|
(Toronto, Ontario) Ontario's Liberal government was spared a potentially
embarrassing recorded vote Thursday as the legislature passed a bill changing
the definition of marriage to accommodate same-sex marriage.
A handful of Conservatives who opposed the legislation wanted a recorded vote
so that Liberals who voted against their government's bill would be listed in
the official record.
Ontario isn't the first province to catch up with the court rulings on
gay
marriages.
Quebec and British Columbia have similar legislation, but B.C does not have
an overall law that tries to incorporate same-sex relationships into all its
statutes. Instead, B.C. laws are updated one at a time, and new laws and
amendments ensure that same-sex issues are covered.
``If you put this vote through, without us having a recorded vote, then as
far as I'm concerned, democracy is dead in Ontario,'' said Conservative Bill
Murdoch during the debate.
But the legislation was approved with a simple voice vote, which means
the record will state only that ``the bill passed,'' but won't record who voted for
or against it, or who was not present.
Liberal House leader Dwight Duncan dismissed Murdoch's criticism of the
government's handling of the bill, which Duncan called simple housekeeping to
bring Ontario's laws in line with recent court decisions on same-sex
marriages.
``I listened with some humor to Mr. Murdoch talking about democracy,'' said
Duncan, who denied the government wanted to avoid the recorded vote, even though
only 27 of 72 Liberals bothered to show up.
``This is a government bill, we all said yes on our side, and it passed,''
said Duncan.
Ontario's new Conservative leader John Tory, who supports
same-sex
marriage, was also spared the embarrassment of seeing the majority of
his caucus on the record as rejecting the bill.
``There was never a formal deal'' not to hold a recorded vote, said
Conservative whip John Baird.
``There sort of was discussions on how we would deal with what is both a
controversial but housekeeping measure.''
Several Conservatives spoke against the legislation, which amends Ontario
laws that have terms like spouse, marriage, husband and wife, with most Tories
insisting it's Ottawa's job, not the province's, to define marriage.
``Even those in this House who agree with that (new) definition also agree
that it is the federal Parliament that has jurisdiction over the definition of
marriage,'' Oak Ridges Conservative Frank Klees told the legislature.
``I believe in the traditional definition of marriage as being the
indivisible union between one man and one woman,'' said Conservative John
Yakabuski. ``To the exclusion of all others.''
NDP house leader Peter Kormos said he was disappointed his caucus wouldn't
support his call for a recorded vote on changing the definition of marriage. But
Kormos said the majority of his NDP colleagues felt they should only ask for
recorded votes on bills they oppose, and all the New Democrats supported this
bill.
``I was unable to maintain the support of my caucus to force a recorded
vote,'' said Kormos. ``I regret that.''
No Liberals spoke against the bill in the legislature, but at least one
government member told his local newspaper he was opposed to changing the
definition of marriage.
Niagara Falls Liberal backbencher Kim Craitor told the Welland Tribune he
would vote against the bill because his constituents also oppose it. ``That's
who I am accountable to,'' said Craitor.
But Craitor failed to show up for the vote.
Kormos said he wanted the recorded vote to embarrass government members like
Craitor ``who wanted to be Liberals at Queen's Park, but Tories when they went
back to their ridings.''
The Speaker of the legislature determined the bill passed based on the volume
of the `Ayes' and `Nays' yelled by the members late Thursday afternoon.
©Canadian Press 2005
|
