Ujjal Dosanjh

I was just watching on the internet the interview that Vancouver South Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh did with Stephen Colbert. Everyone should see the really funny part where Colbert and Dosanjh sing the Canadian National Anthem to the tune of the American National Anthem. I also love how Dosanjh responded to Colbert’s scenario: a gun is to your head and therefore you must choose to scrap either Canadian medicare or Canadian same-sex marriage, which do you choose to eliminate? Dosanjh’s answer: neither. Dosanjh also appeared on CNN to defend Canada’s public health care system from Republican attacks during the United States’ health care debate. The CNN host did not realize that it was taxes that paid for Canadian medicare and surprisingly thought that Canadian employers were somehow involved in providing Canadian medicare before Dosanjh set him straight. The host also got a viewer caller question about whether medicare is provided in Canada to illegal immigrants. Dosanjh did not directly address the question about whether care is provided to people who are in Canada illegally but stated more generally that anyone visiting Canada from abroad who has a medical emergency will be treated immediately without upfront payment even though as non-Canadian residents they obviously would not have a health card. Dosanjh said that in such cases the government sometimes tries to collect bills for this care later. Dosanjh is great handling these interviews and I’m very glad we got him from the NDP. I think he was also a good Minister of Health during his year in Paul Martin’s cabinet.

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.

Men more likely to oppose gay marriage

It has just occurred to me that every single Liberal MP to vote for Stephen Harper’s December 2006 motion to repeal same-sex marriage were men. In 2005, almost all of the Liberal MPs to vote against same-sex marriage were men, with only a handful of exceptions. In December 2006, all the female Liberal opponents of same-sex marriage were either no longer in Parliament or switched their vote. Speaking of that December 2006 vote, Liberal MP Glen Pearson had been sworn in that very day after winning a by-election and so was able to vote against Harper’s motion. Raymond Gravel, however, also having recently been elected in a by-election, had not been sworn in yet for some reason and was not sworn in until a few days later. I’m not sure why this is. It meant that Gravel (who was an openly gay Catholic priest) was unable to vote against Harper’s motion as he had announced he would. I don’t know why it took longer for him to be sworn in. All I can think of is that the returning officer took longer to submit the results to Parliament for some reason.

Speaking of by-elections, it has not been since 1986 that a governing party has picked up a seat previously held by an opposition party in a by-election in Ontario provincial politics. In 1986 there was a Liberal minority government. A Tory member resigned from the York East riding. In the by-election, Liberal Christine Hart won. Prior to this, the governing party picked up a seat in 1984 in Wentworth North when the Tories narrowly picked it up from the Liberals. This MPP never got a chance to actually sit in the legislature because a general election was called before the legislature met again.

Equality, Equality, Equality

I was watching A Channel news and they ran a story on the fact that it is Pride Week in Simcoe County. I was happy to see that the new Mayor of Barrie, Dave Aspden, gave a speech that “emphasized the importance of equality for all community members.” (http://www.thebarrieexaminer.com/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=648542&catname=Local+News). It is my hope that equality for Mr. Aspden includes same-sex marriage. If the previous mayor of Barrie, Rob Hamilton, had been re-elected last November, I’m not sure whether he would have given such a gay-positive speech. I say this because in the 2000 federal election, Hamilton ran for the notoriously anti-gay Canadian Alliance in Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford. Regardless, the news story featured a male same-sex couple living in Simcoe who next week will be legally married. Sadly for them and other gay people living in Simcoe County, the support of Simcoe County’s gay community by the county’s federal MPs is severely lacking. All Simcoe MPs are Conservative. All Simcoe MPs are against same-sex marriage. I say this based on their 2005 and 2006 parliamentary voting records. This is despite Simcoe’s gay community which as we can see is becoming more and more active. Thus it is shameful the lack of support local MPs are offering the gay community. It’s sad that former Simcoe North Liberal MP Paul DeVillers chose not to run again in the last election. In his absence, Simcoe North only went Conservative by 2% because of a vote split with the NDP. Had DeVillers run, his incumbency may have been enough to win again. DeVillers supported same-sex marriage way back in 1999 despite representing a conservative rural riding. If he’d run again, Simcoe County might still have one pro-gay MP. This whole thing is a shame. After all, prior to the 2004 election, two of the 3 Simcoe MPs (Paul Bonwick and Paul DeVillers) were solidly in favour of same-sex marriage, and a third (Aileen Carroll) would have come around to support it as she eventually did. It’s facts like this that make me think we never should have had the 2004 election – Paul Martin could have delayed until 2005.

All of Simcoe’s MPPs are Tory. Despite Tory leader John Tory’s pro-gay marriage position, all Simcoe MPPs have stated publicly that they are anti-gay marriage and so they are no help to Simcoe’s gay community either. This all leads to another related question. Why is Barrie still so socially and economically conservative now that it is a city of over 100,000 people?

Speaking of equality I want to discuss another equality issue. I am unhappy about the plight of Nine-year-old Lydia Houck. Here is the lowdown from the Toronto Star of August 9:

“Nine-year-old Lydia Houck was looking forward to a day of fishing, hiking and golfing when she browsed through a list of summer day camps offered near her Nova Scotia home.
But the only option that fit her interests was just for boys.
In contrast, the only all-girl camp, dubbed Glamorous Girls, offers jewelry-making and a trip to the spa for manicures and pedicures for girls aged five to 12.
Lydia says she'd rather be fishing….
"My brother and I go fishing a lot and I enjoy going outside a lot, and this camp seemed to fit that description and it was pretty much the only day camp that did."”

Government officials deny there is discrimination but listen to what Jacqueline Warwick, the co-ordinator of gender and women's studies at Dalhousie University in Halifax had to say (from the same Toronto Star article):

“Jacqueline Warwick … said there is nothing innovative about splitting boys and girls into activities that are traditionally masculine and feminine.
She said she was "astonished" that a municipal government would be behind such blatant gender stereotyping, adding that the idea of a spa day for young girls is part of a larger cultural phenomenon that ensures girls and boys fit into specific gender roles.
"I do think that there is a widespread movement to restore these very repressive, old-fashioned gender roles," said Warwick.
"This emphasis on frivolity . . . can be understood as a way of occupying girls' and women's time. They spend all their time and money on these activities. It's a way of containing women and girls into these safe stereotypes where they're not going to disrupt society."”


I agree with what Lydia and Ms. Warwick say. For Lydia, fishing is more fun than a spa. I happen to agree with her on that. Thus I think for the sake of equality Lydia should be allowed to go fishing with the boys’ camp. Other girls probably want to go fishing too.
One more thing about equality to discuss. We do need more women in politics. What we also need is to put an end to the pattern of American celebrities being arrested for drugs and drunk driving. Look what happened to Lindsay Lohan. Now she is the butt of the joke for every late-night comedian. She is but one example. How is this tied to politics? Well, I want young child actress Miley Cyrus to avoid the fate of Lindsay Lohan. Miley’s grandfather Ron Cyrus was a Democrat Kentucky politician who served 11 terms (two decades) as a member of the Kentucky House of Representatives. Miley has lived a wonderful, glamorous and privileged life, but even that life has not come without pain. Her grandpa Ron Cyrus died recently. And according to one of Miley’s song, she misses him. My condolences on the loss of Miley’s grandfather. Actors in the past have entered politics. Sadly the Hollywood actors who enter politics tend to be Republican and male. We don’t seem to get female Hollywood actors entering politics. So I think Miley Cyrus should consider a future career in politics like her grandpa. Her future career opportunities are her choice, but she would be an excellent addition to politics because she would be a much needed female addition to the actors-turned-politicians club. Her trademark show Hannah Montana is popular in Canada, so here’s a pipe dream: theoretically she could become a Canadian citizen and eventually run for the Liberals. I assume that if she were in politics she would have a similar political persuasion as her grandfather. But all of this speculation of a future political career is a little far off for now. For the time being I just want Miley to stay away from alcohol and drugs and avoid brush-ins with the law. Sadly Miley will not be able to vote in a federal election, until 2012. She will turn 18 in November 2010 but only after the midterm elections. Miley’s career decisions are hers, but the world would be a better place if Miley can give it all she’s got.

Bill Casey ejected from caucus

So Bill Casey voted against his government’s budget and was promptly kicked out of caucus. Mr. Casey believes that the budget implementation bill does not honour the Atlantic Accord. I agree with Mr. Casey that the 2007 budget does not honour the Atlantic Accord. The Atlantic Accord on equalization allows both Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia to not be penalized in equalization payments as a result of newly found oil revenues. The budget also shortchanges Saskatchewan on oil revenues. In this article, http://www.news1130.com/news/national/article.jsp?content=n0605164A , it says “As an MP, it's a very difficult situation to vote against the budget of your own government. You've gotta have guts and I'm proud of him," said fellow Nova Scotian Mark Eyking.

Asked if Liberals would accept Casey into their fold, Eyking said: "Oh, sure would. He's very like-minded to us. He's welcome aboard any time." I don’t consider it likely that Casey would move to the Liberal Party and I did not realize that Casey was very like-minded to the Liberals. Unlike in the cases of former Conservatives Scott Brison, Belinda Stronach, and Garth Turner who all joined the Liberal Party while supporting same-sex marriage, Casey by contrast opposed same-sex marriage at least until 2006. Casey voted against Bill C-38 (the same-sex marriage bill). I do not know whether Casey supports same-sex marriage now because in December 2006 he voted against his government’s motion to restore the old definition of marriage. That makes it unclear to me how supportive he now is of same-sex marriage rights. I have trouble seeing Casey becoming a loyal Liberal like Scott Brison or Garth Turner. It would be more likely that he would remain an independent and simply retire at the next general election. But I do want to congratulate Casey on standing up for his constituents against the promise-breaking government.

Quebec and Jean Charest

I’m glad the Charest government survived its budget vote on Friday. The budget passed 46-44. There was one missing Liberal whom I haven’t figured out who it is. I’m glad the PQ backed off and now the tax cuts can take effect.

Speaking of the PQ, it is unfortunately true that former PQ leader André Boisclair’s sexual orientation had a negative impact on the PQ in the campaign trail. I find this odd because Quebec is supposed to be very tolerant of homosexuality. In fact it is. The only exception seems to be Quebec shock jocks. Shock jocks are radio jocks who make their career out of purposefully making inflammatory statements. Shock jocks have a propensity to exist in the United States, but I find they are even more common in Quebec. As a result, Boisclair suffered homophobic slurs against him by at least two shock jocks, one of whom is now a federal Member of Parliament. During the campaign, a shock jock used a French homophobic slur against Boisclair that I can’t remember. Then at the time of the leader’s debate Independent MP André Arthur called Mr. Boisclair a ‘p'tite fille’, a little girl, which is obviously a homophobic slur. Arthur is a former Quebec City area shock jock. It’s unfortunate that these shock jocks have to resort to personal insult. But it becomes obvious how much Boisclair’s sexual orientation negatively affected the PQ campaign.

Speaking of issues to do with sexual orientation, I want to discuss a topic that I am fascinated by – civil unions in Quebec. Since 2002, Quebec has had a civil union law. It allows two people who are both of the same sex or of opposite sexes to enter into a civil union. It gives largely the same rights as marriage. For opposite-sex couples, it gave a less legally entangling alternative to marriage. For same-sex couples, it offered them much sought-after spousal rights. The Quebec court later ruled that civil unions were not the equality needed under the Charter and immediately legalized same-sex marriage in Quebec. The civil union alternative is not available to anyone who lives in Ontario. I kind of wish Ontario offered a civil union alternative like Quebec. But I suppose marriages and common-law relationship recognition is good enough too.

I want to mention one more unique aspect of Quebec law. As in France, when a marriage between a man and woman occurs, the woman in the marriage cannot change her last name to her husband’s name. That is probably why Stéphane Dion’s wife’s name is Janine Krieber. Dion’s daughter has the double-barreled name Jeanne Krieber-Dion. For the record I can’t help but think it is sex discrimination that traditionally it is the male in an opposite-sex marriage that is expected to pass his surname to his children, but I can go on about that on another day. For now I want to just congratulate Jean Charest on being the first minority Quebec premier to survive a confidence vote in over 100 years.