Shame on Liberals for dredging up Scheer video
While there may be plenty of solid reasons not to vote for Andrew Scheer becoming Canada’s next prime minister — I can think of half a dozen off the top of my head — his opposition to same-sex marriage in a parliamentary speech 14 years ago isn’t one of them.
And shame on the Liberals for resurrecting ancient history in a precampaign gotcha: the video downloaded by Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale this week.
So we’re going to be that way on the hustings, are we? Anything to move the needle off the SNC-Lavalin scandal, though polls show no particular damage to the Liberals, if a growing distrust of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
Bill C-38, the Civil Marriage Act, was introduced by Paul Martin’s minority Liberal government in February 2005 and had a bumpy ride before it was passed five months later in the House of Commons by a vote of 158-133.
At that time, only three countries had legislated same-sex marriage (the Full Monty, not just legally binding civil unions): the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain.
In Canada, that was the same Liberal government (and its previous incarnations) that had fought tooth and nail, spending millions of dollars fighting against same-sex marriage in the courts, following a Supreme Court ruling that said excluding homosexual couples from marriage laws and benefits violated the Charter of Rights. (In 2000, the Jean Chrétien government granted same-sex couples the same federal spousal rights and benefits enjoyed by common law opposite-sex couples.)
It may be only the blink of an eye in cosmic terms, but 14 years ago was a very different time in Canada. Popular opinion in this country favoured gay and lesbian marriage, despite an often furious public debate, but the rest of the world hadn’t caught up. The Vatican objected furiously and made noises about denying the eucharist to Catholic politicians who supported samesex unions. Cardinal Marc Ouellet, then viewed as a possible successor to Pope John Paul II, wrote a personal letter to Martin, warning against the plan. The Lutheran Church announced it would deny same-sex blessings. In California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a same-sex marriage bill. In the U.S., only Massachusetts permitted it. The former TV host of 100 Huntley Street — a religious program — even tried appealing to the Queen to stop the law in its tracks.
You may think we’ve all come a long, enlightened way. But in 2019, only 28 countries globewide permit same-sex marriage.
The consensus view was that Stephen Harper had lost crucial support in urban Ontario and among young voters, leading to his defeat in the 2004 election, because he banged on about Progressive Conservative opposition to same-sex marriage. Yet he doubled down, as his cabinet wished and as his socially conservative base wished, next time around.
The national conversation was fraught with polarizing views. Ditto in Parliament after the bill was introduced.
A PC motion that would have killed Bill C-38 before it came to a House vote was defeated 164-132, with nearly 40 Liberals breaking ranks to vote their conscience. (Four Tories voted with the Liberals.) An NDP MP quit her party over the issue.
It wasn’t until 2016 that the Conservatives shed official aversion to same-sex marriage by voting to remove the traditional definition of wedlock — one man, one woman — from its policy book.
In fact, Harper’s anti stance hadn’t prevented the Tories from forming a minority government in the 2006 election, promising straight out of the chute that he would seek to repeal Bill-38. “It will be a genuine free vote when I’m prime minister,” he said on the very first day of the campaign. I will not whip my cabinet.”
And indeed he did not. But the motion to reopen fell well short, 175-123, with a crisscross of votes: 12 Tories voting against party lines, 13 Liberals supporting it. Harper never went there again.
My point is that 25-year-old Scheer was hardly an outlier when he stood up in the House that day in 2005 and made some rather bizarre remarks — something about calling a dog’s tail a fifth leg. Essentially, Scheer claimed same-sex couples could not commit to “the natural procreation of children,” thus could not be married in a moral sense. (Of course gay couples have become parents, whether using surrogates or otherwise.)
The Tory leader, a devout Catholic, has not exactly clarified his view, circa 2019. But Scheer insists he won’t revisit the law if elected. Meanwhile, the Liberals have made a thing about Scheer not participating in any Pride parades. That’s a dicey conundrum: Either Scheer sticks to his personal beliefs, thereby alienating a huge swath of the population (whether gay or supportive of gay rights); or he does the politically correct thing and establishes himself as a hypocrite.
Of course the right thing would be to acknowledge the legal foundation of same-sex marriage — and being happy for those couples — even if morally at odds. Just as Catholic politicians can support abortion rights without personally favouring the procedure. It’s about doing what’s proper for the commonweal and respecting choices.
Is it too much to hope that political leaders won’t go snake belly low in their character defamation as the election campaign ratchets up? Jagmeet Singh, who’s been, sadly, a spectacular bust at the helm of the NDP, released a statement on Thursday making it clear he would not prop up a minority Conservative government. Fine, I can’t imagine why he would. But citing the “disgusting prejudice” of Scheer’s comments from 14 years past is palpably contrived, calculating and venomous.
We’re none of us the people we were years ago. It’s shabby to exploit anachronisms, to judge beliefs out of time and place, unearthing a clump of discrimination — as Goodale did, or someone on his staff, by circulating that video — to paint horns on an individual now. Scheer’s homophobia was not that long ago shared by millions of Canadians.
The Conservatives say they’ve renounced their gay unfriendliness. Best for Scheer to come out of the morality closet.
Then Canadians can decide for themselves if he’s a man of principle or prejudice.