JUST Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, February 11, 2003

0905

The Chair (Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.))

Ms. Michelle Douglas (President, Foundation for Equal Families)

0910

The Chair

Mr. Michael Hendricks ( As Individual)

Mr. René LeBoeuf ( As Individual)

0915

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ)

Mr. Michael Hendricks

Mr. David Corbett (Member of the Board, Foundation for Equal Families)

0920

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Michael Hendricks

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Michael Hendricks

Ms. Michelle Douglas

Mr. David Corbett

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP)

0925

Ms. Michelle Douglas

Mr. Michael Hendricks

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Michael Hendricks

0930

Mr. David Corbett

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.)

0935

The Chair

Ms. Michelle Douglas (President, Foundation for Equal Families)

Mr. David Corbett

0940

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ)

Mr. Michael Hendricks

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadien Alliance))

Mr. Michael Hendricks

0945

Mr. David Corbett

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. René LeBoeuf

The Chair

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.)

0950

Mr. David Corbett

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

0955

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Ms. Rita Curley (Christian Family Life Convenor, St. Ignatius Martyr Council)

1000

1005

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Pariseau ( As Individual)

1010

1015

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Rita Curley

1020

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Ms. Rita Curley

Mr. David Corbett

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

1025

Mr. Pierre Pariseau

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Pierre Pariseau

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Pierre Pariseau

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Pierre Pariseau

Mr. Richard Marceau

1030

Ms. Rita Curley

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Rita Curley

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Rita Curley

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Ms. Rita Curley

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Rita Curley

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

Ms. Rita Curley

Mr. Svend Robinson

Ms. Rita Curley

Mr. Svend Robinson

1035

Ms. Rita Curley

Mr. Svend Robinson

Ms. Rita Curley

Mr. Svend Robinson

Ms. Rita Curley

Mr. Svend Robinson

Ms. Rita Curley

Mr. Svend Robinson

Ms. Rita Curley

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

Ms. Rita Curley

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Pariseau

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Pierre Pariseau

The Chair

Ms. Rita Curley

The Chair

1040

Mr. David Corbett

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Pariseau

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Pariseau

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

NUMBER 015

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 11, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): I call to order the 15th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we're undertaking a study on marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions.

We had planned today on hearing from four witnesses. Two of them are here. One of them is caught in traffic, and we haven't heard from the fourth.

But we're going to begin. We have with us from the Foundation for Equal Families, Michelle Douglas and David Corbett, and appearing as individuals, Michael Hendricks and René LeBoeuf.

I think you've been instructed as to how we proceed. We try to keep the presentations inside of 10 minutes. If two people are presenting, keep that in mind. If the first person takes nine minutes, I feel very badly because I'm the one who's stuck with having to tell the second person that they're finished. So try to share the time if that's the case.

Without any further explanation I'm going to go to the Foundation for Equal Families, Michelle Douglas and David Corbett.

Ms. Michelle Douglas (President, Foundation for Equal Families): Thank you very much, and good morning, everyone.

My name is Michelle Douglas. I'm the president of the Foundation for Equal Families. With me is David Corbett. David is a long-standing member of the board of the foundation and the chair of our Legal Affairs Committee. David is going to be participating with me in the Q and A session afterwards, so I trust that timing won't be an issue.

We're very pleased to have the opportunity this morning to make our submission to you.

I've been an advocate for the equal treatment of gays and lesbians for more than ten years. I never imagined this role for myself, but when I was fired by the Canadian Armed Forces for being a lesbian, it had a profound effect on me. I fought my dismissal from the military in court, and it was my case that overturned the discriminatory ban against gays and lesbians in the military in October 1992, just ten years ago.

I certainly felt the sting of discrimination then, and, regrettably, I feel it again now as we consider the place of same-sex couples in the institution of civil marriage. I'm in a same-sex relationship, and this is an important issue to my partner and me, to the Foundation for Equal Families, and certainly to the broader community. It has brought us here.

The foundation has been advocating for the equal treatment of same-sex couples and our families for about the past nine years. We've intervened in many of the recent landmark legal cases that have affected the gay and lesbian community, including several appearances before the Supreme Court of Canada.

The foundation is here today to unequivocally state our support for a definition of marriage that allows for the equal inclusion of same-sex couples. I'm not talking here about same-sex marriage or something else. We mean marriage, equal marriage, for same-sex couples.

Our reasons for our position are detailed in our submission, which I understand you have. However, in summary, let me set out the two underlying principles that support our position: one, that lesbians and gay men are entitled to equality--that is, equal equality--with all others in Canada; and, two, that no religious institution or official, we believe, should be forced by the state to perform marriages that are contrary to its doctrine, beliefs, or practices. Those are the two predicating positions that support what we have to say.

The courts have spoken clearly on this issue. The Canadian population has expressed substantial support for the inclusion of same-sex couples in the institution of marriage. Mr. Chair, it is time to end this unnecessary discrimination.

Gays and lesbians want the choice to be able to be married. Same-sex couples are every bit as worthy and deserving of the equal treatment of the law, including the right to be married, as is a loving opposite-sex couple. We fully accept the range of obligations and burdens, along with the benefits and rights. In fact, just last week the foundation sponsored a seminar on the new Income Tax Act provisions that affect same-sex couples. Of course, there are benefits that flowed from these changes, but there are also increased obligations. Such is the nature of equality, and we fully accept that.

Arguments denying access to same-sex couples to be married are not, in our view, based on principles of justice or equality or even sound reasoning. Indeed, they're often exclusionary, discriminatory, and, in our view, heavy on fear-mongering. In our written submission we have set out the detailed basis for our opposition to the other proposed options.

The foundation believes that equal marriage will in fact strengthen the institution of marriage by expanding the range of loving couples who subscribe to its tenets. It's good social policy to do so, and it embraces the principles of justice and equality. It would be a logical and incremental change with little impact on the day-to-day lives of Canadians. It would have no effect on religious marriage, and it is consistent with the decisions of the courts.

We respectfully ask that the committee recommend that the definition of civil marriage be changed to allow for the equal inclusion of same-sex couples.

Mr. Chair, we know that the rhetoric surrounding this debate has been rather extreme at times. But the sky will not fall if same-sex couples are allowed to marry. The institution will remain strong. In fact, I feel a confidence of personal experience to say so.

The same kinds of dire predictions were made by the government in my case against the Canadian military some ten years ago, but in the end they were never realized. We believe the same thing will happen here. There'll be no difference.

Mr. Chair, we believe the solution is before you and the committee. It's simple, it's legal, it's elegant, it's just, and it's time.

Thank you.

¿ (0910)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We'll now go to Mr. Hendricks and Monsieur LeBoeuf.

Mr. Michael Hendricks ( As Individual): We are Michael Hendricks and René LeBoeuf from Montreal. We are a same-sex couple. We've been together for many years. We have just won a court decision in Quebec that supports our position on this issue. Mr. LeBoeuf will read our statement in French.

[Translation]

Mr. René LeBoeuf ( As Individual): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

Our brief is entitled “Civil marriages: The gold standard of social recognition”.

Our battle for recognition of our conjugal relationship through access to a civil marriage began on September 14, 1998, and succeeded at trial before Justice Louise Lemelin of the Quebec Superior Court on September 6,2002.

We are homosexual male couple. We have known each other since 1973 and have been living together since June 21, 1976. We began our legal action in order to gain access to a civil marriage because we feel that we are full-fledged Canadian citizens and believe that access to a civil marriage should be a right for all couples in a conjugal relationship.

Our arguments in court were quite simple: denying same-sex couples the right to marry is discriminatory under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms section 15 and section 1 of the Charter does not justify this discrimination.

Justice Lemelin heard our case and upheld our arguments. In her decision of September 6, 2002, she ruled, first, that section 5 of the Federal Law-Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 1 is inoperative and incompatible with the rights guaranteed under section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 5 reads:

Marriage requires the free and enlightened consent of a man and a woman to be the spouse of the other.

Second, she ruled that section 1.1 of the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act is inoperative. Section 1.1 reads:

For greater certainty, the amendments made to this Act do not affect the meaning of the word “marriage”, that is, the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Third, she ruled that the second part of section 365 of the Civil Code of Quebec stating that marriage may only be contracted between a man and a woman is inoperative.

Subsequently, owing to this legal challenge in Quebec and the support of a large segment of the civil society in Quebec, the Government of Quebec passed Bill 84, An Act instituting civil unions and new rules for establishing filiation, which grants same-sex couples the right to a new conjugal regime, with almost all the same rights as marriage, but without the name or social status of marriage. Nonetheless, Bill 84 also amended the second part of the Civil Code of Quebec to state that marriage is between two people.

Despite the importance of this historical change for same-sex couples in Quebec and in Canada, we continue to fight to have our relationship recognized through access to civil marriage. Why? Because, in our opinion, a civil union is merely a “light version” of marriage, a substitute for true social equality.

When we appeared before Justice Lemelin in the Quebec Superior Court on March 22, 2002, we explained that, despite the possibility of a civil union in Quebec, we intended to continue fighting for the right to a civil marriage.

We believe that the right to a civil union in Quebec is a good first step, offering quasi-equality in legal terms for same-sex couples; however, it is not the same as the full and equal recognition that comes with a civil marriage. First, in practical terms, our union would be recognized only at the provincial level. As Canadian citizens we would not have the right to freedom of movement in Canada, with the same recognition to which other couples who are married civilly are entitled, or all the legal and social implications of this freedom.

Second, despite the recognition that would come with a civil union at the national level--a possible solution to our problem proposed by the federal Justice Minister--we continue to believe that a civil marriage is the gold standard of conjugal relationships. If we are not recognized as equal to other Canadian citizens, we will continue to be second-class citizens, forced to live in a nebulous societal state of non-recognition at the societal and legal level.

During our 29 years together, we have experienced a gradual recognition of our rights, which were marginal at the outset and continue to be partial rights. What we want for the future is for homosexuals to be recognized as citizens on equal footing with their heterosexual counterparts, with all the rights and responsibilities of adults.

¿ (0915)

Once this happens, we will be able to get beyond the social marginalization that has historically been our fate. Never again will young Canadian gays and lesbians have to face the bleak future that lay before us when we were adolescents. Gays and lesbians will no longer be treated by the law and by society as social pariahs--a marginal group that can be gotten rid of. With a favourable decision in the Supreme Court or in Parliament, gays and lesbians across Canada would obtain full civil and legal recognition as full-fledged human beings, with full citizenship. Lastly, young people would have access to all the choices offered by society to build a full and fulfilling life in a society that is free and open to them.

Within the context of this national consultation on our rights, we have carefully read the discussion paper prepared by Justice Canada entitled “Marriage and Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Unions”. In our opinion, only the second “possible approach” namely “marriage could be changed to also include same sex couples”, is valid. The other possible approaches would only establish one treatment for gays and lesbians, and another for other citizens.

If Parliament decided to include same-sex couples in the definition of civil marriage, we would be willing to drop our legal challenge. However, no other solution would satisfy our quest for justice, equality and freedom.

Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you for your attention.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you. Merci beaucoup.

Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): First of all, thank you for coming this morning and thank you for your presentations, which have been quite interesting.

We have heard people say, around this table, in various presentations, that giving gays and lesbians the opportunity to marry would be emptying marriage out of its very essence and that it would be a Pyrrhic victory because, in the end, marriage would not be marriage anymore.

What is your answer to this kind of argument?

Mr. Michael Hendricks: My answer is that I used to hear the same kind of argument when I was a child in the United States, where I grew up. People would say that if ever unions were allowed between colored people and white people, it would be the end of western civilization, and that was quite widespread. It was called miscegenation. Ultimately, in the American Supreme Court decision Loving vs. Virginia, it was decided that people of different races could marry, and nothing has happened. As Michelle as said, the sky will not fall. Marriage is marriage, and we have no intention of getting married with people who do not want to marry.

[English]

Mr. David Corbett (Member of the Board, Foundation for Equal Families): I agree with everything that was just said. The Loving case is actually referred to in the law text as “Virginia against Loving”, which is kind of an appropriate comment. That is how it is cited.

The laws against miscegenation--it was translated as misogyny--were only struck down in the United States in 1969. So it was still legal in the United States just over 30 years ago to ban interracial marriages, a proposition that sounds preposterous today. I expect that 30 years from now this debate will be viewed with the same level of incredulity that today we view the concept of banning interracial marriages.

I think the question as framed fairly expresses some of the opposition that's raised, which has more to do with the struggle over the ownership of a word. This committee isn't constituting itself as the modern-day Noah Webster to determine what a particular word means.

What we're talking about is the legal institution of civil marriage. That's not going to cease to exist unless this committee and Parliament abolishes it, which is the third option that's being considered. The institution of marriage will continue so long as Parliament continues to use it for legal purposes. The institution of religious marriage will be totally unaffected by what Parliament does.

¿ (0920)

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: So you do understand that the fear in some circles is that making it possible for gays and lesbians to marry would be the thin edge of the wedge, and would in the end force the various religious denominations to celebrate homosexual marriages. There are some people who believe that, who fear that the protection granted by Section 2 of the Charter regarding freedom of religion is not strong enough.

Would you be confortable if this committee was to suggest that marriage be allowed for same sex couples providing there was an added provision such as Section 367 of the Code civil of Quebec, which states that a minister of the cult cannot be forced to celebrate a union that goes against the tenets of the church, of the synagogue or of his or her religion? Would you be confortable with such a provision, that would reduce or eliminate these fears?

Mr. Michael Hendricks: Section 367 is well accepted in our communities and everywhere in Quebec. It is not a problem and we have never opposed that. After all, one cannot ask the catholic church to marry divorced people if that is not allowed by the church, or to marry two persons of different religions.

Mr. Richard Marceau: So you do not have any problem in this regard. That is a fear that has been raised here, in this committee, on many occasions. So I understand that you do not have any objection to this being explicitly stated, in order to allay the fears of some people who have strong religious beliefs and who would not want their religion to be changed because of this.

Mr. Michael Hendricks: We are all for respecting people and respecting the rights of others.

[English]

Ms. Michelle Douglas: We would certainly be comfortable with that, to the degree that we don't think religious institutions or their officials ought to be forced to do that. In fact we've said so, as one of the leading equality-seeking groups in this country, on behalf of lesbians and gays.

Mr. David Corbett: It goes further than that. In our view it would be a profound violation of the charter rights of a church to invade a church's doctrine and tell a church what to believe and how to conduct its faith ceremonies.

I don't think the protection is needed in the statute because it's there in the charter, but we certainly don't object to it being there. It's probably within provincial jurisdiction because it relates to the solemnization of marriage, but I can't imagine anybody challenging it if it were included in the legislation. We would wholeheartedly and absolutely support the principle behind it.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'll be brief. I want to thank the witnesses for their eloquent evidence, but more than that I want to say that in many respects many in our communities are heroes for the leadership and courage they have demonstrated.

Michelle Douglas and I in particular go back a long way. We were involved in that struggle together to change the policies of the Canadian Armed Forces. In fact, I have in my office a framed copy of the original court decision of October 1992, which struck down the discriminatory policies of the Canadian Armed Forces. Michelle was very modest in her opening remarks, but she was subjected to the most extraordinary forms of intimidation. She was forced to go to a hotel room and was subjected to lie detector treatment to determine whether or not she really was a lesbian. It was absolutely appalling and unfortunately all too common in those days.

I was a member of committees in this House that looked at the issue of whether or not those policies of the Canadian Armed Forces should be struck down. As Ms. Douglas pointed out, at the time we heard just horror stories from the generals and everybody else that this was going to result in a complete collapse in the functioning of the Canadian Armed Forces, yet somehow the Canadian Armed Forces are carrying on. That's not to say there aren't challenges, but certainly those dire predictions proved to be completely unfounded.

I see the marriage issue as much the same thing. We've heard this is going to result in just a terrible and tragic assault on a fundamental foundation of Canadian society, when the gay and lesbian people are only saying they want to be a part of this. That's a revolutionary thought, isn't it?

I'm not sure whether the Foundation for Equal Families has had an opportunity to examine what's been happening in the Netherlands. That was the only jurisdiction to legalize access to marriage for gay and lesbian people until a couple of weeks ago, when Belgium joined them. I'm not sure if there are any statistics that show there's been a dramatic collapse in the number of heterosexual marriages there.

Perhaps you could enlighten the committee on what the experience in the Netherlands has been since they allowed access to marriage for gay and lesbian couples.

¿ (0925)

Ms. Michelle Douglas: I'd like to thank you very much for your very personal words.

Mr. Robinson was enormously helpful to me and supportive. Certainly as a member of Parliament his help was greatly appreciated. It was an enormously emotional and challenging time, as you can imagine. As I said at the beginning, it was the kind of thing that reshaped my life. It was the kind of experience that brought me before you today. I talked about the sting of discrimination and still feeling it here. This is an enormously emotional and powerful drive for me to seek this kind of equality, so I do appreciate the opportunity to say that.

On the issue you've raised with the Netherlands and Belgium, clearly this is the kind of international direction we're seeing. We'd be delighted if Canada came along in that regard as well. We don't see a wholesale dismantlement of the institution in Belgium, the Netherlands, and other progressive countries. We see that the institution is the same, but broadened to the extent that it includes other loving couples, same-sex couples.

Really there almost isn't a story to tell, except to say it's about inclusion. It's about the institution remaining whole and strong, but opening its doors to other loving couples who want to come in. I think that's really the message we want to bring. There would be no wholesale change or devastation of the institution. It would still be strong.

While I haven't seen statistics, I suspect we wouldn't see much of a change, other than those coming in. No one flocked from the military when gays and lesbians came in, despite predictions that it would happen. That rhetoric still exists, of course, in the United States. They won't allow their gay and lesbian members to leave until the time of crisis has passed, so they'll allow them to serve now but not later.

I'll end my comments there.

Mr. Michael Hendricks: One statistic from the Netherlands showed there was a rise in marriages of same-sex couples directly after the passing of the law on April 1 last year, and the majority of these couples were already in some registered relationship. They were looking for marriage. They got it and did it, and now things have stabilized to the same percentage as before.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I have a brief question for Mr. LeBoeuf and Mr. Hendricks.

One of the options that has been put forward is that some kind of civil union and recognition of something short of marriage that still respects the fact that people want to affirm and acknowledge their relationships in a public way would be appropriate. You've touched on this in your memorandum. Ms. Douglas, you've touched on that as well.

Certainly, the position I have taken and my colleagues have taken in our caucus is that “marriage light” is just not acceptable. In fact, it is deeply offensive to suggest that sort of separate but equal concept.

I wonder if you could just comment, from your perspective as a couple that has been together for many years, on why that option you now have in Quebec at the provincial level is not acceptable, particularly given the fact that as a result of the omnibus legislation that was adopted, we really have access to the rights and responsibilities that flow from our relationships. Why would that kind of civil union be unacceptable, and why would you not want the committee to recommend that?

Mr. Michael Hendricks: Ultimately, the message to the world, to our fellow citizens, would be that we had some kind of lesser relationship; we were a lesser couple. René and I would have to accept that somehow we couldn't be the same as any heterosexual loving couple that did not have children. It wouldn't be equality...separate but equal.

¿ (0930)

Mr. David Corbett: On that last question--and this is something committee members would be familiar with--when you're drafting laws you draw distinctions between groups of people, which are significant under the law. You don't draw a distinction that doesn't matter under the law. For example, let's say you lived in a regime that had racial apartheid, the court struck that down, and you were amending your laws to rectify that. Let's assume it was a voting law that used to say all white persons could cast votes in an election, and you wanted to bring that law into compliance with the court's decision. You wouldn't pass a law that said all white persons and other persons could vote. You would remove the word white and just say all persons could vote, because there would be no need to distinguish between white persons, black persons, or other persons in that law. It wouldn't be legally significant to maintain any kind of colour distinction within the law. From a symbolic point of view, maintaining the distinction in the law would be reinforcing historic prejudice in the law.

It's the same thing here. You're saying, “Look, it doesn't matter to you people what we call you because we're going to give you the same benefits and obligations under the law”. So all of our laws will now read, like Ontario's omnibus legislation, “all common-law couples and same-sex partnerships”.

We'll have these two concepts working in tandem everywhere. There's no distinction in the legal significance between them, so the only reason it's there is to say as loudly as possible, “This difference doesn't matter in law, but somehow we think it's significant”. That is direct, overt discrimination just for the purpose of drawing a distinction that doesn't matter under the law. That's why this alternative is a bad alternative, and it's illegal. It will be struck down.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Corbett.

I'm going to go to Mrs. Jennings, but before I do, I just want to remind those who weren't here when I said it the first time that we were to have four different witnesses. Mr. Pariseau apparently is still stuck in traffic and we've not heard from the Saint-Ignacious Martyrs Council.

That's just for the record.

Mrs. Jennings, seven minutes.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for your presentations. I want to speak briefly on two issues.

One is the issue of the civil union. I don't personally have any problem with the federal government legislating, if it can meet a court challenge, if it doesn't intrude into provincial jurisdiction, and as long as it's not instead of legal civil marriage. It should be in addition to it, and be open to all persons, regardless of their sexual orientation. For me, it's just an additional choice. But I would never be in favour of it being instead of a same-sex civil marriage.

If the government says marriage is between two persons, period, regardless of their sexual orientation, rather than between a man and a woman, would this in some way impede on the beliefs and practices of different religious institutions? I find this issue very interesting, because you raise the issue of miscegenation. In the States there were actual laws that stipulated people of European descent could not legally marry people of African descent. It didn't necessarily go to other so-called races, but definitely for those of African descent.

In Canada, to my knowledge, we never had such laws, but we did have religious institutions that varied in their practices. We had some religious institutions that allowed marriage even when slavery was legal in Canada.

In Nouvelle-France, for instance, the Roman Catholic church allowed marriage between a slave of African origin or a slave of first nations or aboriginal origin and a white person as long as the owner of the slave was in agreement, whereas there were Protestant religions that refused to solemnize marriage between people of different races. It was the members of those churches who, over time, came to not support that kind of practice within their own religious institutions and changed it.

The reason I make that point is if the government did legalize civil marriage between persons of the same sex, I think it's very important that those religious groups know, those that are afraid that it would somehow force their particular religious institutions to recognize those marriages or even to solemnize them, that is not the case. We've seen, as in the example I've given, the reverse in Canada, where we had no laws banning marriage between different races, but we had religious institutions that, according to their religious beliefs and practices, refused to solemnize marriage between blacks and whites or between whites and aboriginals. They never seemed to have any problem if the two races were other than white.

As I'm someone who is a result of miscegenation, there may be some who think “There's the example of why it shouldn't happen!” But I think most people would say that I turned out pretty well and am a credit to the European race, the African race, and the aboriginal race.

I don't really have any questions.

¿ (0935)

The Chair: That may draw a response.

Michelle.

Ms. Michelle Douglas (President, Foundation for Equal Families): As an illustrative example, we've prepared something that I think really goes to the heart of what you're asking for.

Mr. Corbett has two pieces of paper, which I'm going to ask him to speak to, that may illustrate the point. I'm sure you were curious to some degree about what this represents.

Mr. David Corbett: As the committee will be able to tell, we're an extremely well-funded, slick organization--I had a straight edge and a magic marker. I also learned Rhetoric 101. Give somebody a piece of paper that makes absolutely no sense.... I'm sure all of you have been wondering what on earth this is all about.

The first piece of paper has two boxes on it. The one on the upper left is religious marriage. That's the total concept--everybody who's within the religious views of some recognized church in this country.

You don't have any business changing that box. That's not your responsibility. That's up to the various religions to determine who is in and who's outside.

The second box is civil marriage, and that's Parliament's job. Parliament has the jurisdiction to decide what civil marriage is. They aren't the same box. They never have been.

There are marriages that are performed by churches that you do not recognize as valid--polygamous ones being the most obvious. They are very common in some parts of the world, but are not valid under our law. And there's no suggestion that you are obliged to include those marriages within the legal concept of marriage in Canada simply because some church happens to believe in them.

The definition of civil marriage, on the other hand, includes many marriages that lots of religions do not countenance as being marriage within the religion--divorce being the most obvious one in this country. Many of the churches will not recognize a civil divorce as being a religious divorce and will not marry somebody who is already married in the eyes of that church.

Another example that is outside the box of religious marriage is interfaith marriage. There are many religions that will not marry members who are outside their own faith. And there has never been a credible suggestion that anybody is going to force them to do that.

Now, if a province--and the provinces are responsible for solemnization of marriage--passed laws that so restricted your ability to get married within the province that you couldn't marry outside of a church and there wasn't a church who would marry you, then the province would probably have a problem with its laws.

But the civil concept of what marriage is--which is what Parliament defines--does include marriages that religions don't recognize, and that's fine. It creates a broader area of choice.

There is a large intersection where religious marriages that are performed are considered to be civil marriages under the law and are acceptable.

The second document shows what is going to happen if you allow equal marriage. There are the same two boxes. All we've done is draw one thin line, a margin, around it--I don't like putting it at the margin, because we're marginalized already, but it is a small number of people. You're adding that to the civil definition of marriage.

The definition of religious marriage is completely unchanged. Some religions accept same-sex marriage as being marriage within that religion, and those religions--the Quakers, the Unitarians, the Metropolitan Community Church--will celebrate these marriages. They'll be recognized as valid.

Nobody is going to compel one of the churches that doesn't believe in same-sex marriage to perform it, just as you're not going to compel an interfaith marriage or divorced marriage within the church.

And then the rest of the band will be outside of the religious box. There'll be no change whatsoever, not one tiny little change to the religious definition of a marriage as a result. And you're not going to affect all the opposite-sex couples who have been married. There won't be any change to their situation at all. You just add this very thin, little band to include the same-sex couples who wish equal recognition.

That's the analysis we have of the proposed change.

¿ (0940)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I'm going now to monsieur Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Thank you.

First of all, I would like to apologize because I will have to leave at 10 o'clock to take part in the debate on Bill C-13 on reproductive technologies. We have managed to pass in committee an amendment adding in the preamble that there must not be any discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. I was pleased to have the support of the government, but I did not have that of the official opposition. Of course, I had the support of Judy from the NDP. That obviously was not a problem for her.

The debate we are going through is interesting and I am certain that you, Michael Hendricks and René LeBoeuf--other witnesses as well, obviously, but I do know you since you are from Quebec--must find very encouraging the fact that things are now possible. Still, we do not know what will be the outcome of this exercise. We will have to wait for the report to be tabled and we will have to read it, but already, we can see that there is a debate going on in the public affairs arena, and there is a parliamentary committee that deals with this issue.

This must give you great pleasure. You have always insisted on this value at a time when, in the community, some people were saying that it was not that important. But no, you have always stayed the course. I remember the spaghetti dinner that we had organized at the Sky--perhaps not everyone will know about the Sky, but it is a very interesting meeting place in Montreal--where we could feel that we were somewhat on shifting ground, in the sense that there was some support within the community, yet we could feel that the issue was not on the agenda.

At the same time, this debate is interesting because it cannot be reduced to a simple legal dimension. We understand that it would put the last building block to the right to equality, which is a very significant value, but the debate cannot be reduced to a merely legal dimension.

Which brings me to the two questions I want to ask you. First, is the whole ideal of wanting to obtain the right to marriage part of a somewhat romantic vision of our relationships? I put this question to you because I believe that it is very important for us to be aware of this and to know your point of view.

Second, unfortunately, there were people who said that if we open the door of the institution of marriage to gays, polygamy could be the next step. There are people who argue that position, and even some liberal colleagues have put forward that argument. It must be considered for what it is, a point of view. So, what is your reaction to this opinion?

Third, what link do you see between religious beliefs and marriage? Do you believe that one can be an agnostic while still wanting to make a commitment within the institution of marriage?

Mr. Michael Hendricks: The first question was about the romantic aspect. Obviously, this would crown our relationship, which has been lasting for 29 years. All along the road, we have been greatly committed to one another, but it was a very personal commitment and nobody would believe us when we were saying that we were together for life, because we did not have the opportunity to go public about our relationship. I don't know whether that can be called romantic, but after 29 years, that is what is left of romantism.

The second question was the difficult issue of polygamy and overture. We have not asked that our society's moral standards be changed as to the number of persons that can be involved in a marriage. Indeed, one partner for life is already quite something. Nobody was looking for that. I don't know where it comes from, but it seems to me that it is an effort to turn the attention away from the real issue. When we are talking about a couple, we are not talking about a whole bunch of people; we are talking about two persons.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadien Alliance)): Does any other panellist care to answer?

[Translation]

Mr. Michael Hendricks: The third question was about the link between the law and religion. In fact, there is none. Civil marriage is a legal institution, and marriage is celebrated by the churches with the authorization of the state.

¿ (0945)

[English]

Mr. David Corbett: Just a brief comment on the issue of “if this, then why not polygamy”. You have to look at each proposed change on its own merits, and the implications of polygamy are far more profound for society than the implications of same-sex marriage. I'm not familiar with the arguments for and against. It certainly would be a radical change in our law. It tends to be very contrary to the interests of women because polygamy tends to be men with many wives rather than people having a multiplicity of spouses. It tends to be in a context where women are viewed as a kind of property and children as a kind of dynasty rather than a responsibility. I expect the committee, Parliament, and society as a whole would want to debate that pretty carefully. The issues are totally unconnected in that respect.

I'd point out that on the strength of the charter there was a chap out in B.C. who claimed that the laws against incest discriminated against him and were invalid because he and his daughter--she now being grown--had this affectionate relationship. The court didn't have too much trouble in tossing that one out, which is surely the right decision.

Everything is up for challenge. That's why we have institutions to assess these challenges, and you deal with them all on their own merits.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Monsieur Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: One small question, Mr. Chair.

[English]

The Chair: You're at six minutes on a three-minute round. We'll be back. Are you leaving? You may have one very short question. Happy birthday. Go.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: The reason why I have asked this question to you is that for many people, the perception of the gay community is that we are frivolous people, not capable of any real commitment. There were even some witnesses who were prepared to use that argument. When you talk about romantic relationships... In other words, should we always focus on values such as faithfulness and commitment in the arguments that we put forward as the reasons for us wanting to make a commitment through marriage?

Mr. René LeBoeuf: When you commit yourself to marriage, you sign a contract and commit yourself to taking on the responsibilities that go with it. I believe that not everybody, obviously, want to make a commitment to the kind of relationship that is marriage.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I'll go to Mr. McKay, to give Ms. Curley the opportunity to catch her breath. After Mr. McKay is done we'll entertain a presentation, if the committee is so disposed.

Mr. McKay is next for three minutes, and then we'll go to Ms. Curley.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Thank you, Chair.

I just want to ask you about the issue that the sky will not fall if gays and lesbians are admitted into the institution of marriage. I suggest to you that's a slightly disingenuous argument. In fact, you can't help but think that if a pool of homosexual couples were admitted to the institution of marriage it wouldn't impact on our entire concept of marriage.

The first issue is obviously that marriage would no longer be between a man and a woman; marriage would simply be between two persons. The second area is “to the exclusion of all others”. I'd like your comments on the study done by Gretchen Stiers called From This Day Forward: Commitment, Marriage, and Family in Lesbian and Gay Relationships, where she says while exceedingly few of even the most committed gay and lesbian couples believe that marriage will strengthen and stabilize their personal relationships, nearly half of those gays and lesbians who actually disdain traditional marriage, and even gay commitment ceremonies, will nonetheless get married. Why? For “the bennies”--the financial and legal benefits of marriage.

Then she goes on to say that while many radical gays and lesbians actually yearn to see marriage abolished and multiple sexual unions legitimized, they intend to marry, not only as a way of securing benefits but as part of a self-conscious attempt to subvert the institution of marriage from within.

In her study she says the concept of monogamy is a bit of a loose idea, particularly among gay men. When gay men are asked whether monogamy, to the exclusion of all others, is important in a committed relationship--these are all people who've gone through covenant-like relationships--only about 10% say that's important. If you ask heterosexual couples the same question, it's almost the reverse, and 90% say that monogamy is an important concept in marriage.

I'm curious to get your reactions to Stiers' study. She is certainly counter-intuitive and seems to question your initial proposition that the admission of gays and lesbians into the institution of marriage will have virtually no impact on the institution at all.

¿ (0950)

Mr. David Corbett: First of all, the Stiers study says nothing about the impact on opposite-sex couples of admitting lesbian and gay couples to the institution of marriage. Love and marriage is not some zero gain. If something is given to gay people, it will suddenly be taken away from opposite-sex couples. If the word “marriage” is applied to committed relationships of same-sex couples, this is not going to put heterosexuals off their sexual food, so to speak. They will not cease meeting each other, falling in love, or having children. It will have no impact on what's going on in their home. The point is that it does not detract from the institution that currently exists, which is expressed in the social reality of people living their lives if this recognition is accorded. What it is, though, is a suggestion that there'll be this kind of tainting or debasing of a currency that is reflected by the social reality of opposite-sex relationships. The suggestion is that if this is associated with that, the currency will be debased.

The argument here flows from a study that's based on an American analysis. People are going to get married to get the benefits. Why would they do that up here? If all you want are the benefits, you don't need to get married. Common-law status gives you all the benefits here. It's not true in the United States, but it is true here. In those few areas of provincial jurisdiction where there is a difference between common law and married, it's almost certainly unconstitutional, and those are all falling under court challenges. So the premise to the argument, which flows from the American reality where common-law couples aren't recognized, has no validity in this country.

As for the actual sexual practices of gay men, which is a matter of great, almost prurient interest, there has been a social history to that, and it flows from the secrecy and lack of legitimacy of those relationships. If you're outside the rules to begin with, then you start to wonder whether you shouldn't throw out all the rules. Those relationships will be stabilized by the public promises that come from marriage, which will strengthen those domestic institutions for those and the couples who are in them. That's the whole point of that kind of public commitment. You will see the effect of it in the stabilizing of those relationships 10, 15, 20 years down the line.

The other point, and then I'll leave off because this has been a long answer, is that still today in the gay male community the proposition exists that honesty about one's actual sexual conduct is more important than fidelity, because of the experience that community has had with the AIDS crisis. A lot of hypocrisy goes on in opposite-sex relationships where particularly the men say, “I believe fidelity is very important”, but they're not faithful. They lie to their spouses about it. If that happens in the gay male culture, people die. So the pressure to be candid and honest about what they're actually doing is much stronger than it is in the heterosexual community.

In the 19th century, if the husbands who had infected their wives with sexually transmitted diseases had been asked on a stack of bibles whether they believed in fidelity and were observing it, they would have said they were and that they had picked this up on toilet seats.

I don't think the picture is nearly as clear as you suggest, that the balances are reflected in a mirror like that.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson wants to comment.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I have a very brief supplementary to Mr. McKay's question. Mr. McKay was citing an article in which it was suggested that some gay or lesbian people might marry for the “bennies”, the benefits. I wonder if the witnesses could help to enlighten Mr. McKay and others who might not be clear on the fact that there are no benefits that one marries for any more. In fact, after the omnibus legislation was adopted, and I think you were here when that happened, there were no benefits left.

¿ (0955)

Mr. John McKay: He already made that point.

The Chair: We're going to ask Ms. Curley to make an opening statement. Ms. Curley, we have heard from the other two groups of witnesses. You are entitled to make an opening statement. Then we'll proceed with having the members of the committee put questions to any and all of you as they see fit. I'll let you know when your time has run out or when we're getting close to that point.

Ms. Rita Curley (Christian Family Life Convenor, St. Ignatius Martyr Council): All right. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, members of the justice committee, and friends, I am speaking as Christian family life convenor of St. Ignatius Martyr Council of the Catholic Women's League of Canada.

Our council has 40 members, and with all the members of the 1,359 councils, we have more than 112,000 members who form the Catholic Women's League of Canada, the largest volunteer organization of women in our country. We pray and work under the patronage of the mother of Jesus, and today is the feast day of Our Lady of Lourdes. Under her title of Our Lady of Good Counsel, as we perform the spiritual and powerful works of mercy, we are rooted in gospel values; we are rooted in virtues. We are dedicated to the preservation and protection of Christian family life, since the family is a necessary and indispensable good for the whole of society.

We have been commended by federal, provincial, and municipal authorities for the voluntary services performed with goodwill by our members.

Canada has its roots in the Judeo-Christian tradition, which explains and gives purpose to life, humanity, and the world. We see our values are coming under attack, just as the family is under attack, and this means mothers, fathers, and children.

Marriage or matrimony stands at the beginning of creation:

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

That's from Genesis.

Jesus added that for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one, so they are no longer two but one. That is Matthew 19, verses 5 and 6.

Marriage is a unique and exclusive commitment between a man and a woman whose love overflows in fruitfulness and ultimately brings children into the world.

While a number of Canadians do not accept the Judeo-Christian revelation, this does not invalidate the reality that the family is the oldest natural society, that it exists and is indispensable for the future good of society. The current moral relativism is not a rival of ethics. It simply is regressive, not progressive. It only knows how to dissolve, not how to build. All recent changes to the moral code--contraception, divorce, abortion, homosexuality, extramarital sex, openness to pornography, euthanasia, etc., are negative in nature. They do not present a coherent ethic of their own, only an emphasis on freedom for individualism and an apathy towards the decline and dissolution of the family.

Astronauts are in the news again. On Christmas eve, 1968, the Apollo astronauts took turns reading the Bible, and Frank Borman said the first prayer made by man above the moon:

Give us, o God, the vision which can see thy love in the world, in spite of human failure. Give us the faith to trust the goodness in spite of our ignorance and weakness. Give us the knowledge that we may continue to pray with understanding hearts, and show us what each one of us can do to set forth the coming of the day of universal peace. Amen.

William Anders said:

I believe that we are guided in our journey by God's wisdom and power, which created this universe, established nature's laws, and set the basis for our faith. I believe that all of us are guided by the same wisdom, power and faith in our daily lives as we enter this new age of awareness about ourselves.

James Lovell describes his feelings about being one of the first three men in space, and he used the words of John Magee, the 19-year-old RCAF fighter pilot whom Canada claims as its own, the author of the famous immortal sonnet, “High Flight”, that ends with:

I've topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace
Where never lark, or even eagle flew -
And, while with silent lifting mind I've trod
The high untrespassed sanctity of space,
Put out my hand and touched the face of God.

The catechism of the Catholic Church describes marriage in this way:

It aims at a deeply personal unity, the unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and one soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility.

All these aspects of marriage are necessary. They are found in the unions of man and woman in all civilizations in recorded history. To take away any of these aspects from the definition of marriage is to end up with something that is not marriage.

À (1000)

Unity, indissolubility, and openness to fertility are essential to marriage. Polygamy is incompatible with the unity of marriage. Divorce separates what God has joined together. The refusal of fertility turns married life away from that supreme gift, the child. This is what we need to hear even if it is not what we want to hear. The transmission of marital love from generation to generation communicated 1,000 times over from one couple to another, from one family to another, is indisputable evidence of the greatness and grace of marriage. It deserves the support and protection of society.

Marriage can never be a private lifestyle choice but must remain between a man and a woman and be singled out from all other adult relationships because of its unique service to society based on love and mutual support. It is not just free love. It is a stable joint project in which individual love is transformed into a social obligation. Democracy cannot and will not survive when governments deny objective moral truth. We need to make Canada a better place in which to live. To equate homosexual unions with marriage is just as logical as it is to equate anarchy with government.

Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, in his Life is Worth Living TV series, taught that the new morality is nothing but the old immorality. We see that the sexual revolution and same-sex unions are not about liberating people from traditional morality but about pan-sexualism. To redefine marriage to be more inclusive of homosexuality is to create a new morality in which homosexuality is not merely tolerated but is normalized and would branch out into sexual activity with babies, children of both sexes, and with animals. The new morality would change truth to a matter of subjective tastes and morality to a matter of individual preference.

The recent changes to the moral code, contraception, divorce, abortion, homosexuality, and extramarital sex opened us to pornography, euthanasia, etc. They are negative in nature. They do not present a coherent ethic of their own but only an emphasis on self-indulgence for individualism and dissolution of society through a loss of the sense of responsibility. Marriage is important because it is where the next generation is produced and raised.

The reward for the promotion of promiscuity in society is the global AIDS pandemic, which the heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual behaviour is responsible for. Male intravenous drug addicts with AIDS infect their sexual partners through private or personal behaviour. Pregnant addicts infect the unborn. The main way that AIDS is spread is through active homosexual behaviour. Only a change in behaviour will stem the tide of AIDS. Promiscuity leads to common-law relationships. Nearly 30% of Quebec couples live common-law compared to 12% in the rest of Canada, and 8% in the United States, and it has led to more single-parent families.

Statistics show that 63% of common-law couples break up within 10 years compared to only 14% of legally married couples. In 1996, Statistics Canada released their study of 23,000 children, which shows children raised in their biological, two-parent families had fewer problems, but children without this advantage experienced out-of-wedlock pregnancies, poor school performance, early dropout rates, and difficulties with the law, they had abortions, and were inclined to suicide.

In conclusion, we've had enough of unholy alliances and unholy relationships. They are nothing but a dead end and an end to society. We find there is no reason to change the definition of marriage. It would be totally inappropriate. Let us restore Christianity to its rightful place. Thank you, and God love you, as Bishop Sheen used to say. Thank you.

À (1005)

The Chair: Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I didn't want to interrupt Ms. Curley, but I want to raise a very serious point of order at this juncture of the committee's proceedings, and that is with respect to the tenor and the language that witnesses bring, because we're going to be hearing from other witnesses as well.

The Chair: I accept your point.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, it's a point of order, and I want to conclude my point. I've sat on parliamentary committees for many years, as have other members of this committee, and there are certain basic rules of respect and dignity that witnesses are expected to observe. I don't care what the witness is, whether it's a Catholic sister, whether it's an academic, or whether it's a member of Parliament. We're expected to treat one another with civility and respect, and that standard has not been met on more than one occasion in this committee. I've been silent, but I will not be silent any longer.

As a gay man, to hear a witness equating me with pedophiles, with those who would have sex with babies, with those who would engage in bestiality, is not acceptable from any witness, and I won't accept it. It's not acceptable. Frankly, I'm disappointed that no other member of this committee has spoken out. If this kind of hatred and venom were directed at blacks or aboriginal people, does anyone think that members around this committee would be silent and just listen as this kind of hatred is spewed? I don't think so.

It's not acceptable. I'm asking the chair to rule that when witnesses appear before this committee they can certainly make vigorous arguments and disagree fundamentally with the concept of gay marriage, but to equate gay people and lesbian people with criminals and those who would engage in pedophilia is simply not acceptable.

The Chair: My intention would be to bring up the subject in camera with the committee in its entirety and we'll have the discussion.

Mr. Pariseau.

Mr. Pierre Pariseau ( As Individual): I'm very sorry to be late. There was a huge traffic jam on the highway coming from Montreal--four hours. I'll just start, if you don't mind.

If one could imagine oneself 30 years ago in this very same room, or if one tried at this very moment to start a group discussion on gay marriage in Malaysia, Ethiopia, Peru, Bosnia, Vietnam, India, China, Guatemala or Iraq, one would be looked upon with a mixture of great bewilderment and of course an utter sense of contempt.

That is why I must say before I begin that the matter being talked about in this room here today must be one of the most trivial, if not one of the most unnecessary, in the history of this Parliament. On this whole issue, our ancestors would, without any doubt, share the same feelings as the ones of more than six billion people on this planet. As a Canadian of 14 generations, I am utterly embarrassed to have to come here today and try to explain in 10 minutes what did not need to be explained 20 years ago and what is impossible to explain today in less than three hours.

For the last 15 years I have been abroad most of the time, so I have great difficulty in understanding why the priorities of this country have become so unbelievably confused.

Last year I spent several weeks trying in vain to get the media in Quebec to at least have a look at a few studies that the people of Quebec had been denied at the public hearings on the civil union bill. I was told by the head of the French services of the Canadian Press that my opinions were outdated and would not be published. I was told that there was no interest for the latest studies of Dr. Spitzer. I was told that the studies of Dr. Satinover and Dr. Reisman, who successfully challenged gay activists in the United States, were irrelevant in Quebec.

What has happened over the last two decades in this country is quite simple. The powerful homosexual lobby has managed to force the gay marriage issue to the top of this government's agenda while ignoring far more important health issues related to the gay lifestyle and their consequences on public health.

Basically, the people of this country who oppose, not the homosexual but this lobby, have been told to shut up or think of themselves as homophobic bigots. I think I can relate to what you were saying before, Mr. Robinson. Or they've been called closet homosexuals. That's another way to have people quiet down when they have to give their opinion.

Recently, university professors who have dared to confront the lobby in courts have been the victims of countless threats and hate mail. The committee opposing the gay games of 2006 in Montreal have been denied the right to a bank account. A therapist helping unhappy gays wanting out of homosexuality faces nasty obstruction in Montreal also. By the way, there's only one.

The homosexual lobby is surprisingly scary. Most politicians and the media are incapable of uttering a single word against it. This standing committee must understand there is very little freedom of speech on this issue outside of this room.

Last week I went for an HIV test at the governmental medical clinic in Montreal's gay village. Since young gay men have the life expectancy of a Canadian living in 1871, I asked the head nurse who had been doing these tests for 15 years to help me to translate to French the names of many specific diseases and cancers apart from AIDS that young homosexuals will face when they engage in promiscuous anal intercourse. The nurse was not aware of the existence of these specific diseases. As I left I picked up several health brochures, or sex brochures, for young gays and bisexuals. None of them even mentioned the fact that close to 30% of young gay men will be HIV-positive or dead before they are 30 years old.

À (1010)

[Translation]

In the past ten years, our governments and our courts have amended hundreds of laws, as was done in some countries in Europe, without undertaking any analysis of the scientific value of studies and theories in favor of homosexuals. All these legislative amendments were directly linked to the decision made in 1973 to remove homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association's list of mental disorders. That decision, which was brought about by the lobby, but was challenged by most therapists at the time, has seriously impeded research on the homosexual condition ever since. The resulting confusion has allowed today's lobby to describe homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle that is healthy and without any impact on homosexuals' health or on public health. The public believes erroneously that it has been proven that homosexuality is innate and irreversible and hence deserving of more government protection than is granted to other sexual minorities.

In Quebec, the capitulation to the homosexual lobby is virtually complete, mostly because homosexuals are over represented in the media, just as they are in all government departments. Last year, during the infamous consultation on the civil union, which was probably the most biaised in Quebec's recent history, I requested, without success, that European and American experts be consulted in order to bring some balance to the debate. Quebec's experts failed to show up, out of fear for their career.

I also indicated to the government that all these pro-homosexual policies were probably contrary to the UN's Convention on the rights of the child. I also demanded that the right of school children to be protected from misleading pro-homosexual campaigns be respected. At the present time, in Quebec's schools, 10% of children are prematurely labelled by being told that they are homosexuals for life. Thousands of ex-gays are living fullfilling lives and, according to all studies, or at least a majority of them, only 1 to 3% of the population is homosexual.

During these same infamous consultations, the American Psychological Association, which favours homosexual marriage, has been quoted several times, even though its credibility is dubious. The American Congress had just recently severely criticized the association for acting as an apologist for sexual relations between men and young boys. A few young people gave positive evidence before the committee about their homosexual parents, but not a single child disturbed by the homosexual relationship of their parents has been heard. The government has denied these children a fundamental right to speak. They also ignored the analysis made by American researchers who courageously showed that all studies in favor of same sex parenting were so seriously flawed as to make them invalid.

I have tried to speak about these studies before the media and the committee, but without success. I have sent copies of them but nobody was interested. In Europe, homosexual marriage and homosexual adoption were the subject in Parliaments of debates lasting several hours or even several days. In Quebec, not a single member voted against it or even asked a question. The Civil Code was amended to please the few homosexual couples that are capable of stability. We are talking here about a few hundred couples.

Four centuries of tradition has been thrown away. Quebec, according to its Premier, then became a model jurisdiction. Consequently, this standing committee should not look up to the Quebec legislation on civil union as a model. This committee must have the courage to call upon the experts that are capable of analyzing and disprove the scientific validity of all the studies that are put forward by the lobby. I believe that the population has a fundamental right. This committee should also understand that the cute picture of homosexual couples that are together for life, which is showcased for the media, has nothing to do with homosexual reality. A tiny minority of homosexuals--once again, we are probably talking here about a few hundreds of them--value faithfulness and are capable of some stability, as the tradition of marriage demands.

Thus, I believe that it is high time that we put into perspective the relentless complaints of discrimination on the part of the lobby, at least all complaints of homophobia. We must also understand that the equation homophobia as racism is quite simply false. Except in the case of Michael Jackson, ex-Blacks do not exist. Gays and lesbians are not excluded from marriage; they are already entitled to it. A number of them have already been married.

À (1015)

In fact, this minority is a privileged one. Man bars in Montreal, clubs, gays and lesbians associations everywhere in Canada are still quite illegally discriminating against heterosexuals. They are forbidden to enter into these associations or bars. The great promiscuity that is tolerated in these public places for gays is completely forbidden in heterosexual clubs and would be worthy of a police crackdown.

As long as studies show that a significant proportion of male homosexuals still have several hundred partners during their lifetime, this committee should exclude from discussions the issue of marriage and focus on the impact of the alarming spread of AIDS on public health. As long as homosexual columnists confirm these statistics with their own personal experience, our society will have to remind them what are the values of marriage.

The thousands of ex-homosexuals who are getting married are a good example of a solution to this whole issue. This committee would be well advised to examine the high level of tolerance in homosexual media in New York. I was there last week, and it is now possible for an activist gay columnist to explain in an interview published in his gay newspaper that he wishes to leave behind the world of gays, and this is quite accepted in gay circles.

[English]

Marriage must remain what it has been for centuries all around this planet. A thoroughly respectful man, forever in love with the woman he married, must remain the model for us all. It must remain so because if we are truly honest, these are the kinds of parents we would all choose if we were given the choice.

Three million years of heterosexual evolution have made us all here today. Newborns have a fundamental right to their mother's breast and their father's presence. Married homosexual couples are biologically dysfunctional. The state is supposed to be out of the bedrooms; it should stay out.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Sorenson.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Thank you for coming. I'm glad you showed up.

First of all, to Ms. Curley, I would like to thank you and maybe just have you respond to the point of order that we heard a little earlier, where he talked about your hatred coming forward in your speech. I certainly didn't take it as that. I know, on the issue of marriage, especially if it's in the church, we look at it as a sacred union, and I certainly didn't take your remarks as being hateful.

Also, you made mention about the nature of marriage--at least, one of you did. Could you talk a little about the nature of marriage? Is marriage based completely on a loving relationship or is it an orderly relationship? We recognize it as being a certain order of man and woman, one and one. Maybe you could comment on that. I only have three minutes, so I'll give you the opportunity.

Ms. Rita Curley: Thank you.

I'm sorry Svend Robinson took it the way he did, because I admire him for fighting so hard for his convictions. I am trying to do the same.

I have God on my side, because I'm following God's laws. We only have ten commandments, and how many libraries of law books do we have to try to keep us following the commandments?

I forget your second question already, because I'm sorry he took me the wrong way.

À (1020)

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: It was about the nature of marriage, your opinion of what marriage is based on.

Ms. Rita Curley: It's between a man and a woman. We have people who make all mistakes in the ten commandments, and they are natural mistakes, in a way. But the people who overindulge in alcohol and become alcoholics can help themselves by joining AA. The people who are homosexuals--I find from my experience of other people that these people have been molested in their childhood and that's what gave them the habit. It started them off on the wrong foot. But they can change. Courage is an organization that helps them get away from that lifestyle. There are all kinds of lifestyles that are wrong, but there are organizations like AA and Courage that step up and help them to help themselves when they are aware of them.

I find that there's hatred and venom on the opposite side, from the homosexual group, because they would have me shut up and not say anything.

God gave us our laws, and we should try to follow the ten commandments, because there is a God. Even the men out in space, the Apollo astronauts, were able to offer prayer up there. Do the homosexuals ever pray? Maybe Svend can answer that. Can he?

Mr. David Corbett: I wouldn't mind putting my two cents' worth in. I think the comment Mr. Robinson made is important to reiterate. On a personal level, the subjective intention Ms. Curley had was not to be hateful. She's obviously not a hateful person, but those are hateful words when you compare what we do with each other to bestiality, sex with children, or anything connected with it.

On the other hand, we must have the scope to respond to those fears and suggestions because that is part of the debate in the public sphere. It's a difficult balance to strike. We find that every time an issue of our rights is raised we have to respond to the same issues. They're prior to the debate we have now, which is, are we entitled to equality rights, or are we dealing with a bunch of sick people who should be suppressed? The public debate in the secular world is beyond that, but whenever it's raised we're going to hear that kind of rhetoric.

The second part of responding to it is that the effect of hatred and discrimination is felt viscerally. I share with Mr. Robinson the visceral response, as a gay man, to hearing that language every time it is raised. Until you have been the subject of that kind of rejection, you don't understand what it feels like.

I was raised in a very conservative family. My grandfather was the Conservative Attorney General of Ontario. I went to very conservative schools and practised law at Tory's. I'm hardly a radical person. But I can tell you that when you're the victim of that kind of commentary, no matter how well-meaning, it hurts.

The last point is that we are not a Catholic country. We are not even a Christian country. We are a pluralist country, and you can't impose the views of one religious group on those who don't agree with it.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Corbett.

John McKay.

Mr. John McKay: I just want to go back to the dialogue Mr. Corbett and I had about the impact the admission of homosexual people into the institution of marriage might have on the institution itself. I suggested to him it was disingenuous to expect that there wouldn't be some impact by the inclusion of this particular group.

I want to direct my question to Mr. Pariseau because he was out of the room. The issue I raised was that fidelity in a heterosexual relationship is considered to be extremely important for most people, where--and I'm generalizing here--for homosexual people it's not considered nearly as important in relationships. I'm basing this on Gretchen Stiers' analysis.

Mr. Corbett was quite articulate in arguing that the admission of gays would not debase the currency of marriage; it wouldn't detract from heterosexuals in marriage; there would really be no benefits gained, as all the benefits have already been gained; and that marriage might well stabilize homosexual relationships, which I thought was kind of a curious argument. But those are the arguments he put. I think this is a debate, so I'd be interested in your response to those arguments.

À (1025)

Mr. Pierre Pariseau: I don't believe that's true. There must be a very small minority of gay couples who believe in fidelity. One of the main points I'd like to make here today is there are hundreds of studies that this country is not aware of, and most of them are American, of course. It would be very interesting if Health Canada could pile them up and tell us what is going on in this gay world; tell us what exactly is the gay world. We're not sure and we're going to change. It's going to happen. It's happening everywhere and nobody seems to be able to stop the lobby. It's necessary that we have the data.

If I look at what I've been reading about for the last year or so--I've been doing a lot of research because I was basically excluded in Quebec because of my point of view--a lot of columnists who are gay don't seem to think marriage will make them more faithful.

There are about 30 saunas in Montreal. It's supposed to be the gay sauna capital of the world. There are more saunas per capita in Montreal than anywhere else in the world. If tomorrow morning they have the right to marry in Montreal, I don't they're going to shut the saunas down. I don't think all the clubs and the big raves that are going on at the Olympic stadium are going to stop because of that.

I was told by people working in the medical clinic that while they have these big campaigns against AIDS and this and that, and for condoms, in the rooms next door people are having sex without any consideration. I'm not saying this is a typical homosexual problem, but if I read what the columnists and gay literature say, it is prevalent. It's not at all related to what people think of marriage.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would appreciate brief answers to my questions, because I have only three minutes.

First of all, Mr. Pariseau, I was a little bit surprised by your presentation. Indeed, I was surprised that you were not blaming homosexuals for the delays caused by traffic this morning; you see them as very powerful.

I have a few brief questions. You said that several gay institutions were closing their doors to heterosexuals. How many times have you tried to get into a gay institution, Mr. Pariseau?

Mr. Pierre Pariseau: When you say gay institutions, you mean a club?

Mr. Richard Marceau: How many times have you tried to get into a gay club?

Mr. Pierre Pariseau: As I said before, I travel abroad a lot. In fact, I have been living in Asia for about 15 years, and the situation is somewhat the same everywhere. First, in a lesbians club, men are forbidden from entering. It has happened to me on St-Denis Street at 3 o'clock in the morning; I was getting off an airplane and was completely frozen. It happened to me in Montreal.

Mr. Richard Marceau: So, you have tried, but you have been prevented from getting in.

You assert, Mr. Pariseau, that because they supposedly do not have the same perception of fidelity, that gays should not be allowed to marry. Should we also ban marriage for heterosexuals who have a tendancy of not being quite faithtful?

Mr. Pierre Pariseau: No sir.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Ms Curley, you mentioned earlier a whole list of problems that are typical of today's society, and you included homosexuality and divorce. Would be favourable to prohibiting divorce in Canada today?

À (1030)

[English]

Ms. Rita Curley: I think we should be teaching that all the problems people have in marriage when they get divorced.... Sometimes if they slow down and get help it restores their marriage.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: According to you, should we prohibit divorce?

[English]

Ms. Rita Curley: No, it's a personal choice people have to make. They need the teaching loud and clear from the pulpits in our Catholic churches.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: You are against prohibiting divorce. So you are yourself making a distinction between what the pope is saying and what society should tolerate.

[English]

Ms. Rita Curley: Divorce is a problem with people, and if they slow down and think, and if they respect each other, then they can work out their difficulties and restore their marriage. We need more marriages that are solid.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: You did not answer my question.

[English]

The Chair: It's your last question.

Ms. Rita Curley: What the heck is the question?

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: You said yourself, Ms Curley, that we should not prohibit divorce, even though that is the teaching of the Catholic church because the catholic churcha does not accept divorce. So you are making a distinction between that which society is tolerating and that which religion may dictate. Why should it not be the same in the case of marriage between persons of the same sex? Why do you not make the same distinction?

[English]

Ms. Rita Curley: God gave us ten commandments and we can't keep them. Why do we have to try to ban divorce in Canada? We shouldn't make it a legal problem; it should be a civil problem so they can work at it and solve their own problems without legalizing it and taking up the court's time and everything.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I have just a couple of questions for Ms. Curley. I'm certainly familiar with the Catholic Women's League. They're active in my own community and often do a lot of good work in the community of Burnaby. I don't always agree with the position they take, but I know, for example, in St. Helen's parish, in my constituency, they're active and, as I say, have done some important and valuable work. So we can have a respectful disagreement on these issues, and that's the spirit within which I ask my questions of you, Ms. Curley.

I really have two questions. I guess they flow from my friend Mr. Marceau's question, about understanding that while you may have deeply held views as a Catholic on these issues, the question is whether or not those views should then be translated into the law of the land for all Canadians, even those who don't share those views.

One of the misconceptions is that in some way the Catholic Church might be required to respect the right of gay and lesbian people to marry, and that's just not the case. No one is suggesting around this table, Ms. Curley, that your freedom of religion shouldn't be fully respected and honoured, but what we're saying is, for those who don't happen to share your religious beliefs, that shouldn't be imposed on them.

I want to ask two questions in that context. You're a Christian, I understand. I've looked high and low, and I've searched in the New Testament as hard as I possibly can, and I can't seem to find a single word by Jesus Christ on homosexuality. Can you help me on that?

Ms. Rita Curley: Yes. What was it he said now?

Sister Louise tells me it wasn't an issue at that time.

Mr. Svend Robinson: It wasn't an issue at that time?

Ms. Rita Curley: It wasn't an issue at that time.

Mr. Svend Robinson: There were no homosexuals at that time?

À (1035)

Ms. Rita Curley: Yes, he said.... What was it now? Christ did say something.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Anyway, perhaps you can come back to the committee if you are able to find something, because I have looked everywhere and I can't seem to--

Ms. Rita Curley: Maybe I'll send you something from the Bible. How would that be?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Yes, from Christ. I'd be interested, just as a matter of interest, because I've looked everywhere. I can't seem to find anything.

Ms. Rita Curley: Have you read the Bible?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Absolutely.

Ms. Rita Curley: From cover to cover, or like me, you get bits here and there?

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'm probably like you on that one.

Ms. Rita Curley: [Inaudible—Editor]

Mr. Svend Robinson: My second question--

The Chair: There's a piece of Hansard we're all going to keep.

Mr. Svend Robinson: True confessions, that's right.

My only other question, Ms. Curley, is this. You talked about one of the essential criteria of marriage being that the relationship is open to fertility, and that was essential for you.

I know of a couple of folks from a seniors' housing complex, in Burnaby again, not far from St. Helen's Church, actually, a place called Seton Villa. They're both in their 70s. They both play bingo; they're out playing bingo. They were single, and they got to know one another, through bingo, and they fell in love. And you know something? They actually got married.

There's not much chance of fertility in that relationship, is there, Ms. Curley? But is that marriage any less strong, any less valuable, any less committed because they aren't able to have children? Or is it your position that because they weren't open to fertility, marriage shouldn't be open to them?

Ms. Rita Curley: Let's say they were open to fertility but weren't physically able to have children. But it was open to fertility.

I think it should be between a man and a woman and not two men. I see that as--what word would you accept? Abnormal? I don't know what word to use so that I don't offend you. Perhaps “functional”.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I don't think there are any other questioners. Oh, Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: Well, fool that I am, I'll continue on in the debate. This is such a political winner.

Apparently, I was intimidating witnesses last time, which I found to be very strange.

The argument is that in order for a marriage to be a marriage it needs a man and a woman. A lot of the argument that marriage doesn't need a man and a woman gets cast on the basis that it's an offence against people's rights and that couples are equally loving whether they're male couples, female couples, or male and female couples. I'd like to hear from you as to whether those rights arguments, loving arguments, and family arguments ultimately miss the point, that in fact marriage needs a man and a woman and that the underlying dynamic of marriage is heterosexual sex. That is the ethos that makes a marriage a marriage.

I'd be interested, first of all, in getting a response from, if you will, the right side of the table, and then we'll hear from the left side of the table.

The Chair: Who wants to go first?

Mr. Pierre Pariseau: I'm sorry, I just don't get the question.

Mr. John McKay: It's that it is not a marriage without a man and a woman and that the underlying dynamic of marriage is heterosexual sex.

Mr. Pierre Pariseau: It has been like that for hundreds of years in all cultures. If I can put it very simply, it's still the case where gay propaganda has not changed the minds of people. It's still the case where people can talk about homosexuality without being called homophobic or they can be against it.

May I ask a question, sir?

The Chair: No.

Mr. Pierre Pariseau: I'm not allowed. As a taxpayer I'd like to ask a few questions at the end, because I think they are very important. I'd like to ask just one fundamental question afterwards, if you don't mind.

The Chair: Ms. Curley.

Ms. Rita Curley: Marriage needs a man and a woman. That's all I can say. It has been that way since the beginning of time, and that's what keeps society going.

The Chair: Mr. Corbett.

À (1040)

Mr. David Corbett: To respond to the point, the rights analysis attacks the common-law definition of marriage. It says it's inadequate. The proposition you've put, Mr. McKay, is that that is the definition of marriage. The essence of marriage is a man and a woman. It is a basic logical flaw to use the impugned definition to defend itself. You need reasons behind it other than that that's the way it is or it isn't a principled defence of the equality rights claim. The equality rights claim is that this is the common-law definition. It's heterosexual. The basis of the complaint is the exclusion in that definition. You can't say that is the definition as the principal reason for keeping it. That's the rights claim.

If you proceed with your policy-making on the basis that rights, schmights, we're here to talk about public policy, then we are talking at sixes and sevens.

Our position proceeds from the following position. You have to do something. The definition is illegal. If you don't agree with that, then we'll go to the Supreme Court of Canada and get their view on it. We also take the position that it's good policy to do what we're suggesting. It's never a lot of fun to say to a group of people, we'll sue you, you're wrong, particularly people who are exercising legitimate democratic power in making good policy choices. It's not a whole lot of fun to come and waggle our fingers and say, the courts say you must do something.

Our position starts from the proposition that the definition discriminates, and you can't use the definition to defend itself in those circumstances. The courts won't find that a persuasive reason. The courts have already overturned the prior decision that used that kind of logic. In logic it's called the tautology. You just define the problem away.

The Chair: Are there any other responses?

If not, I'm going to go, finally, to Mr. Pariseau.

You can leave us with questions, but you won't get responses, because ultimately--

Mr. Pierre Pariseau: That's okay. I understand.

You're talking about legality here.

My question is, what is the basic argument of people who are gay to have access to the marriage institution? What is their basic argument? How come we have ex-gays who have access to the marriage institution? How come some gays decide not to become ex-gays? What is, from a scientific point of view, the problem?

Some gays will say it's genetic. According to me, and the piles and piles of studies I have, a gay gene has not been found. If it's not genetic, it's a matter of choice. If the Supreme Court wants to discuss that matter, they'll have to find the gene first. If it's a right, there has to be a gene.

The Chair: If you wish to leave any reference to studies that you think the committee should be alerted to, please just leave us a list.

Mr. Pierre Pariseau: They should be published, basically.

The Chair: If there are no other questioners, I want to move to the question Mr. Robinson raised.

Oh, sorry. Derek.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): It's a very minor matter. I just wanted to point out that in a journalistic story about our last meeting, I was totally misquoted. I take it as a matter of privilege. If the journalist is still around, I expect a retraction. You can argue about what I say, what I ask, but don't misquote me, especially when it's on the parliamentary record. I won't mention the journalist's name, but if there isn't a retraction, I certainly will.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lee.

I would like to thank the panel. I would like to thank you for your patience. I accept the fact that this is often a debate that evokes language and images that are difficult for some to take. I do believe we are here to entertain the views, respectful views, of Canadians on this subject, and I intend to allow that process to continue. The framework within which it happens we're going to discuss in camera, so I would ask the witnesses to find their way to the hallway.

I hope the people here understand that in camera means the members of the committee, the committee staff, and the people who are involved with the committee itself. All other members of the gallery must leave.

I'll suspend for five minutes.

[Proceedings continue in camera]