Credibility issue

Dear editor,
When, in 1996, the federal government tabled legislation to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to add sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination, our MP, Mr. Robert Nault, and other politicians assured Canadians that this would not affect the definition of marriage.
Mr. Nault’s own press release (dated April 29, 1996) stated that “I am satisfied that it will have no impact on the definition of the family. If it did try to redefine the family, I could not support it.”
Further, in his May 8, 1996 reply to my letter of concern regarding Bill C-33, he stated that “C-33 will not affect issues such as same-sex benefits, marriage, or adoption, which are provincial laws.
“If I thought there was any chance of C-33 conferring these benefits, I would have voted against it.”
Now we come to June, 2003. Following the June 10 decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal to redefine marriage, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien announced his government would not appeal, but instead would prepare a bill on same-sex unions to send to the Supreme Court for approval, followed by a vote in the House of Commons.
I believe the Liberal government knew in 1996 that Bill C-33 was setting the stage for the eventual redefining of marriage.
Despite its pretense at defending traditional marriage in previous cases, the government was content to sit back and allow unelected, anti-family judges to usurp Parliament’s function so as to escape voters’ scrutiny of the government on this issue.
As I pointed out, Mr. Nault went on record in the past assuring constituents that he opposed the redefinition of marriage. Consequently, I expect him to be honest and accountable by voting “no” to any such redefinition.
His credibility depends upon it.
Respectfully,
Vicki Ikert
Stratton, Ont.