The following report is based on viewing of the still on-going live debate (at the time of writing) today in The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in Ottawa.
OTTAWA, June 12, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A motion by NDP MP Svend Robinson which asked the The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to request that the government avoid appealing the Ontario court decision in favour of gay marriage ignited a heated debate today in the Committee. The debate lasted most of the afternoon and ended with what some considered underhanded political manoeuvring by gay rights activist Svend Robinson and some BQ and Liberal Party allies. The Committee has been discussing the definition of marriage for the last six months and has been moving towards tabling a report before the current session ends. It has, however, indicated that it is unable to present any sort of immediate report to the government, likely because of a stalemate within the committee. Svend Robinson’s motion, therefore, presents an attempt to provide the government with an answer on the marriage question without a properly tabled report.
Several angry committee members responded that support of Robinson’s motion was support for the usurping of the power of Parliament by the courts. Liberal MP Joe Peshisolido opposed the motion because neither the Supreme Court nor Parliament has yet spoken on the issue.
Liberal John McKay spoke with disgust about this “pre-emptive strike on the part of the courts.” He insisted that the committee should not make void all their efforts and leave the marriage issue to the “whims of the Charter.” He said that the court decision indicated that it was “an illusion that we have a diologue with the courts . . . yesterday was a gross form of monologue.” Worried about Parliamentary process and power McKay suggested that if the court decision was not appealed “Parliament will largely be perceived as a laydown.” He explained that the people don’t want to be told by the courts what will be the end result of the marriage dispute. McKay also pointed to, with what he called a “hint of cynicism,” the timing of the court’s decision. He noted that the court normally took many months to make such decisions but in this case it took only 6 weeks.
Canadian Alliance MP Kevin Sorenson also spoke out against Svend’s motion saying, “it’s Parliament, it’s not the courts” which should be making this decision. He also quoted an Ottawa Citizen article which suggested that it is not the judges who should be criticized for their decision, but, rather,the politicians who don’t have the guts to do their jobs. Sorenson insisted that, “This motion would be a major error, a major mistake for parliament” because “we’re seeing it where the courts are imposing their view on us Parlimentarians.” He urged his fellow members to vote against the motion concluding that “As Parliamentarians we have the responsibility to take a stand.” Alliance MP Stockwell Day joined in the debate by pointing out that the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman is not a betrayal of the Charter of Rights and that “This definition has served society well and continues to.”
Liberal Pat O’Brien also strongly criticized the resolution. To those who accused him of being against equality he replied, “Please don’t insult my intelligence. Don’t ask me to ignore my beliefs. Don’t ask me to ignore my conscience.” He added “I’m not against equality. I am against deconstructing something as fundamental as marriage.” He insisted “I’m not about to ignore logic, history, common sense, millions of Canadians…” He concluded that “When we start to deconstruct marriage we know where we start, we don’t know where we will end.” Svend Robinson kept his final remarks surprisingly short before the motion came to a vote, but his reason quickly became apparent. Liberal Derek Lee, who had earlier voiced strong opposition to the motion, was temporarily out of the room. He explained in an interview immediately afterwards that he was at another meeting and was racing back to the Justice Committee to attempt to make the vote. Paul Macklin was also absent from the room. Derek Lee was replaced by radical Sue Barnes and Paul Macklin was replaced by radical Anita Nevel.
The Liberal party’s choices to replace the two temporarily absent MPs indicated the Party hierarchy’s obvious hope for the committee’s decision. John O’Brien and a colleague asked the committee to wait just a few minutes for Derek Lee who they insisted was an important member of the committee and would arrive at any moment. But, gay activists Real Menard and Svend Robinson and their co-conspirators insisted that the vote must go on. The vote was an 8-8 tie, with Sure Barnes and Anita Nevel voting in favour of the motion. The tie was broken by the yes vote of the chairman, Liberal MP Andy Scott.
In an interview afterwards Derek Lee stated, “I truly regret that I wasn’t there” and said that if they had waited “thirty seconds or a minute I would have been there.” Derek’s vote would have made the vote 9-7 against the motion.
As it stands, the vote was a major victory for Svend Robinson and the Liberal autocracy. The committee continues to debate a rival motion by John O’Brien concerning the B.C. case and another motion by Derek Lee.
John Harvard explained in an interview with CBC Newsworld this afternoon that the “decision today could have a direct impact on the committee’s report.” Harvard explained that the “Yes vote recognizes a train that is coming down the track” and felt that the vote could be instrumental in breaking the stalemate on the committee concerning their report. Derek Lee insisted that this was not the case. When asked why, he responded, “I’ll be at the committee.” To Contact members of Parliament see https://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/house/mpscur.asp?lang=E