PUBLICATION:
The
Calgary Sun
DATE: 2003.07.20
EDITION:
Final
SECTION:
Editorial/Opinion
PAGE:
C
8
BYLINE:
STEPHEN HARPER
COLUMN:
Guest Column
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIBERALS
BROKE THEIR VOWS: THEY PROMISED ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES WOULD DECIDE DEFINITION
OF MARRIAGE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There
are, in politics, certain issues we call "moral issues."
I've always said that on these issues, political parties must be able to
tolerate differences of views among their members.
As a consequence, I have made it clear that, as leader, any member of my
caucus would vote freely on such an issue, and would never be compelled by the
party to vote against his or her conscience.
I
view the definition of marriage as such an issue. In saying this, however, I am
saying much more. When I say this
issue is about moral views, I mean it is about social values and not, as some
say, a matter of human rights or equality. Since 1998, all couples have enjoyed
"spousal rights" under family law in this country.
Recent court cases in Ontario, B.C. and Quebec have asked for something
quite different -- the redefinition of marriage itself.
Let
me be clear on this matter. The Canadian Alliance is a conservative party, and
as a conservative party we stand for traditional institutions like marriage.
Second,
when I say that this is a matter for a free vote, I also mean that defining
marriage is an issue for Parliament. Decisions
about marriage should be made by the Parliament you elect, not by judges the
prime minister appoints. That is
the Canadian Alliance position. And, until just a few weeks ago, it was also the
official position of the Liberal party.
In
1999, Parliament voted on this. And Liberal after Liberal, from Paul Martin and
Jean Chretien, on down to Anne McLellan and Martin Cauchon voted to reaffirm the
traditional definition of marriage, and to promise that your elected
representatives -- not appointed judges -- would decide the issue.
In the last election, Liberals from coast to coast repeated that in a
solemn promise to Canadians.
Even
earlier this year, the Liberals were still pretending they'd keep that promise.
They asked the Commons Justice Committee to investigate the marriage issue.
Our MPs on that committee, Vic Toews and Chuck Cadman, spent weeks
travelling the country from coast to coast, hearing Canadians from all walks of
life.
The
committee was only days from issuing its report, when the Liberals decided to
break their promise. Now we know
what a solemn promise means to the Liberals. We know what a commitment in the
House of Commons means to Martin, to Anne McLellan, to the whole Liberal team.
When
the Ontario Court of Appeal decided to challenge Parliament by arbitrarily
redefining marriage, the Liberals' true agenda came out.
The government refused to appeal the Ontario ruling, deliberately
undermining Parliament's clear position. And,
one by one, Martin and the others are abandoning the public vote they cast in
1998 in favour of marriage and in favour of Parliament's democratic authority.
Now,
the Liberal party position is that Parliament is only entitled to vote on the
definition of marriage after new legislation has been pre-approved by the nine
judges of the Supreme Court. Once
those judges, most of them appointed by Jean Chretien, have ruled on the issue,
the Liberals will demand that a democratically elected Parliament simply
rubber-stamp the bill.
If
Martin is looking for a democratic deficit in Canada, here it is. The Liberals
are hitting a new low in the decline of Parliament's role in our political
system.
What
will Mr. "Democratic Deficit" do? Will he show leadership on this
issue? Will he call for a renewed parliamentary debate on this issue? Or will he
stand silent as his own government and the Supreme Court conspire to strip
Parliament of yet more influence?
For
over a generation, we have witnessed government after government sap Parliament
of its powers. Liberals and Tories alike have centralized power in Cabinet and
the Prime Minister's Office. They
have created powerful bureaucratic agencies like the CRTC, human rights
commissions and gun registry. They have then tried to avoid answering to elected
representatives for the decisions and spending of these bodies.
For
these reasons, I am so alarmed at the idea of having the Supreme Court
pre-approve the marriage bill before Parliament has an opportunity to debate it.
This is a dangerous new precedent for the way in which this country will be run
in the future.
Unless
we stop this now, every time a controversial bill comes before Parliament in the
future, the Liberals will demand the government of the day first obtain approval
from the Supreme Court. They will not even wait for litigation. The government's
actions will draw the Supreme Court even further into politics, and take even
more power from Parliament.
Martin,
if he were truly worried about Canada's "democratic deficit", would
stop this notion in its tracks, and do so now.
The
government's approach to this matter is dangerous because it jeopardizes not
only democratic decision-making, but threatens it in a way that endangers the
very rights and freedoms that Parliament explicitly protected when it passed the
Charter of Rights. I am talking
specifically about freedom of religion and the right of religious institutions
-- all religious institutions regardless of faith or denomination -- to conduct
their own affairs.
By
allowing the courts to change the definition of marriage outside of any
legislative framework, the Liberals have allowed a handful of tenured judges to
create a situation where churches, synagogues, mosques and temples can be
compelled to perform marriages that violate their own moral codes.
By
re-defining marriage and leaving it to provinces to implement, they have left it
to provincial human rights commissions to determine whether they must perform
the same ceremonies as secular marriage authorities.
Given
the ideological record of these commissions -- given that, like the courts, they
have usually ruled against freedom of religion on such matters -- there is every
reason to believe that they will simply impose their own views on religious
institutions. If they do so, what
would Martin do? Will he promise us he'll never allow the courts or rights
commissions to impose a new definition of marriage on the churches?
And what value is such a promise when he said he would never let them
impose a definition on Parliament when he has just broken that promise?
The
Canadian Alliance will not wait for cases to come before these commissions to
see what happens to freedom of religion. Neither
will we wait for the Liberal government to allow the Supreme Court to draft its
new legislation on this matter.
I
will see to it the Canadian Alliance forces a vote on this in the Commons at the
first opportunity. I will personally reintroduce the motion on which Parliament
democratically voted in 1999. We
will hold Martin and the rest of the Liberal government to the votes they cast
just four years ago.
Since
I was not a member of Parliament myself four years ago, let me be clear where I
will stand. In my lifetime,
Canadian law has moved towards a position where we do not legislate the sexual
activity of consenting adults and we have come to recognize in wide areas of law
relationships outside of marriage. These are developments that I support.
At the same time, I believe the unique character and institution of
marriage should be just as strongly respected and legally recognized.
I will vote to retain the traditional definition of marriage -- because it is our party policy and because I believe it is the right thing to do.