Prime Minister Paul Martin kicked off the parliamentary debate on his government's controversial same-sex marriage legislation Wednesday, saying the debate would be "about the kind of nation we are today and the nation we want to be."

But Conservative Leader Stephen Harper immediately countered by introducing an amendment to Bill C-38 to protect the traditional definition of marriage, calling compromise "the real Canadian way."

Martin invoked two former prime ministers who protected human rights in the past: Progressive Conservative John Diefenbaker and Liberal Pierre Trudeau. And he insisted that Bill C-38 protects religious freedom while ensuring minority rights.

Paul Martin, Wednesday.
Paul Martin, Wednesday.

"Put simply, we must always remember that separate but equal is not equal," he told the House of Commons, rejecting the proposal that homosexual couples be limited to civil unions.

Of his political foes, whom Martin said have been trying to convince Canadians that the country could revert to the traditional definition of marriage without invoking the notwithstanding clause, he said, "They are insincere, they are disingenuous and they are wrong."

He said invoking the notwithstanding clause to remove minority rights from gays and lesbians "would set us back decades as a nation... Our rights must be eternal, not subject to political whim."

Stephen Harper, Wednesday.
Stephen Harper, Wednesday.

Harper calls bill 'fundamentally flawed'

Speaking next, Harper called the legislation "fundamentally flawed," and called its religious protections "laughably inadequate" and "constitutionally useless."

He said his party will introduce two kinds of amendments to the bill:

  • An amendment restricting marriage to the traditional common-law definition of "one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others," while allowing provinces to offer other forms of civil union that give same-sex couples the same legal rights, privileges and obligations as marriage.
  • Amendments to strengthen protections for all those who refuse to be associated with same-sex marriage, not just for religious leaders asked to solemnize such marriages.

"What we put forward ... is the real Canadian way," he said. "The real Canadian way is not the blindly ideological interpretation of the Charter put forward by the prime minister.

Harper also said using the notwithstanding clause would not be necessary in order to ban gay marriage.

The Conservative leader went on to ridicule Martin's characterization of the debate as a matter of fundamental human rights.

"Fundamental human rights are not a magician's hat from which new rabbits can constantly be pulled out," Harper said.

"Same-sex marriage is not a human right."

He said a United Nations commission declared as much in 2002, when asked to rule on a New Zealand same-sex marriage case.

Around the world, he said, only the Netherlands and Belgium have brought in same-sex marriage legislation, and this was not on the basis of human rights but "as the honest public policy choice of their legislators."

A fundamental right, Duceppe says

Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe compared the issue of same-sex marriage to that of women voting, which was not permitted in Canada a century ago.

"Today no one will dare to call into question the woman's right to vote, because it is an issue of fundamental rights," Duceppe said.

"And I think that in a century no one will call into question the right of same-sex couples to join together the same way as a man and a woman through the institution of marriage. Because the very evolution is part of a broader universal right the progression of rights in democracies. ...

"Quite beyond our partisan attachments, or even our political and religious convictions, we have to think about what we would answer, what we would say to a human being who wants to marry his or her same-sex partner and asks us, 'why are you refusing me marriage?'

"Does that mean love between same-sex partners is not as valid as love between a man and a woman?" Duceppe asked. "Or that love between same-sex partners does not exist, or should not exist?"

The Civil Marriage Act, introduced two weeks ago, is at the second reading stage in the House of Commons. To become law, it must pass second reading, be referred to a legislative committee, and go through third reading in the House of Commons. Then it would go to the Senate before receiving royal assent.

Martin will allow backbench Liberals to vote with their consciences on the bill, given how strongly some churches and community groups have voiced their opposition to changing the traditional definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Cabinet ministers, however, have been told they must vote in favour of the Civil Marriage Act.

Almost all New Democrat and Bloc Québécois members of Parliament are expected to support the bill, but most Conservative MPs intend to vote against it unless the significant amendments the party intends to introduce are added.

Amendments cannot contradict the spirit of a piece of legislation, so Speaker Peter Milliken will play a key role in deciding if and how the bill will change in the days ahead.

Conservative MPs must have speeches vetted

In an unusual move, Harper's office has told all of the party's MPs to submit copies of what they will say in Parliament on the topic for party approval.

The party says it wants to deliver a consistent message on the legislation, but critics say the move resembles censorship.

Remarks by some of the party's more outspoken MPs have caused trouble for the Conservatives in the past.

Most recently, MP Jason Kenney said gays and lesbians in Canada should be free to marry whomever they want – as long as it's someone of the opposite sex.

Court rulings led to law being drafted

The Liberals decided to introduce legislation allowing gays and lesbians to marry in the wake of a patchwork of court decisions across the country.

One by one, panels of provincial Supreme Court judges ruled that banning gay marriage was unconstitutional.

The judgments opened the door for hundreds of same-sex ceremonies over the past two years in every province and territory except Alberta, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.

The Supreme Court of Canada also weighed in on the subject in late 2004.

In December, the country's top court said the federal government could change the definition of marriage.