Vote your conscience, Nancy

In a thoughtful interview on CBC radio last week, Nancy Karetak-Lindell, the MP for Nunavut, carefully set out the issues she must sort through before deciding whether to vote yes or no to a new federal bill that would legalize same-sex civil marriages.

Irwin Cotler, the federal justice minister, unveiled the bill on Feb. 1, when it received first reading in the House of Commons. It will now go to second reading, and then to a standing committee for discussion. After that, it will come back to the house for third reading, possibly in June.

The bill is simple. It says that “marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.”

And it contains words stating that no religious official is forced to perform a marriage between two people of the same sex, if to do so would be contrary to their beliefs.

Since freedom of religion is already guaranteed by the Charter of Rights, those words are probably redundant. On Dec. 9, 2004, the Supreme Court found the federal government has the authority to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, but also said religious officials cannot be compelled to perform marriages that are contrary to their beliefs.

Those words do, however, help to clarify the government’s intent: define civil marriage to include partners of the same sex, while asserting the right of religious groups to define religious marriage in accordance with their various doctrines.

During the interview, Karetak-Lindell said she has not decided how she will vote on the bill. Given that it was introduced only 10 days ago, that’s fair enough. A wise politician knows how and when to keep his or her options open.

But sooner or later, she’ll have to decide. And no one will decide for her. Unlike her experience during many other House of Commons votes, she will be free to make this decision on her own.

That’s because her party leader, Paul Martin, is insisting only cabinet ministers must vote with the government on the marriage bill. All other Liberal members, including Karetak-Lindell, are free to vote as they please.

Martin’s predecessor, Jean Chrétien, never gave his caucus that kind of freedom. Just ask Jack Anawak, who was vilified in Nunavut for voting in favour of the Chrétien government’s hated gun control bill. Had he voted otherwise, Anawak would have lost his parliamentary secretary job and been kicked out of the Liberal caucus.

Thankfully, Nunavut’s MP doesn’t have to worry about that kind of coercion. So if she is entirely free to vote as she wishes, how should she cast her vote on the civil marriage bill? How can she best carry out her duty to her constituents?

Our answer is this: she should do precisely what her party leader has allowed her to do: vote according to her conscience.

By “conscience,” we mean her own best judgment of what is good for the country, based on what she knows and believes. In making this decision, Karetak-Lindell must act as a trustee for the public good, not a mere delegate. Her greatest obligation to her constituents is to give them her best judgement.

So if Nunavut’s MP believes, in her best judgment, that the civil marriage bill is not good for the country, she must vote against it. If she believes, in her best judgment, that it is good for the country, then she must vote for it.

This means, of course, that she cannot rely on her constituents to make the decision for her. By all means, she should listen to them. But in the end, Karetak-Lindell must not allow her constituents to dictate her vote. As a trustee of the public good, her vote is hers, not theirs. JB