Cheri Di Novo, Alan Tonks, John McKay, Mike Wallace

In a previous blog, I mentioned NDP MPP Cheri Di Novo’s liberal views on homosexuality. The riding’s federal MP Peggy Nash is also in favour of same-sex marriage. For the record, the only MP to oppose same-sex marriage in the City of Toronto excluding Etobicoke and Scarborough was York South—Weston Liberal MP Alan Tonks. Tonks says he supports civil unions but not same-sex marriage. The first problem with civil unions is that many experts believe they are outside the jurisdiction of the federal government and the federal government would have to rely on individual provinces to decide whether they want to enact civil unions. I’m no expert, but I imagine the Alberta government, for one, might have serious trouble passing a civil union law. The next problem with civil unions is there is a glaring equality problem as illustrated in the UK’s civil union legislation. In the UK, same sex couples can enter into a civil union. But they do not have equality because a church minister cannot preside over any legally binding civil union ceremony. By contrast, church ministers can and always have presided over legally binding opposite-sex marriage ceremonies. I consider this discrepancy discriminatory. We could have had the same problem in Canada. Some have argued that the government getting out of the marriage business is a solution. The idea is that only those willing to have a religious ceremony can get married (including same-sex couples). This is discriminatory against non-religious people not willing to have a religious ceremony. It relegates non-religious couples to have a civil union instead of a marriage. This is just as discriminatory as denying marriage to same-sex couples. Yet this is the position of Burlington Conservative MP Mike Wallace (http://www.marriagevote.ca/articles/wallace.html):

"My personal goal is to open up the debate and get the Government of Canada out of the marriage business. I want to leave marriage to the church organizations in Canada and the government can then create a civil union that protects all couples," Wallace said in the press release. Wallace also stated to [Kevin Flack] that "the United Church does marry gay couples in some churches in Burlington, and I am not wanting to stop this."

I have news for Mr. Wallace, the stated intent of the Harper’s December 2006 motion was expressly to repeal same-sex marriage. It said nothing about getting the government out of the business of marriage. The motion said nothing about “reopening the debate”. It simply called on the government to bring in legislation to repeal same-sex marriage but keep the government in the marriage business The idea behind the motion was expressly that the government should introduce legislation that prevents same-sex couples from having their marriage recognized by the government. The motion was not about a broad “reopening the debate” where various options could be considered. The motion was specifically meant to start the process to eliminate same-sex marriage but keep the government in the marriage business. Therefore, if Wallace was in favour of same-sex marriage, he should have voted against Harper’s motion. I also disagree very very strongly with fellow Liberals like Liberal MP John McKay who are against same-sex marriage. McKay on June 27, 2005, made this quote in the House of Commons that I think is offensive for gays and lesbians:

"It is the foundation for family formation. When marriage is degraded to simply a public declaration of one's best buddy, then the institution of marriage becomes meaningless."

McKay claims to be willing to look at civil unions. But he opposed the government’s same-sex domestic partnership benefits legislation in 2000. He previously opposed government benefits for same-sex couples. I could accept his civil union position if it weren’t for his previous opposition to other forms of gay rights. At least, by contrast, another Liberal MP in the same vicinity as McKay’s riding, Mark Holland in Ajax—Pickering, has always voted in favour of same-sex marriage.

Farewell to Bill and Jim

Yesterday, Bill Graham announced that he would resign his House of Commons seat on July 2. Today, Jim Peterson announced that he would resign his House of Commons seat on July 12. I’m guessing that both these parliamentary veterans were asked to resign to make way for Bob Rae and Martha Hall Findlay to run in by-elections. But my concern is that the Liberals could lose one or both of these by-elections to the Conservatives. I’m particularly concerned about Willowdale, where the Conservatives got 29% to the Liberals’ 55%. In Toronto Centre I am concerned that the riding could go something other than Liberal because of continuing dislike of Bob Rae. The Liberals want all Liberal Leadership candidates to be in the House of Commons. There were initially 11 leadership candidates, 8 of which were MPs. 3 candidates, MPs Carolyn Bennett, Maurizio Bevilacqua, and Hedy Fry all dropped out prior to “Super Weekend” and all endorsed Bob Rae. MP John Godfrey was briefly in the Leadership race as well but dropped out in April 2006 before the race really started for health reasons. He did however participate in a leadership race debate in April 2006 and did well at it. It is therefore sad that after such a great start, health had to make Mr. Godfrey drop out. While I expect Godfrey could have been a great leader, he was born in December 1942. No offence to the exemplary Mr. Godfrey, but a younger leader may well have been needed to be able to take on Stephen Harper and form a future government. Not to say that Godfrey too would not have been capable of this, I’m just saying that someone younger may, I stress, may, have been a better choice. Mr. Godfrey also later endorsed Bob Rae.

There were 3 leadership candidates who were not MPs. They were Gerard Kennedy (my candidate!), Bob Rae, and Martha Hall Findlay. Kennedy is a former Ontario MPP and former Ontario education minister. Rae is a former Ontario MPP and a former NDP Ontario Premier. Rae left the NDP in 2002 over it’s rejection of free market capitalism (he referenced outgoing UK Prime Minister Tony Blair as an example of someone who has praised free markets) and over it’s lack of support for Israel. Bob Rae’s wife is Jewish. Rae is also of Jewish decent although he was raised an Anglican. Some say Rae was the first Jewish Premier of Ontario. After leaving the NDP, Rae slowly drifted his affiliation to the Liberals. In 2006, Rae decided he wanted to seek the federal Liberal leadership. He eventually lost to Stephane Dion. I followed Kennedy’s lead and endorsed Stephane Dion when Kennedy dropped out of the ballot. Rae was also an NDP MP from late 1978 to 1982 when he quit in order to become leader of the provincial NDP. The third leadership candidate who was not an MP was Martha Hall Findlay. She has never held elected office but came close to beating Belinda Stronach in 2004 when Stronach was a Conservative. In the leadership race, Hall Findlay was first to be eliminated and she endorsed Dion. Rae released his delegates and did not endorse either of the two remaining candidates, Dion and Michael Ignatieff. Ever since the leadership race has been over, the Liberals have wanted the 3 non-MP candidates to become MPs in order for there to be a stronger front against Stephen Harper’s government. But now that the next election might not be until 2009, these 3 politicians likely have started to become impatient about being on the sidelines and possibly remaining on the sidelines for a whole another 2 years before they can run in a general election. It is for this reason that I think the two retiring Liberal incumbents were asked to retire early to allow an earlier chance to get the seatless leadership candidates to enter Parliament in by-elections. Rae and Hall Findlay were already nominated in their respective ridings for the next general election. I expect that the two retiring political veterans obliged because they did not want to have to wait around another two years before being able to retire. Both Peterson and Graham announced their retirement at a time that a spring election was expected. I don’t think they were planning on the seemingly inevitable election to fizzle. Graham and Peterson likely were expecting Parliament to be dissolved this spring. I doubt either was betting on the Parliament lasting another two years as now seems probable. It is for this reason I think that both have just announced their resignation to allow for an early retirement and thus some new blood to be elected in their place.

Unfortunately this all leaves out my guy Gerard Kennedy. Under this current plan Kennedy remains on the sidelines until the next election which could be another two years. Kennedy decided to run in his old provincial riding of Parkdale-High Park against NDP incumbent Peggy Nash. I’m glad Kennedy is running there as he is just about the only one who could win this increasingly NDP riding back for the Liberals. However, this leaves Kennedy out until the next general election unless another seat opens up and Kennedy opts to run there instead. It previously seemed like a good seat for Kennedy to run in was York South-Weston. After all Kennedy represented much of the riding from 1996-1999. However this was based on the assumption that Alan Tonks (who was born in 1943) would retire. Since then Tonks has, however, committed to running again so the seat is not becoming vacated. This is on top of the fact that there are now doubts about how safe the seat is on the federal level given the recent NDP victory in the provincial York South-Weston seat. So I’m sad to say that for now my guy Gerard Kennedy is stuck out of Parliament.