A Prime Minister Who Likes to Cherry-Pick from the Charter

July 6, 2005

To begin, I’d like to point out that the fight against C-38, the federal Liberals’ same-sex marriage bill, is not over yet. Yes, the legislation was forced through the House of Commons last week by the Liberals, but as I write this, my Conservative Party colleagues in the Senate are continuing our efforts to preserve the traditional definition of marriage and religious freedoms through an amendment proposed by the Conservative Leader in the Senate Noel Kinsella.

It remains to be seen whether the Liberals will use their majority in the Senate to ram through passage of the same-sex marriage legislation in the coming days.

The Conservative Party of Canada vehemently opposes discrimination of same-sex couples and homosexual Canadians. Our leader, Stephen Harper, has made it clear that same-sex relationships should be entitled to the same legal rights and benefits as marriage. However, marriage is not a right. It is a privilege solely reserved as an institution between a man and a woman.

Contrary to misleading statements by the Prime Minister, the Supreme Court did NOT rule that the traditional definition of marriage violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Even the United Nations Human Rights Commission ruled that refusing to marry same-sex couples is NOT discrimination. No international human rights body, and no national supreme court, including the Supreme Court of Canada, has ever found that there is a human right to same-sex marriage.

The Prime Minister however, as well as many other Canadians, has interpreted recent court rulings in Canada to mean that refusing same-sex marriages is a violation of Charter rights. In defending Bill C-38, Mr. Martin has stated, “A right is a right” and, he argued, the government cannot “cherry-pick” rights.

Yet, it is Mr. Martin himself that is ‘cherry-picking’ rights from the Charter as it suits his political purposes. Where was his ringing defence of the Charter when the Supreme Court ruled last month that Quebecers’ rights were being violated by a healthcare system that refuses them access to timely healthcare services simply because those services are provided by the private sector?

The Court upheld that Quebecers had a “right” to access private medicine because the public healthcare system just isn’t doing the job. The Prime Minister suddenly isn’t willing to defend Canadians’ right to healthcare as eagerly as he has defended his belief that homosexuals have a Charter right to marry.

Mr. Martin even used the excuse that he had to defend the Charter as justification for ‘whipping’ his cabinet into voting in favour of Bill C-38, even if they or their constituents were opposed to same-sex marriage.

But when it comes to defending medicare, Mr. Martin’s hyposcrisy is once again revealed. The Supreme Court ruled that rights were being violated by a broken-down public healthcare system that is largely the result of $25-billion in cuts during the 1990s made by Mr. Martin himself. Suddenly, it is not politically expedient or convenient for the Prime Minister to defend the Charter.

Who’s cherry-picking rights now?

-30-