Jump to content

Talk:Members of the 38th Canadian Parliament and same-sex marriage/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

Why the colours? I get the impression we are using a shade of pink to represent those in favour of SSM? That seems to me to be a bit over the top. How about green (support) and red (against) using the traffic light analogy. Further we could use yellow for the unclear/hesitant ones. Thoughts? -- Jord 22:16, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was cautious that a green-yellow-red colourscheme might be a bit loaded POVwise, implying this was some grand battle between good and evil. So pink as a gay rights thing, brown as a random contrasting colour non-native to any political party. Not super picky either way. -The Tom 00:20, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Interesting thought. I was viewing Green as in "yes"/"go ahead" which would be the vote on the bill to create SSM vs. Red as in "no"/"stop" did think that it might be portrayed as good vs. evil and hope that it isn't, hopefully that doesn't turn out to be the case. Pink to me seems a bit pretentious. Hopefully this doesn't create a bigger problem :S - Jord 00:36, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My edit moments ago

My comment should have said "we can't presume" ... sorry for any confusion - Jord 01:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What about the Senate?

Has anyone considered the Senate? To become law any bill must pass in the Senate. The resolution that the CA introduced in 2002 (or '03 was it?) which was only voted upon in the House - as it was just a non-binding vote on the expression of the will of the House - so we don't have as much emperical evidence re: the Senate. Does anyone know of a source for how Senators will vote and should we include them on this page? - Jord 14:10, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Excellent point. I've pondered it myself--my sense has been that this is a situation where public opinion and convention dictates the Senate will only realistically consider minor amendments rather than a straight-out block. The Liberal majority wouldn't dare oppose such politically-sensitive legislation, and the public outcry if they did would make the GST bill seem tame by comparison. -The Tom 18:03, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Senators cannot be whipped into voting the government line - the government has no carrot as all senators are in place until they are 75 regardless of what the government does. In fact, after just getting off the phone with a friend in the Senate, he says it would be very unlikely to pass as the Senate currently stands. Having freed the backbench in the House from voting the party line, it is unlikely that Martin would try to impose a whip on Senators - moveover, as stated above, such a whip would be largely ineffective. Considering that SSM is disproportinately unpopular among older Canadians and that the Senate is dsiproportinately made up of the same, this could be a serious issue. My friend in the Senate reminds me that there are 15 vacancies in the Senate right now and that if Martin used support of SSM as a litmus test for all of these appointments it would likely pass, however that is not the case as of now. The arguement re: public opinion is not a really solid one as public opinion on "marriage" (as opposed to equal rights under another name) is about evenly split. Moreover, there are some MPs who plan to support SSM, despite their personal beliefs, because of the strong support in their urban ridings. There is no such risk of backlash for older, socially conservative Senators in casting their vote. - Jord 18:13, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, should clarify what I meant by public opinion. If the bill passes the HoC in a free vote, symbolically "popular will" backs the law. There have been very few occasions in which a Senate has drastically changed the course of legislation once has occurred, and the only ones that come to mind are when that notion of the HoC actually representing "popular will" has been openly questioned--I'm thinking of the Liberal blockade on Free Trade and the GST during the Mulroney era, both cases of an unpopular government pushing something through that was seen as against the majority of public opinion at the time. (Indeed, once the 1988 election established that FTA was popularly supported and it again passed the HoC, the Senate backed off.) Should SSM pass the HoC, I can't imagine Liberal senators being quite so bold. Finally, it's worth noting that the Senate is disprortionately of the old-guard Trudeau set (owing to the majority of appointments being made by Trudeau and Chretien) who I'd guess would be more likely to back the Charter of Rights than your typical 60+ year-old Canadian citizen. Certainly an interesting debate nonetheless, and worth following. -The Tom 20:50, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Actually you might note the only similar situation I can think of when the above actually did occur. After the Supreme Court threw out the illegality of abortion in 1988, the Mulroney government introduced legislation to legalize abortions. This legislation was defeated in the Senate. Abortion remains legal due to the the court ruling but the Criminal Code still lists it as illegal due to the failure of that bill to pass the Senate. - Jord 21:46, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have moved Senator Lillian Dyck to the independents section seeing as she is not a current member of the New Democratic Party, and is most definatly not a member of it's caucus. Cdernings 04:46, 04 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The rules of the Senate state that Senators can sit as whatever they like, regardless of what the associated caucus in the House thinks. Dyck is listed on the Parliamentary website as a New Democrat, and so I think we should respect that here. -The Tom 04:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My point was less about the opinion of the House NDP caucus, but rather that Dyck is not in fact a member of the New Democratic Party. In light of the listing on the Parlimentary website, the current catagorization is fair, however I have edited the wording of the Notes to reflect this while hopefully avoiding being over pedantic. Cdernings 05:21, 04 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Efford and Volpe Will Vote For It

I am a member of the liberal party and a liberal aide told me that Volpe and efford will not leave cabinet, They will indeed vote for it.

Various MPS

In an email, Russ Powers says he will support same-sex marriage: "Ultimately when the legislation gets to Parliament, I will support same-sex marriage," he wrote.

Susan Kadis said she would vote for it, story below

http://www.yorkregion.com/yr/newscentre/erabanner/story/2419526p-2800197c.html

According to the London Free Press, Jerry Pickard will support same-sex marriage. He says, "If we are a progressive society and moving forward, it's critical that we understand that all people in society are entitled to equal rights. (Marriage) can clearly be a commitment between two people whatever their sex."

Link http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2004/12/10/775827.html

The Halifax Herald reports that all Nova Scotia Liberals will vote for same-sex marriage except for Cuzner who says he has to vote against same-sex marriage because of opposition among his constituents.

In an email, Lee Richardson will not commit one way or another on this bill. He says he will wait to see the legislation and consult with his downtown Calgary constituents.

Borys Wrzesnewskyj will vote for it

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1103065819737

Halton Is Not A Rural Riding

It's a suburban riding.

Unsigned comment left by 207.188.64.189 - to sign, type four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your contribution; also feel free to register and join Wikipedia!)

It's part suburban Oakville and Burlington, and part rural/exurban Milton. But you're right that "rural" significantly mischaracterizes it. In the article, [description of riding as suburban or rural or whatever] "doesn't accurately determine vote." doesn't make any sense, and readers who want to get a better feel for Halton (electoral district) can follow the link (great stuff Earl Andrew!), so I've deleted the sentence. Samaritan 18:11, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Traditionally, rural areas are more conservative than suburban areas, which are more conservative than urban areas. Some safe assumptions to make for those polling constituents:
1) If they are in a suburban or urban Quebec riding, they will likely lean in favour of SSM.
2) If they are in an urban riding in the Greater Toronto Area, Greater Vancouver or downtown of any other large city, then they will likely lean in favour of SSM.
3) If they are in a suburban riding outside Quebec, they may go either way, except in certain areas which have a strong conservative history.
4) If they are in a rural riding in Quebec, they may go either way.
5) If they are in a rural riding outside Quebec, they are almost certain to get opposition and be forced to vote against.
Just to point out an exception: I live in a rural riding in Ontario that has extremely strong support for SSM. However, about 70% of the residents in this area are French/bilingual. --24.200.35.253 14:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bill C-250 as a voting guide

Those who voted against Bill C-250 are quite likely to vote against Bill C-38 as, if members are not willing to extend hate crime penalties to actions against homosexuals they are very unlikely to support same-sex marriages. However, there are many members in the House that voted for the Alliance motion to maintain the traditional definition of marriage but also voted for Bill C-250, the relationship does not go both ways. As such I am reverting the Senate voting intentions to reflect this. - Jord 20:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Parliamentary Secretaries

I seem to recall that Parliamentary Secretaries, as members of the Privy Council, will have to toe the Cabinet line and vote in favour of SSM. If this is correct then PS's such as Wayne Easter will have to be moved to the Cabinet section and have their votes switched to yes (unless they have publically stated otherwise).

Does anyone else know whether this is the case? - Haunti 11:57, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have read that only the Parl Sec to the Minister of Justice is included in this whip, so other PSs can vote as they wish. PSs are privy councillors, but not members of the Cabinet, IIRC. Kevintoronto 13:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's correct. There is a "three line whip" that Martin operates on. One line means only the relevant minister and parliamentary secretary. Two line means the cabinet and relevant parliamentary secretary. Three line means it is confidence. Bill C-38 is being operated as a two-line whipped vote. - Jord 16:11, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On the most important issues, they can even throw a "four-line whip" (not an official name), in which every member MUST attend the session and vote in favour - no abstaining or pairing is allowed either...
In the UK yes, in Canada parties expect all of their MPs to attend 3 line votes ;) - Jord 23:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

24.235.186.61

Please don't change the totals if you're not going to indicate which MP is the reason for your change and why. I expect that you made this change because I reverted your classification of an MP solely on the basis that he represents an urban riding. Amazingly, there are city dwellers who are opposed to this, just as there are enlightened country-folk who support equal rights for minorities. This page is an attempt to list the stated voting intentions of MPs, and not to speculate on who may vote how and why. You can post your speculation on the Talk page, but please do not put it into the article. Thank you. Kevintoronto 23:28, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have done a search on the MP in question, Pablo Rodriguez. The Canadians for Equal Marriage site has no information on how he will vote, and speculate that he might vote Yes only because he is a Liberal. He did not respond the the Globe and Mail survey, and there is no infomration on the familyfacts.ca site run by opponents of SSM. This is a pretty convincing case for leaving him as an undecided/unknown. Kevintoronto 23:52, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Name Change?

Should this article be renamed Members of the 38th Canadian Parliament and Bill C-38?Habsfannova 00:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have no complaints. Obviously, the current title exists because the article predates the bill getting titled. -The Tom 00:39, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've been following this issue because it affects me directly, but I was only vaguely aware that it is numbered C-38. How many other people who live more than 5 km from Parliaent Hill would know this? I think SSM is clearer and conveys more meaning. Kevintoronto 00:48, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
On the premise that articles should be titled such that they're easy to search, I think the name should remain the same. If necessary, a redirect could be made at Members of the 38th Canadian Parliament and Bill C-38 for those few people who try to search for "bill c-38".  — Saxifrage | ☎ 01:15, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
I just made the reccomendation based on the fact that someone who votes against the bill could be for Same Sex Marriage, and vice-versa, thus the title is very broad and could misconstrue some MP's opinions. I also reccomend that if the name is changed or not, that Saxifrage's suggestion is used (ie, how he suggested it, or the opposite).Habsfannova 02:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Robert Thibault

Yesterday, he presented a petition against same-sex marriage. Is he just doing it out of respect for constituents or is he seriously against it?

Likely doing it for his constituents, members are not allowed to indicate whether or not they agree with a petition they are presenting. -- Jord 16:24, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I once saw Lorne Nystrom submit two rival petitions on same-sex marriage -- one for, one against. He made a point of mentioning that there were more signatures on the "for" petition. CJCurrie 22:12, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Cute. One time Svend Robinson introduced a pro-SSM petition and said. "Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say that I strongly support this petition, but that would be out of order, so I won't say it." - Jord 22:31, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

vfd

This page had been proposed for deletion. The result of the vote was keep. The archived discussion is at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Members of the 38th Canadian Parliament and same-sex marriage. --Spinboy 16:52, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeas/Nays on Harper amendment

Abbott Ablonczy Allison Ambrose Anders Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands) Asselin Batters Benoit Bezan Bonin Boshcoff Breitkreuz Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Byrne Cannis Cardin Carr Carrie Casey Casson Chamberlain Chatters Chong Cullen (Etobicoke North) Cummins Cuzner Day Devolin Doyle Duncan Epp Finley Fitzpatrick Fletcher Forseth Gallant Gallaway Gaudet Goldring Goodyear Gouk Grewal (Newton—North Delta) Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells) Guergis Hanger Harper Harris Harrison Hearn Hiebert Hill Hinton Hubbard Jaffer Jean Johnston Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Karygiannis Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Khan Kilgour Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lastewka Lauzon Lee Longfield Lukiwski Lunn Lunney MacAulay MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Malhi Maloney Mark Matthews McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) McTeague Menzies Merrifield Miller Mills Moore (Fundy Royal) Nicholson O'Brien O'Connor Obhrai Oda Pacetti Pallister Penson Poilievre Preston Rajotte Reid Reynolds Richardson Ritz Savoy Scarpaleggia Scheer Schellenberger Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country) Simard (Saint Boniface) Simms Skelton Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul) Solberg Sorenson Steckle Stinson Strahl Szabo Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest) Thompson (Wild Rose) Tilson Toews Tonks Trost Tweed Ur Van Loan Vellacott Wappel Warawa Watson White Wilfert Williams Yelich Total: -- 132

NAYS -- CONTRE Adams Alcock Anderson (Victoria) André Angus Augustine Bachand Bagnell Bains Bakopanos Barnes Beaumier Bélanger Bell Bellavance Bennett Bergeron Bevilacqua Bigras Blaikie Blais Blondin-Andrew Boire Boivin Bonsant Boudria Boulianne Bourgeois Bradshaw Brison Broadbent Brown (Oakville) Brunelle Bulte Carrier Carroll Catterall Chan Christopherson Clavet Cleary Coderre Comartin Comuzzi Côté Cotler Crête Crowder Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley) D'Amours Davies Demers Deschamps DeVillers Dhalla Dion Dosanjh Drouin Dryden Duceppe Easter Efford Emerson Eyking Faille Fontana Frulla Fry Gagnon (Québec) Gagnon (Saint-Maurice—Champlain) Gagnon (Jonquière—Alma) Gauthier Godbout Godfrey Godin Goodale Graham Guarnieri Guay Guimond Holland Ianno Jennings Julian Kadis Karetak-Lindell Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's) Kotto Laframboise Lapierre (Outremont) Lapierre (Lévis—Bellechasse) Lavallée Layton LeBlanc Lemay Lessard Lévesque Loubier Macklin Marceau Marleau Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca) Martin (Winnipeg Centre) Martin (LaSalle—Émard) Martin (Sault Ste. Marie) Masse McCallum McDonough McGuinty McGuire McLellan Ménard (Hochelaga) Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin) Minna Mitchell Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) Murphy Myers Neville Owen Paquette Paradis Patry Peterson Pettigrew Phinney Picard (Drummond) Pickard (Chatham-Kent—Essex) Plamondon Poirier-Rivard Powers Prentice Ratansi Redman Regan Robillard Rodriguez Rota Roy Saada Sauvageau Savage Scott Sgro Siksay Silva Simard (Beauport—Limoilou) Smith (Pontiac) St-Hilaire St. Amand St. Denis Stoffer Stronach Telegdi Temelkovski Thibault (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques) Thibault (West Nova) Torsney Valeri Valley Vincent Volpe Wasylycia-Leis Wrzesnewskyj Total: -- 164

PAIRED -- PAIRÉS Lalonde Zed

Many thanks to User:Spinboy for Finding me the link! [1] -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Question on Pat Carney

This question was left on the main article:

****Check please: Is Conservative Senator Pat Carney the same Pat Carney that introduced Bill C-242, an act to prohibit discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation???****

I know of no other Pat Carney in Canadian politics. - Montréalais 03:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Instructions to Editors

I just removed the following (added by an anon contributor) from the main article, but include it here for the information of editors:

Someone check the vote count in the Senate. Days ago, someone removed at least 1 senator but failed to adjust their total. I have removed one Senator who is scheduled to leave in just 2 days and would not be able to vote. We need someone to check this.

I don't have time to follow through on this, so hope others will verify this. - Cafemusique 23:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bull's need still?

Are the bulls for and against needed if we have the color coding? I prefer to get rid of them as I transition the tables to a new format. - RoyBoy 800 29 June 2005 04:31 (UTC)

Lead

The majority needs to be moved into a new history or background section. Just the pertinent details of the political positioning (and importance) should be in the lead. - RoyBoy 800 29 June 2005 04:42 (UTC)

Predicted vote

I think we can get rid of the "predicted vote" column for the House of Commons now that we have their actual and final voting record. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and it should not be a retrospective crystal ball. Ground Zero 4 July 2005 16:06 (UTC)

Agreed. I suggest it be changed to "vote" and that we change those who did not vote to yellow. - Jord 4 July 2005 16:52 (UTC)

Senate proceedings

I am posting this here FYI. I know the Senate doesn't get a lot of coverage and this is from a paper I have a subcription to and is not available publicly. I leave it to those of you who have been more active on this page to use what you want from it in the article. All the best -- Jord 6 July 2005 13:23 (UTC) :)

NB Telegraph-Journal | Politics As published on page A5 on July 6, 2005

Senator proposes compromise on same-sex union bill N.B. Tory wants to add clause to satisfy both sides in debate 

Kinsella

BY RICHARD ROIK Telegraph-Journal

OTTAWA - New Brunswick's lone Tory senator says he will propose an amendment to the same-sex marriage bill in a bid to "heal" a divided nation - even as the federal government has moved to cut off debate in the Senate.

Noel Kinsella, who is leader of the Official Opposition in the Senate, said Tuesday he has struck upon a simple way to legalize gay and lesbian marriages while still offering "comfort" to those who support the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

"We can do both," said Mr. Kinsella, who was New Brunswick's first human rights commissioner and is still chairman of Catholic studies at St. Thomas University in Fredericton.

"There is no forced choice that has to be made between the two," Mr. Kinsella added. "Who is it who said you can't do both? It was (federal Justice Minister) Irwin Cotler and he's full of the proverbial fertilizer."

Under Mr. Kinsella's proposal, which will be tabled when Bill C-38 comes up for third reading in the Senate later this month, the entire existing legislation would remain unaltered.

However, he would add a new clause at the start of the bill to declare that Parliament has recognized the traditional definition of marriage and continues to do so.

Then, he would add that "notwithstanding" this new clause, marriage for civil purposes is between two persons to the exclusion of all others.

"There would be no offence to anybody," Mr. Kinsella said of his proposed addition.

"It would allow those people, for whom marriage between a man and a woman is really important, to carry on," Mr. Kinsella said. "But for people of the same sex who want to get married, they now won't have any legal impediment.

"My view is to let everybody get married, and they can define marriage how they want to," Mr. Kinsella said.

The veteran senator for Fredericton-York-Sunbury admitted he doesn't know how his colleagues in the Liberal-dominated Senate will react to his proposal, which would force the amended bill to go back to the House of Commons for MPs' approval. But he suggested the current debate in the Senate is proving civil enough to raise the possibility of a compromise.

Such hopes, however, took a hit Tuesday when the federal government moved to invoke closure on debate of the bill at second reading. The federal Liberals' goal is to get the bill before the Senate's standing committee on legal and constitutional affairs for review before it comes back to the upper chamber for final approval and royal assent by the end of this month.

"If there was any goodwill in Parliament, and if the Liberal senators were not going to bow to the political and partisan pressure of the prime minister, we have a chance to do some healing in the country," Mr. Kinsella countered.

"What I'm saying is I'll accept every word in the bill, but the bill is faulty because it needs a few more words," Mr. Kinsella said.

"I have no difficulty with the civil marriage part," he added, "but I don't think it was necessary to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think we should have kept the traditional definition of marriage too."

[end of article]

Senate

Turnout in the Senate was not as good as for the lower house so we have a number of Seantors who voted on second reading but did not vote on third reading. In these cases I've let their second reading vote decide their "colour" but only counted third reading votes in the final tally. Of course, an argument can be made to colour yellow anyone who did not vote on third reading since that's the vote that mattered. Andy 00:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Archiving the page?

Should this page be archived since C-38 has become law? (After all, once the new Parliament is elected if the Conservatives are government, we will need Members of the 39th Canadian Parliament and same-sex marriage since they have promised to repeal the law and the Liberal backbench dissidents could put the new bill over the top... CrazyC83 20:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Gigantic Vote Tables

Those tables on the article listing the vote of every single MP are totally not necessary. They take up an enormous amount of room and make the article next to unreadable. Unless someone comments otherwise by Friday, I'm deleting them. pm_shef 22:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Members_of_the_38th_Canadian_Parliament_and_same-sex_marriage/Archive_1&oldid=1212278207"