National Post - July 18, 2003

By Stephen Harper, Leader of the Official Opposition, and the Canadian Alliance

There are, in politics, certain issues that we call "moral issues." I have always said that on these types of 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.

First, when I say this issue is about moral views, I mean it is about social values and not, as some have been saying, a matter of human rights or equality. Since 1998, all couples have enjoyed "spousal right" under family law in this country. Recent court cases in Ontario, British Columbia 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 issue. 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 that they would keep that promise. They asked the House of 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 away 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 Paul 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, Paul 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 on the issue.

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 Paul 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 such as the CRTC, human rights commissions and gun registry agencies. They have then tried to avoid answering to elected representatives for the decisions and the spending of these bodies.

For these reasons, I am so alarmed at the idea of having the Supreme Court pre-approve the government's 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.

Mark my words: Unless we stop this now, every time a controversial bill comes before Parliament in the future, the Liberals will demand that 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 away from Parliament. Paul Martin, if he were truly worried about Canada's "democratic deficit," would stop this notion in its tracks, and do so now.

I must say as well that 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 and Freedoms. 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 redefining 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.

And if they do so, what would Paul Martin do? Will he promise us that he will never allow the courts and the 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. Let me make this promise. I will see to it that the Canadian Alliance force a vote on this issue in the House of Commons at the first opportunity when Parliament returns in the fall. I will personally reintroduce the motion on which Parliament democratically voted in 1999. We will hold Paul 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 on this issue. 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 that 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.

Note: reproduction of the above statement by Mr. Stephen Harper does not constitute any political endorsement by the Chrisitian Coalition International Canada Inc., but is simply published for informational purposes.