 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:36
|
|
And the Liberals say, Whoops!
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...ion2004&no_ads=
quote:
Liberal MPs say party still divided on abortion
Canadian Press
OTTAWA — Two veteran Liberal MPs say there is no difference between their party and the Conservatives on abortion, contradicting Paul Martin's claim that there is a "gulf" between the two parties on hot-button moral issues.
Toronto MP Tom Wappel and Sarnia MP Roger Gallaway also say that Liberals are deeply divided over gay rights, with Gallaway going so far as to predict that a free vote on same-sex marriage would be defeated.
"My view is if it were put to the House, which it will be, it won't pass," Gallaway said in an interview. "I think there's enough people opposed to it to knock it down."
Among those opposed to same-sex marriage is Judy Sgro, the cabinet minister sent by Liberal campaign officials last week to heckle Conservative Leader Stephen Harper over his stand on abortion.
Sgro, who supported an Opposition motion last fall reaffirming the traditional definition of marriage, taunted Harper with the question: "Whose rights are you taking away tomorrow?"
The comments from Wappel and Gallaway puncture Martin's attempts to portray the Liberals as defenders of civil liberties and the Conservatives as a regressive party with a hidden agenda to recriminalize abortion and deny gay rights.
Over the past week, Harper has been dogged by questions about his party's stand on sensitive moral issues.
He has said he has no plans to legislate on abortion but would allow backbenchers to bring forward private members' bills on the matter.
Harper has noted that private members' bills, which must go through a tortuous process, rarely make it to the floor of the Commons but said if they managed to get that far, he would allow a free vote.
Martin countered by saying he would "strongly advise" his backbenchers not to propose private members' bills on abortion because they would be contrary to party policy.
However, Wappel, a staunchly pro-life MP, said Harper's comments were merely "a statement of the obvious" about the way private members' business works and Martin would act no differently.
"I don't think too much should be made of the prime minister's comment," said Wappel.
He said private members' business has never been subject to party discipline.
He noted that Martin has vowed to eliminate the democratic deficit to give backbenchers more power and said Martin would not, therefore, roll back the clock by trying to direct the content of private members' business or deny free votes on it.
"I have no fear that private members' business is somehow going to be attempted to be controlled," said Wappel, who once proposed a private members' bill to recognize that life begins at conception _ a bill that never came to a vote.
Gallaway, Martin's point man on parliamentary reforms to empower MPs, said Martin is entitled to say he won't encourage private members' bills on abortion "but that's not a prohibition either."
"There's nothing that can prevent a member of the House who's not a cabinet minister from bringing in any private members' bill," Gallaway said.
Wappel suggested Martin simply got caught up in the heat of the campaign when he suggested he'd interfere in private members' bills.
Senior Liberal strategist Scott Reid said Martin will not allow parliamentary opinion to overrule a woman's right to choose, or any other "fundamental charter right."
Martin's position on same-sex marriage also seems to have evolved rapidly over the past week as he strives to turn gay rights as a wedge issue against the Tories.
A devout Roman Catholic, Martin initially admitted he was torn on the issue and was lukewarm in his support for former prime minister Jean Chretien's draft legislation to legalize same-sex marriage.
Anxious to avoid turning it into an election issue, Martin delayed a Supreme Court hearing on the matter by asking the top court also to consider the constitutionality of allowing only civil unions for gay couples, the option favoured by Harper.
By the end of last week, Martin suggested that lower courts have already settled the matter and said "there is no way anybody should be allowed to prevent same-sex marriage."
He denounced Harper for refusing to rule out using the notwithstanding clause to override the Charter of Rights and deny gay couples the right to marry.
However, seven of his cabinet ministers _ including Sgro and the co-chair of his election campaign, Helene Scherrer _ voted last fall against same-sex marriage.
A total of 52 Liberals joined Harper's party in affirming the traditional definition of marriage and another 19 didn't show up for the controversial vote. The motion was defeated by a razor thin vote of 137 to 132.
Harper has said he'd withdraw the reference to the Supreme Court and put the matter to a free vote in Parliament. He has suggested the court would defer to Parliament's decision on the matter but has refused to rule out using the notwithstanding clause if it doesn't. |
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-06-2004 06:59
|