Bill Changing Numerous Statutes Sneaked Through Without Debate

TORONTO, Oct 28 (LSN.ca) - The Ontario government passed its legislation giving practicing
homosexuals the same rights as common-law spouses yesterday after ramming it through the
legislature only two days after it was introduced. Pro-family groups across the country
reacted with horror as “the Tories completely sold out social conservatives,” to cite Peter
Stock of the Canadian Family Action Coalition. Not only was public debate avoided by the
hastened passage of the bill, but accountability to the Ontario public was abandoned when
this revolutionary law was passed without a recorded vote.

THE EFFECTS OF THE LAW

The stunning swiftness of the passage of the legislation is augmented by the seriousness of
the issues involved. Although much more careful analyses are required to bring to light the
new law’s full implications, Gwen Landolt of Real Women Canada, told LifeSite that it affords
practicing homosexuals full adoption rights. Stock told LifeSite: “I can’t think of anything
more anti-family” than “purposefully depriving the weakest members of society of a father or
a mother.”

Furthermore, Landolt points out that religious organizations, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish
and Muslim would be forced by the legislation to provide benefits to the same-sex partners of
their employees. Statutes in the Ontario Human Rights Code already forbid discrimination in
hiring practices against practicing homosexuals unless they are in “bona fide” positions
(i.e. teachers, but not support staff).

PUBLIC INPUT AVOIDED

The fact that the bill went through first reading one day and second and third reading two
days later left no opportunity for public reaction or debate on the issue. In fact, major
pro-family groups were caught off-guard when LifeSite called for comments, not realizing that
the legislation had already been passed. Moreover, the actual bill was not released to the
public until the very day of its passage despite numerous requests. Landolt, a lawyer, told
LifeSite that due to the length of the bill it would take at least a week of full time work
to sort out all the legislation’s ramifications. Considering the delayed access to the
legislation and the extraordinarily fast passage, Landolt commented that “this was a
revolution without public debate or public knowledge.”

Even one of the Tory MPP’s admitted to LifeSite that he “never anticipated that it would pass
that fast.” Wayne Wettlaufer (PC, Kitchener-Centre) told LifeSite that he was not in the
Legislature at the time of the debate and mentioned that many other MPP’s were not present
at the late night session since no one suspected the legislation would be passed without
debate.

Dr. Janet Buckingham of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) told LifeSite that “it is
extremely discouraging since the people of Ontario wanted to have a say in this issue.” Stock
accused the Ontario Legislators of “cowardice.” Steve Jalsevac of Campaign Life Coalition
stated “Ontarians have got to be wondering why we bother voting for our own MPP in Ontario
since the Harris inner Cabinet dictatorship sets the entire agenda and expects the caucus
to always meekly follow or stay out of the way.”

LEGISLATION ‘WENT FURTHER THAN NECESSARY’

Dr. Buckingham, general legal counsel for the EFC told LifeSite that the Ontario legislation
went “farther than what was necessary by quite a bit.” She explained that the M v H ruling
of the Supreme Court of Canada required that homosexual couples be granted support after
breakdown of relationships. Jim Sclater of Focus on the Family Canada noted also that the"government had other alternatives open to them and suggested to them.” Landolt told LifeSite
that the Tories had at least three options they could have implemented that were less
offensive to pro-family groups.

1. The Tories could have allowed the Supreme Court’s ruling to take effect on May 20 which
would have meant that the Family Law Act would apply only to married couples and common-law
couples would have to apply for benefits.
2. They could have established a domestic partnership where all dependent couples living
together could apply to be recognized for benefits.
3. All economically dependent couples living together could have been asked to make a claim
for benefits in the courts.

A fourth option could have been to maintain the current law by using the ‘notwithstanding
clause”. Wettlaufer, however, told LifeSite that “Premier Mike Harris does not believe the
clause should be in the constitution and will not use it under any circumstances.”
Constitutional experts note that the rule of law exists in democratic countries to keep
legislators accountable to an objective standard rather than running the country on the
basis of their own whims. Regardless of the Premier’s personal views, the notwithstanding
clause is in the Constitution was placed there for consideration in situations such as this.

Revealingly, not only pro-family forces are contending that the law went further than
necessary. As LifeSite reported yesterday, Kyle Rae, a homosexual activist leader in Toronto
and a Toronto city councillor, said in the Globe and Mail: “This is tremendously important
legislation - very exciting. The Ontario government went further than it had to go.”

DECEPTION AND BETRAYAL

Pro-family groups feel a strong sense of betrayal from Ontario’s so-called conservative
government. The deception used by the government compounds the anger. As if it was a
significant point, the Attorney General notes that, “the rights and obligations that are
unique to married couples are not being extended to same sex partners.” Lawyers contacted by
LifeSite indicate that the only rights withheld from common-law couples as opposed to married
couples deal with the separation of property at death or breakup, and such concerns which are
relatively minor compared to adoption rights. Commenting on the bill, Stock said “a spouse
in everything but name is a spouse just the same.”

He added that it is “clear [that] the PC’s can’t represent social conservatives any more.”
He predicted a coming together of disaffected pro-family politicians from all parties to
provide a viable social conservative alternative.

See the full text of the Ontario Bill 5 at:
http://www.ontla.on.ca/Documents/StatusofLegOUT/b005_e.htm

See the Harris government record on this issue at
http://lifesite.net/interim/1999/march/3onttor.html#2