With regard to Northern Life's Decision 2006
Special Report Jan. 18, I couldn't help but observe some
inconsistencies in the position defined by Kevin Serviss, the
Conservative Party of Canada candidate, in respect of his
response regarding same-sex marriage.
It is important that Serviss clarify his
position and that electors understand that these
inconsistencies exist. I can't help but wonder whether he has
an underlying, and less than completely forthcoming,
agenda.
Serviss indicates if the same-sex marriage
debate returned to Parliament that "it will be primarily a
matter of conscience for me." This is inconsistent with the
response he provided at the all-candidates' meeting held in the
city council chamber where he indicated he would consult with
his constituents, by referendum or polling, and vote in
accordance with their wishes.
Perhaps more concerning, however, is his
response indicating same sex marriage has been an issue he has
been involved with for about a year, since the inception of
Bill C-38.
I wonder whether Serviss is being completely
honest in this regard considering he, as well as other local
religious representatives including Greg Mayhew, Serviss'
campaign manager during this election, presented evidence to
the federal government's Standing Committee on Justice and
Human Rights in support of the traditional definition of
marriage on Wednesday April 9, 2003.
Coincidentally enough Diane Marleau was the
chair of the committee and no doubt could corroborate these
facts. Serviss has, in fact, been involved with the issue for
nearly three years, at a minimum, and not a year.
The significance of political integrity has
been a predominant concern for the Canadian electorate. Why
slant the facts?
Al Gorman
Sudbury