Montreal City Weblog

Kate 09:10 on 2026-07-21 Permalink Reply  

• H. John 12:41 on 2026-07-21 Permalink

  In the Fugues interview referenced in the CBC article Kate linked to, Michael is quoted as saying “De plus, les jeunes générations ne connaissent pas l’histoire de nos luttes.”

  In an article published after Michael’s death (also Fugues) they write “et les deux hommes obtiendront gain de cause devant la Cour suprême du Canada.” (https://www.fugues.com/2026/07/19/deces-de-michael-hendricks-1941-2026-un-pionnier-de-nos-communautes-vient-de-nous-quitter/)

  That ,of course, is wrong. Michael & Réné’s case only went as far as the Quebec Court of Appeal.

  Same-sex advocates had won their cases in B.C., Ontario, and Quebec appeal courts. Rather than appealing any of the three cases to the SCC, the Chretien government sent a Reference asking 3 (later 4) questions.

  Here’s the Reference explained by political science professor Peter Hogg:

  https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/4/4/712/640266

  When the SCC replied that the federal government could legislate same-sex marriage, the Liberal government introduced Bill C-38, “An Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes”; and, they made it a free vote.

  A number of Liberals voted against same-sex marriage recognition, including Montreal MP Francis Scarpaleggia (currently Speaker of the House of Commons).

  Like Michael, I think we need to remember our history. He certainly was at the centre of a great deal of it.

  When I first started posting, Kate explained that there was already a John and I would have to differentiate it.

  I immediately thought of H. John. Although I’ve written my name like that since high school, only one person always called me H. John in person. That was Michael.

• Kate 19:09 on 2026-07-21 Permalink

  H. John, I wondered whether Scarpaleggia’s Wikipedia page would cover his views on same‑sex marriage, and it says “Scarpaleggia today supports same-sex marriage” citing this Globe & Mail piece from 2019: “Liberal MPs Francis Scarpaleggia, Lawrence MacAulay and Rodger Cuzner, who voted against same-sex marriage in 2005, all said they now support it.”

  Too little too late?

• H. John 21:27 on 2026-07-21 Permalink

  At no point prior to the Chretien government’s choice to send the Reference to the SCC had the Liberal Party of Canada at any policy convention voted in favour of same sex-marriage. Party conferences invariably voted against it – year after year.

  I suppose your question “Too little too late?” leads to a larger debate about human rights and leadership expected from elected officials. There had been three major appeal court decisions in the most populous provinces of Canada explaining why this was a basic human right that should be respected.

  As long as Canadians only have rights as long as legislatures allow them (thanks to the notwithstanding clause), then the fact that someone might change their mind later on doesn’t really cheer me up.

  When Paul Martin ran for the leadership of the Party, I asked him during one of his presentations whether or not he supported it; and, secondly why most people thought his opponent Sheila Copps seemed to have taken a clearer stance (in favour) on the issue. He didn’t answer the second question, and he responded that if the SCC ruled in its favour, then he would support it. Immediately after the event his leadership team approached me and said they would have to work on his answer.

  Even with the Reference, the Chretien government tried, belatedly, to wash their hands of the issue.

  As Peter Hogg explains in his essay the fourth question, added late to the Reference, was an attempt to take the issue out of politicians hands and leave it entirely to (aka blame) the courts:

  “The fourth question in the reference asked whether the opposite-sex requirement for marriage was consistent with the Charter of Rights. That, of course, was the very question the Court would have had to decide if the decisions in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec been appealed up to the Supreme Court. However, none of the cases advanced to the Supreme Court for a ruling that would be binding throughout the country.”

  and

  “In the reference, the Court refused to answer the fourth question. The Court’s reasoning is neither clear nor persuasive, but I think the main reason, albeit unarticulated, was a desire to make Parliament play a role in the legalization of same-sex marriage. If Parliament acted, it could not be claimed that such a controversial project was entirely driven by judges. This had been a consistent theme of the political opposition to same-sex marriage, reflected in parliamentary debate as well as in the wider public debate. It was a theme that exposed the Court itself to the criticism that it was too active in making rulings that could not pass muster in a democratic legislature.”