I came across this news item:
Martin would use notwithstanding clause to protect churches from gay marriage
18 December 2003
OTTAWA (CP) _ Prime Minister Paul Martin says he would use the notwithstanding clause in the unlikely event that the Supreme Court ruled churches must perform gay weddings.
Under the hypothetical scenario, Martin would be the first prime minister to use the Constitution's controversial veto clause.
``Oh, yes I would,'' Martin replied Thursday when asked during a yearend interview with CBC Radio whether he would ever use the clause.
But he emphasized that he would use it only under an extremely limited set of circumstances.
``I would look at it if it was a question of affirming a (religious) right,'' he said.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule next year on the federal government's controversial same-sex marriage legislation. The bill would allow gays to marry in civil ceremonies and in religious institutions that permit it, but would not force churches to carry out such ceremonies.
A devout Roman Catholic, Martin has repeatedly said he supports the legislation but doesn't want all religious institutions to be bound to it.
Martin has said before that he wouldn't use the notwithstanding clause to block gay marriage, as some critics have urged.
So at one time Paul had no problem invoking the Notwithstanding clause. Now he wants to get rid of it.
By the way the Liberals have this article on their website. Please notice the date, 2003, the same year that Paul also stated he would use the notwithstanding clause. Why do I think that little piece of information won't make it onto the Liberal website.