CAUCHON PRESSES LIBERALS ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, POT

OTTAWA -- Former justice minister Martin Cauchon will call for Paul
Martin's government to move quickly to pass legislation on same-sex
marriage and decriminalizing marijuana -- telling a Harvard University
audience today that real political leaders meet such tricky issues
head-on.

Mr. Cauchon, now a private lawyer who has indicated that he plans an
eventual bid to succeed Mr. Martin as Liberal leader, will deliver his
speech on the controversial issues at a critical time, just as a
minority Parliament opens and Supreme Court hearings on same-sex
marriage are set to begin.

It also nudges Mr. Martin at a time when reports suggest his
government plans to delay tabling same-sex-marriage legislation for
another year.

In his speech, a copy of which was provided to The Globe and Mail, Mr.
Cauchon defends the Supreme Court's role in reviewing the issue -- he
was the justice minister who referred it to the court -- but suggests
that once the judges have ruled, politicians must act decisively.

"Politicians should not run for the job if they are not prepared to
face up to social challenges, and work them through, respectfully,
with citizens. And then, at the end of the day, take a clear stand.
Defend it. Move it forward. Fighting for justice is what makes the job
worthwhile," states the text prepared for his address.

"Politicians with an eye on re-election have lots of motivation to
sidestep their duty to establish and preserve fundamental freedoms and
to just leave it to the courts. Because these issues are never easy,
it is often very divisive in the caucus of a political party.
Political leadership is important because not fulfilling your duty
ultimately undermines democracy, and contributes to cynicism about
politics and politicians."

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will review a draft bill proposed by
the federal government to amend the legal definition of marriage to
include gay and lesbian couples. The court was also asked several
questions: Does the federal government have the exclusive jurisdiction
to change the legal definition of marriage? Is its draft bill
constitutional? Would religious institutions remain free to refuse to
marry same-sex couples, in recognition of freedom of religion?

Mr. Cauchon's speech does not directly criticize Mr. Martin's
government, and his talk to a U.S. audience at Harvard's lecture
series on Canada is not an overt salvo in the still-gentle jockeying
to succeed Mr. Martin one day. But it is clearly an attempt on Mr.
Cauchon's part to position himself early as a champion of the
Liberals' social left.

It was Mr. Cauchon who put forward legislation to legalize same-sex
marriage and decriminalize marijuana in the dying days of Jean
Chretien's government. Both of those issues have been left to Mr.
Martin's government to conclude.

The Liberals' fall to a minority position in the June election has
made the timetable for the next leadership race uncertain, since
another election could come in as little as 18 months, and Mr.
Martin's leadership would be under fire if the Liberals lost.

Mr. Martin is expected to win a vote on his leadership at a policy
convention next spring, before any efforts to weaken his grasp on the
leadership are likely to emerge.

In his speech today, Mr. Cauchon will defend the role of the courts in
"the advancement of equality" on the same-sex marriage issue, taking
to task Conservative critics who argue the courts have been guilty of
"judicial activism" by making new law rather than interpreting it.

But Mr. Cauchon also stresses the need for politicians to conclude the
issue. He feels that once the court issues its opinion, "the process
is sufficient and it is time to move ahead," said an informal adviser
to Mr. Cauchon.

The speech comes just as reports emerge that Mr. Martin's government
is seeking to delay until 2006 a potentially divisive vote on the
draft law on same-sex marriage that Mr. Cauchon proposed in 2003.

Media reports said a leaked cabinet document indicates the government
expects a quick response from the Supreme Court on same-sex marriage,
but will not even table legislation on the issue until the fall of
2005. That would mean a vote would probably not be held until early
2006.

Mr. Martin's government also dragged its feet on legislation to
decriminalize marijuana, allowing it to languish on the parliamentary
agenda until it eventually died when the June general election was
called. Mr. Cauchon says in his speech that the Chretien government's
move to decriminalize marijuana was long overdue, and supported by a
large majority.

"Frankly, such an approach leads to less respect for the law rather
than more on the part of young people. It leads them to view our
system as harsh, ideological, and out of step with contemporary
society," he says in the text for his speech. "But because of the
passionate feelings on the part of those who oppose modifying
society's approach to the use of a drug like marijuana, political
leaders have found it convenient to sidestep and defer treatment of
this issue."

What Ottawa will ask the Supreme Court

Here are the questions put before the Supreme Court of Canada by the
federal government. The Act in the first question refers to draft
government legislation that would legalize same-sex marriage.

1. Is the annexed "Proposal for an Act respecting certain aspects of
legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes" within the exclusive
legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada? If not, in what
particular or particulars, and to what extent?

2. If the answer to Question 1 is yes, is S. 1 of the proposal, which
extends capacity to marry to persons of the same sex, consistent with
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? If not, in what
particular or particulars, and to what extent?

3. Does the freedom of religion guarantee by paragraph 2(e) of the
Canadian Charter or Rights and Freedoms protect religious officials
from being compelled to perform a marriage between two persons of the
same sex that is contrary to their religious beliefs?

4. Is the opposite-sex requirement for marriage for civil purposes, as
established by the common law and set out for Quebec in S. 5 of the
Federal Law -- Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 1, consistent with the
Canadian Charter or Rights and Freedoms? If not, in what particular or
particulars, and to what extent?