mille järgi ei tohi homosi kuidagiviisi kritiseerida. Selle seaduse alusel võib olla piibel ka keelatud ja võib teha Kanadast Nõukogude Liidu stiilis diktatuuri.
Eesti Elu ruumi raiskamine ja minu aja raiskamine, et lugeda. Olgu kinniste uste taga ja mitte lipuvarda otsas lehvitud.
Kuumad uudised
TRENDING
