A storm of debate has erupted in Ottawa over the Conservative government's plan to allow public officials to refuse to perform same-sex marriages, with Harper government members lending their voices to the howl of protest.
Politicians on both sides of the floor have spoken out against the planned Defence of Religions Act, which is also designed to protect the free-speech rights of religious leaders and others who criticize homosexual behaviour or refuse to do business with gay-rights organizations.
The legislation would be brought forward if the government loses the motion this fall to reopen the debate on same-sex marriage, which is likely to be defeated by a combination of Opposition and Conservative MPs.
"Isn't this just an attempt to remove sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination in our country, totally against what was already adopted by this Parliament," Liberal interim leader Bill Graham asked during Wednesday's Question Period.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he hadn't personally seen the bill, and called it speculation.
While Mr. Harper reiterated his government's promise to bring a same-sex marriage motion before an open debate in the House, he would not speculate on the nature of the proposed bill.
According to a report in The Globe and Mail on Wednesday, the federal government is floating the idea of a Defence of Religions Act that would protect public officials who refuse to perform same-sex marriages, and church groups that refuse to rent halls to gay couples.
Justice Minister Vic Toews confirmed the government plan to The Globe Tuesday but refused to discuss specifics. Mr. Toews said Wednesday in the House that anything outside of a motion for an open debate was pure speculation.
"During the election, this Prime Minister and this government made a promise that there would be a free vote on that issue [same-sex marriage] that we would bring a motion forward. That's what we're going to do," Mr. Toews said in the House. "Everything else is simply speculation."
The proposed bill came under fire immediately Wednesday from opposition members, advocacy groups and even those within the Conservative caucus.
Tory MP Garth Turner said that such a law could be the "slippery slope" toward protecting bigotry and intolerance, and fellow Tory Art Hanger said Charter protections of religious freedom are "cast in stone," so another law may be unnecessary.
Liberal MPs, meanwhile, are attacking the idea as a gimmick that appeals to the religious right wing of the Conservative base.
Although conservative cabinet ministers would not discuss the government's plans, several Tory MPs said further protections are needed.
"I think Mr. Toews is right. It's something that should be looked into, because the last thing I want to see in this country is some religious leader being charged or arrested for practising the faith that they've always done for years," Alberta Conservative MP Myron Thompson said.
Liberal MP Marlene Jennings attacked the notion of a Defence of Religions Act as unnecessary, given the protections in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for religion and freedom of speech.
"The only usefulness that I would see of this piece of legislation would be to create a protection for hate speech, which is not constitutional," she said. "Given that the Conservatives have cut the Court Challenges program, it means that those groups that would be the targets of that kind of hate speech would not have the means in order to challenge such an unconstitutional legislation."
Advocacy groups on both sides of the debate are cautiously waiting to see what exactly is to be put on the table.
Gilles Marchildon, executive director of gay rights organization Egale Canada, said he was deeply concerned that Canadians were being misled by the fledgling debate.
"It's telling them something is broken that needs to be fixed, and that is not the case," Mr. Marchildon said.
"Religious freedom is protected already. It seems obvious they're pandering to a very narrow religious base and further delaying dealing with the issue of same-sex marriage."
When asked if the personal beliefs of people holding civil positions, such as justices of the peace, should have an impact on what services they provide, Mr. Marchildon said there should be scope for compromise.
"There's probably room for reasonable accommodation. As long as the service is provided, I think certain individuals can be accommodated."
Institute for Canadian Values executive director Joseph Benami said the question of same-sex marriages and who should be required to perform the rites should be open to review and public debate.
"There are strong non-theological arguments on both sides of this, but these arguments were never given a fair hearing last year," Mr. Benami said.
"They (the government) recognize, as we've been saying, there are some very serious problems with the legislation as it exists now."
The plan also received support from the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada executive director Dave Quist, who said there has been concern across the church-faith community that people such as clergy could be forced to perform rites that disagreed with their faith.
"It's important to recognize the church has a right to protect its freedom of religion. I think we're at a time in society where we want things spelled out specifically.
Bill Curry