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

Wednesday, April 2, 2003

0900

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

Ms. Corry Morcos (Vice-President, Alberta Federation of Women United for Families)

0905

0910

The Chair

Ms. Corry Morcos

The Chair

Mrs. Linda Folkman (As Individual)

0915

The Chair

Ms. Sheree Drummond (As Individual)

0920

0925

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Corry Morcos

Mr. Vic Toews

0930

Ms. Corry Morcos

Mr. Vic Toews

Ms. Sheree Drummond

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Ms. Sheree Drummond

The Chair

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

Ms. Corry Morcos

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Corry Morcos

0935

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Corry Morcos

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Corry Morcos

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Corry Morcos

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Corry Morcos

0940

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.)

Ms. Corry Morcos

Ms. Hedy Fry

Ms. Corry Morcos

Ms. Hedy Fry

0945

Ms. Corry Morcos

Ms. Hedy Fry

Ms. Corry Morcos

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Sheree Drummond

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Ms. Sheree Drummond

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.)

Ms. Sheree Drummond

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

0950

Ms. Sheree Drummond

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Sheree Drummond

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Corry Morcos

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

0955

Ms. Corry Morcos

The Chair

Mrs. Linda Folkman

The Chair

Mrs. Linda Folkman

1000

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

Ms. Sheree Drummond

Mr. Vic Toews

Ms. Sheree Drummond

The Chair

Mr. Don Sheppard (As Individual)

1010

1015

The Chair

Mr. Joey Sayer (Representative, Alberta Division, Canadian Union of Public Employees)

1020

The Chair

Dr. Lise Gotell (Associate Professor, Women's Studies Program, University of Alberta, As Individual)

1025

1030

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Mr. Don Sheppard

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Mr. Don Sheppard

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Mr. Don Sheppard

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Mr. Don Sheppard

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Mr. Don Sheppard

Mr. Chuck Cadman

1035

Mr. Don Sheppard

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Mr. Don Sheppard

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Mr. Don Sheppard

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Dr. Lise Gotell

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Don Sheppard

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Don Sheppard

Mr. Richard Marceau

Dr. Lise Gotell

Mr. Richard Marceau

Dr. Lise Gotell

Mr. Richard Marceau

1040

Dr. Lise Gotell

The Chair

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.)

Mr. Don Sheppard

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Don Sheppard

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Don Sheppard

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Don Sheppard

1045

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Don Sheppard

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Don Sheppard

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Don Sheppard

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Don Sheppard

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Don Sheppard

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Don Sheppard

Mr. John McKay

Dr. Lise Gotell

1050

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Joey Sayer

The Chair

Mr. Don Sheppard

The Chair

Dr. Lise Gotell

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

1055

Dr. Lise Gotell

Ms. Hedy Fry

Dr. Lise Gotell

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Don Sheppard

1100

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Don Sheppard

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

1110

Mr. Ted Morton (Professor, University of Calgary and Alberta Senator Elect, As Individual)

1115

The Chair

Ms. Cherie Klassen (Executive Director, Alberta Council for Global Cooperation)

1120

1125

The Chair

Mr. Chris Martyniuk (As Individual)

1130

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Ted Morton

1135

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Ted Morton

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Ted Morton

1140

The Chair

Mr. Chris Martyniuk

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Ted Morton

1145

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Ted Morton

The Clerk of the Committee

Mr. Ted Morton

1150

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Ted Morton

1155

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Chris Martyniuk

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Ted Morton

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Ted Morton

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Ted Morton

1200

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. Ted Morton

The Chair

1305

Mrs. Beverley Smith (As Individual)

1310

The Chair

The Reverend R. Wayne Lee (As Individual)

1315

The Chair

Mr. Craig Stumpf-Allen (As Individual)

Mr. Mark Stumpf-Allen (As Individual)

Mr. Craig Stumpf-Allen

1320

Mr. Mark Stumpf-Allen

Mr. Craig Stumpf-Allen

Mr. Mark Stumpf-Allen

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

Rev. R. Wayne Lee

Mr. Vic Toews

Rev. R. Wayne Lee

Mr. Vic Toews

1325

Rev. R. Wayne Lee

Mr. Vic Toews

Mrs. Beverley Smith

Mr. Vic Toews

Mrs. Beverley Smith

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Rev. R. Wayne Lee

1330

Mr. Richard Marceau

Rev. R. Wayne Lee

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

Rev. R. Wayne Lee

Mr. John McKay

1335

Mrs. Beverley Smith

Mr. John McKay

Mrs. Beverley Smith

Mr. John McKay

Mrs. Beverley Smith

Mr. John McKay

Mrs. Beverley Smith

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

1340

Mr. Mark Stumpf-Allen

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mrs. Beverley Smith

1345

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mrs. Beverley Smith

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mrs. Beverley Smith

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mrs. Beverley Smith

The Chair

Mrs. Beverley Smith

The Chair

Rev. R. Wayne Lee

1350

The Chair

Rev. R. Wayne Lee

The Chair

Rev. R. Wayne Lee

The Chair

Rev. R. Wayne Lee

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Mr. Craig Stumpf-Allen

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

1405

Mr. Joel Chapman (President, Open-Door Club)

1410

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Ms. Shannon Jacobi (President, OHM Corporate Health Consulting Ltd.)

Ms. Julie Rak (As Individual)

1415

The Chair

Ms. Marie Cameron (National President, The Catholic Women's League of Canada)

1420

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Marie Cameron

Mr. Richard Marceau

1425

Ms. Marie Cameron

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Marie Cameron

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Joel Chapman

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Joel Chapman

Mr. Richard Marceau

1430

Mr. Joel Chapman

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

Ms. Marie Cameron

1435

Ms. Hedy Fry

Ms. Marie Cameron

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Joel Chapman

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Joel Chapman

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

1440

Ms. Marie Cameron

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Marie Cameron

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

The Chair

Ms. Marie Cameron

The Chair

Ms. Agnes Bedard (National President-elect, The Catholic Women's League of Canada)

The Chair

Ms. Agnes Bedard

The Chair

Ms. Marie Cameron

1445

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

Ms. Agnes Bedard

1450

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Ms. Marie Cameron

1455

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

Ms. Agnes Bedard

Ms. Hedy Fry

Ms. Agnes Bedard

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Mr. Matthew Woodley (OUTreach and GLASS)

1510

The Chair

Mr. Lorne Gushue (Member, OutNorth)

1515

1520

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Matthew Woodley

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Matthew Woodley

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

1525

The Chair

Mr. Lorne Gushue

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Matthew Woodley

1530

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

1535

Mr. Matthew Woodley

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

1540

Mr. Matthew Woodley

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Matthew Woodley

1545

The Chair

Mr. Bruce Shaw (As Individual)

The Chair

Ms. Rhonda Lothammer (As Individual)

The Chair

Ms. Rhonda Lothammer

1555

The Chair

Ms. Julie Lloyd (As Individual)

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

NUMBER 030

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, April 2, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0900)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): I call to order the 30th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee has resumed its study on marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions.

Today is the second day in a series of cross-Canada consultations. We had a full day yesterday in Vancouver, and we will be hearing from six panels today in Edmonton. I welcome those at the table and also those who are here either as future panellists or observers. Thank you all for coming. Welcome to the panel.

This morning, from 9 o'clock until 10 o'clock, we will be hearing from the Alberta Federation of Women United for Families, Corrie Morcos and Artrude Doell; as individuals, Linda Folkman, Tim Folkman, and Sheree Drummond.

I think you have already been advised as to the process. You are asked to make a presentation up to seven minutes in length, and then we'll go to the committee for questions and dialogue. I will indicate at six minutes that you have one minute left.

I should say--we've said this in hearings in Ottawa and we said this again yesterday--this is a very emotional topic, as I think you know. We have made a conscious decision to consult with Canadians where they live, and that is why we are here. So we do believe everyone has the right to express themselves, and that is an important right in this country, but I would also want that expression to be respectful. There are people here on both sides of the issue, and I don't think it lends itself to a free and open dialogue if some people feel uncomfortable being here. So please try to keep your presentations truly what you wish to say but respectful in the way you say it.

So without further ado, I'll turn to the Alberta Federation of Women United for Families--Ms. Morcos and Ms. Doell--to make their presentation.

Ms. Corry Morcos (Vice-President, Alberta Federation of Women United for Families): Heterosexual marriage predates common law. It is a natural universal law of the union between one man and one woman and has been since the beginning of time, since recorded history, and throughout all civilizations and all cultures. It has remained constant in societies as an institution to protect families, children, and to provide rules, customs, laws, and morality to safeguard responsibility for the common good.

Commitment between male and female is essential for the survival of civilization, for the procreation of the human race. The European Court of Human Rights, the European Commission of Human Rights, the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights all recognize marriage as being heterosexual in nature only.

Even if these human rights entities would change the definition of “marriage” under political correctness pressure, it would not change the natural universal meaning known to mankind. They would do so at their peril.

Many sociological and anthropological studies have shown that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by sexual revolutions in which traditional marriage and family had no longer a preferred status. Any society that devalued the nuclear family did lose its expansive energy, which was the will to make things better for the next generation. No society or civilization that has loosened sexual morality outside the natural man-woman marriage has survived.

Heterosexual marriage has a stabilizing effect through the commitment or the marriage licence to society. Some 14% of married couples break up within ten years; 63% of common-law relationships break up. Infidelity among homosexuals is very high--up to 95%. And it's of limited duration.

Sex is permitted under restricted conditions, and it defines partner, it recognizes the interdependency of maleness-femaleness, and it role-models this. It must be publicly fostered by culture and supported by law. It encourages fidelity and responsibility. It gives familial and intergenerational stability.

Laws in existence for thousands of years should not be changed through pressure from a small minority. Only one percent to one a half percent of the population classifies itself as homosexual, and only a very small part of those wish the status of marriage to be changed.

As homosexuality itself is changeable, as noted by ever-increasing numbers of ex-homosexuals who testify to this, we cannot afford to change laws at the whims of trends, the here today, gone tomorrow.

A lifelong commitment of one uninfected man and one uninfected woman in a monogamous marriage limits the risk of sexually transmitted diseases. Gay men are known to have a high rate of infectious diseases, among them HIV-AIDS, bowel parasites, hepatitis, gonorrhea, and other deadly viral diseases and cancers. Their lifespan is up to 20 years shorter than for all men; their attempted suicide rate is 6.5 times higher. Unknown partner sexual encounters are known to be up to 1,000. We do not wish to promote practices that place men at even higher risk.

Reproduction means survival of the human race, but it is much more than copulation. It is not only nature, but it also represents cultural norms, society and civilization. Procreation is only possible, real and potential, through the joining of a sperm and an egg, notwithstanding the legal and technical attempts to circumvent this.

Children brought into same-sex relationships will never have two mommies or two daddies; there is always one biological father and one biological mother.

The depopulation or the population implosion is a real threat worldwide. Western societies are already in a negative momentum; that is, below the replacement rate. There are not enough immigrants to go around to fill this vacuum. To reverse this trend, heterosexual unions, giving birth to children, should be rewarded with benefits for the common good.

Children's welfare is at risk. For the nuturing of children, both genders are essential as role models to foster a positive gender identity and for the transmission of social knowledge and skills. Fathers and mothers are not interchangeable. They have a biological high stake in the well-being of their offspring. Cared for and nurtured, these children grow up, in general, in more balanced, secure, emotionally and physically healthy environments.

As homosexuals change to heterosexuals and vice versa, it will be emotionally damaging to children not knowing from day to day who their father and mother is.

Children should not be the subject of social engineering in regard to being raised by same-gender partners. Recent trends have shown that children of single parents and especially fatherless boys suffer greatly by missing gender role models.

¿ (0905)

Low self-esteem, school drop-out rates, suicide, crime, gang affiliation, and recruitment into the homosexual lifestyle are rising. We cannot afford experiments such as these. The welfare of our children should be foremost in mind, the ideal to strive for being a father-mother-child model.

I will move to discrimination and human rights challenges. It is imperative that freedom of religion and free speech will not be limited through human rights challenges and political correctness desensitization. Homosexual marriages will not give equality. It will take rights away from religious and educational institutions. Debates will be smothered.

People who believe that only heterosexual marriages should be valid might be charged under human rights legislation with hate crimes. Religion teaches morality for the common good, as there is good and evil to choose from. Society has a stake in the good being taught.

Homophobia does not exist. Speaking out against a very small vocal minority should be considered free speech. We encourage open, reasoned debate. Changing natural laws that have withstood history and civilizations need democratic and majority consent.

Name-calling is verbal terrorism. Discrimination is defined as discernment, distinction, priority, and it is valued in society. We have to discriminate against negative influences and practices in society that are not for the common good.

Discrimination on the basis of traditional religion is nearly always biased. However, although secularism-humanism is not considered a religion, it is classified as such and pervades thoughts and convictions in the courts and human rights bodies.

I will talk about equality. As humans we are all equal. In gender, we have natural law with differences and we are unequal. This marriage challenge is not about equal rights. It is an ideology to silence those who disagree and to remove all opposition.

In the homosexual magazine Out, Mr. Signorile states, and I quote:

...fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, refine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry, not as a way to adhering to society's moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution, that, as it now stands, keep us down. The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake--and one that would perhaps benefit all of society--is to transform the notion of “family” entirely.

¿ (0910)

The Chair: Ms. Morcos, how much more is there?

Ms. Corry Morcos: It's nearly finished. There are just two or three more sentences.

Tolerance is not a virtue, nor a diversity. The courts reading it in in legislation is not according to the highest morality in the country. It brings it down to the lowest common denominator. There is right and wrong, good and evil. We should strive for the highest good.

Sexual orientation is not defined and open-ended. Many new sexual diversifications are added regularly. Anything is possible to be accepted and legalized, including minimum age, blood relations, polygamy, pedophilia, etc. This is dangerous, to say the least.

In conclusion, Justice Rehnquist said:

“Almost all laws are based on disapproval of some people or conduct. Rights have to have deeper roots and longer acceptance than short pro-homosexual trends in society warrants. Not everything is a right if someone merely says so.”

The Chair: Ms. Morcos, you are way over in time. I don't mean to do this, but in order for good dialogue to carry on, we need to save some time.

To the Folkmans, if I may put it that way, you have seven minutes. I'll put up my finger at six minutes, and I will speak up at seven.

Mrs. Linda Folkman (As Individual): Thank you for this opportunity to explain further my position on this issue of same-sex marriage, as I wrote about in my first submission. I did not expect this invitation. Accepting it has challenged me; I have learned to appreciate and trust in the justice process, even though it isn't perfect. I have been humbled at the magnitude of what you must process, accept, and conclude. My respect has deepened.

I'm 49 years old. It's taken a long time for me to get to this place. Sadly, I believe that I represent the silent majority of Canadians. I am grateful to stand before you today, and to ask for your forgiveness for not supporting, appreciating, respecting, and communicating with those like you who are in positions of leadership in this country. I have neglected the responsibility and taken for granted the privilege of citizenship in this democratic nation of ours.

It's my understanding that you have been given three options to consider. I would like to state that the only option I am in agreement with and support is option one. However, it contains two parts. Option one, part A, has a legally defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. I heartily concur. Why? Marriage between a man and a woman has historically been the basis of a family, and the foundation of a nation. Certainly it's Canada's heritage. You cannot reinvent or redefine human sexuality to facilitate a minority of individuals of the same sex who choose to cohabit, and who are lobbying for definitions, laws, and benefits to be changed.

Why not? The equipment doesn't work; marriage is designed for a male and a female. It's the physical act of consummation that has always defined marriage, legally and religiously. It's the only natural equipment that works for procreation to establish children, and therefore families, from generation to generation.

The only valid definition for same-sex relationships is friendship. Two men or two women doing sexual things with the same equipment cannot have intercourse or procreate, which are the legal, medical, and religious criteria for marriage and family. Therefore, though two people of the same sex may have a deeply committed friendship, there is no basis for redefining and rewriting our laws regarding marriage and family. In technology, the trades, and even the retail sector, we find that scientific, plumbing, and hardware apparatus use the same term—male and female. Why? Because everybody understands it, and these two different apparatus fit together to make a union for a purpose.

Option one, part B, reads that in addition to defining marriage, consider establishing a civil registry for all other types of domestic partnership. First of all, I would like to address the question of why is this necessary. I realize that the door was opened for what we are up against now when, over 40 years ago, many of the legal consequences of marriage, including federal, provincial, and territorial law, began to be extended to other committed couples, such as common-law couples, extending all benefits and obligations of marriage to them after one year of cohabitation. Yet while there is still debate about whether it's appropriate to grant the same benefits and to impose the same obligations on common-law couples as on married couples, the issue is complicated further by trying to include same-sex couples.

It seems that we are missing or forgetting one very simple fact: this is all about personal choice. Historically, there were two choices, marriage or not. If you chose not to marry, you accepted the consequences. What has happened to personal accountability?

I would like to present a case in point. I have two personal friends who are single women. They have a deeply committed friendship that has absolutely no sexual context. They have been roommates, sharing their lives for 15 years. I asked their permission to share this, and encouraged them to write their own submission, which they are and will submit to you. I am convinced that they are representative of many Canadians who are quietly living together as committed couples for financial and social reasons by personal choice, accepting the responsibilities, benefits, and consequences of their choice.

My point is that personal choice should be synonymous with personal responsibility. My friends and many other silent Canadians demonstrate this well. Some Canadians are loudly demanding that their personal choice requires government accountability rather than their own. So my question is, which witness is getting our attention, the one asking for nothing or the one making escalating demands?

I believe that now, more than ever before, is the time to draw the line and to say no. This is a good and necessary principle and practice in the government of a family, and also for the government of a nation. Why? Because personal choices, with little to no personal accountability, are dictating precedent over the common good. The result is that marriage is being eroded, which is undermining the very foundation of our nation.

¿ (0915)

This brings me full circle to where I began. As I stated earlier, I agree with and support option one, part A, to legally define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. As for part B, although I believe the establishment of a civil registry is counter to the best interests of our country, if your decision is to do so, I urge you to define other types of domestic partnerships as co-existing companions, without reference to any sexuality. It will then encompass all of those who choose anything other than marriage--i.e., common law, single, same sex.

These are defining times in which we live. We all need to be challenged to think in the context of the big picture, not just in the present and seemingly isolated issues. Our nation is tottering on the brink of a precipice, and these decisions before us presently have the potential to push us over the precipice, or to set us back safely behind the guardrail of the true, time-tested, honoured, and proven definition of marriage, which has been in place throughout our history in different people groups and in most religions. This guardrail does not limit our freedom, but rather is there for our protection, survival, and maximum pleasure.

Finally, please be on your guard against articulate, high-powered arguments that, simply put, serve as smokescreens to confuse and distract from simple, bottom-line facts. I love my nation, and I will stand and speak as wisely and graciously as possible because I believe it is necessary to ensure that Canada remains morally healthy, economically successful, and an influential example to other nations.

Thank you so much for your time.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Drummond, for seven minutes.

Ms. Sheree Drummond (As Individual): To begin with, I'd like to thank the members of the committee for providing me with the opportunity to share my views with you on the issue of same-sex marriage.

My recommendation to the committee is that Parliament pass legislation to give same-sex couples the legal capacity to marry, thereby broadening the institution of marriage to include same-sex and opposite-sex couples. As I indicated in my written brief, I feel compelled to appear before this committee, as I am concerned that the majority of witnesses who identify themselves as having a religious perspective will argue against broadening the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

When I prepared my brief I had not yet had the opportunity to read some of the transcripts from past meetings of this committee. However, since submitting my brief I have done so. Upon reviewing the presentations of various witnesses, I realized that my concern was not unfounded, and I feel I must express to this committee my profound disappointment and dismay upon reading the views expressed by some of the witnesses, present company included.

Like many of the witnesses that have appeared before you, I too would describe myself as having a religious perspective on this issue. In addition to an undergraduate and graduate degree in political science, I also have a masters of divinity degree. For five years I served as the chaplain at a Catholic college on a university campus. I feel it is important to communicate to this committee that there are people who are theologically motivated to argue for a change to secular laws that might not reflect the beliefs of their own churches or faith traditions.

Some might assume, given what I have just said, that I must be a lesbian, as this would explain my particular viewpoint. That, however, is not the case. I am a heterosexual woman with a husband and two very young children. It is from this context that I would like to address two main issues. The first is why marriage should include same-sex as well as opposite-sex couples.

Because marriage is understood as the principal social unit upon which society is based, it should be an institution open to all couples, whether opposite-sex or same-sex. Couples choose to get married because they love each other and wish to build their lives together. While this is a profoundly personal decision, it has an essential social component. The sanction of the community is an integral aspect of marriage. It is necessary not only for the social and psychological well-being of the couple, but also because the community has a role to play in ensuring that a relationship can grow and develop.

If most people understood marriage as simply being about its legal consequences, then this debate would not be taking place. It is precisely because most people understand it to be something more that some same-sex couples wish to be included, and should be included, in the institution of marriage.

Registered partnerships or civil unions do not add anything significant to what already exists in Canadian law. Arguing that something is at the same time different and the same is nonsensical. The introduction of such union as some sort of parallel for marriage would, as many have argued, establish a second-class status for such relationships.

In addition to the importance of the social acceptance of a relationship as a marital relationship, there is also the importance of valuing and acknowledging the fruits of such a relationship, namely children. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage may lead to the view that their children are outside the social structure. Enabling some same-sex couples to marry would enhance the social legitimacy of the couple's relationship and in turn alleviate some of the stigma felt by the children of same-sex parents.

We often hear how important it is to strengthen the family, as it is the basic social unit of our society. Unfortunately, the definition of family for many people is a narrow one that only includes a mother, a father, and a child or children. This definition's cultural and historical restrictiveness prevents us from providing the necessary supports to the various models of family that are actually found in reality.

The second issue I would like to address is why a decision of the Parliament of Canada to allow same-sex marriages does not prevent each religion from maintaining its own beliefs on marriage. There is no doubt that several religious traditions view same-sex relationships as unacceptable; however, the particular beliefs of one or more faith traditions should not form the basis for law-making in a country with a secular system of government.

¿ (0920)

Permitting same-sex couples to marry does not mean that religious officials will be obligated to solemnize same-sex marriages if that is in opposition to the laws and/or principles of their tradition.

I think it is important to recognize that there already exists a distinction in our society between civil marriages and religious marriages. Opposite-sex couples have the option to be married by a justice of the peace rather than by a religious official, and while the state views these marriages as legitimate, many religious traditions do not. This has not prevented the state, however, from providing this as an option for opposite-sex couples.

So often, when we enter into the realm of religious argument around same-sex marriages, it is almost entirely from the perspective of those traditions that do not recognize same-sex relationships. It is important to note, however, that there are religious traditions that acknowledge and support same-sex relationships. These religious traditions may wish to be able to give legal recognition to the covenantal relationships into which many same-sex couples enter.

In my written submission I also briefly address the references to homosexuality in the Christian scriptures. I will not go into that at this time, except to say these references do not provide clear-cut answers on this matter. In my view, it is important to be vigilant about over-simplistic interpretations of the scriptures that enable people to claim they know without any doubt what God thinks.

In conclusion, it is my fervent hope that my children will have the privilege of growing up in a society that values and supports the love and commitment between all couples and within all types of family structures. My wish as a mother is that as adults my children will have the ability to choose to marry the people with whom they fall in love and wish to share their lives.

Again, I would like to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to share my views on this important issue of equality. Thank you.

¿ (0925)

The Chair: Thank you to all the panellists.

I will go first to Mr. Toews for five to seven minutes.

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mrs. Morcos, I understand your position that marriage should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, as opposed to including two people of the same gender. It's also the policy position of the political party I represent in Parliament.

However, the reality of Canadian society is that people are entering into relationships outside of the traditional marriage. Mrs. Folkman has suggested that this committee may wish--and I'm paraphrasing--in certain circumstances to consider the establishment of a separate registry for other relationships, including non-conjugal ones. We heard that yesterday from a witness who talked about an elderly mother, who may be receiving a pension, living with a daughter--the whole issue of pension benefits and the like.

Do you have any comments on the legal regulation of relationships outside of marriage and separate and apart from marriage, including same-sex couples or these non-conjugal relationships? I'm especially concerned about children who already find themselves in the context of these relationships. I find there is a lack of clear legal regulation of those relationships. That's my particular concern.

Ms. Corry Morcos: As an organization we have also thought about other legal definitions of relationships that might include a grandmother, a grandchild, or brothers together, or any other economically dependent kind of relationship. We are certainly willing to look into and support that.

I think the worry we have is that the end result of what the gay movement wants is marriage. That was clear when I was quoting some of their own literature. They will not be satisfied with stopping at civil union or economic relationship in law. They will push on until they get marriage.

Again, if you read any of the literature, they want marriage to fail between a man and a woman.

Mr. Vic Toews: So generally speaking, you would have no objection if this committee looked at that issue outside the context of traditional marriage?

¿ (0930)

Ms. Corry Morcos: Yes.

Mr. Vic Toews: Ms. Drummond, yesterday we heard testimony that seemed to indicate that instead of only one type of marriage relationship, there are actually three types of relationships, if we considered including homosexual couples in the definition of marriage. Given that same-sex relationships themselves are broken down into lesbian and male homosexual relationships, and the nature of those two relationships are very different, we may well have a situation where, if we want to extend the definition of marriage, we may in fact really be looking at three different types of marriage relationships--one for opposite-gender marriage, one for same-sex female, and one for same-sex male.

Have you any comments on this? I'm especially concerned about the distinction there appears to be between lesbian and male homosexual relationships. One size simply doesn't fit all in this context.

Ms. Sheree Drummond: Well, I disagree, actually. I would say one size does fit all. For me, the definition of marriage would be the question of an equality within the partnership. If you are talking about three types of relationships, you are taking it to a different level, and I think that's only because you are using a biological argument--and I say “you” in the general sense of “a person”. And I think this is really irrelevant to the discussion.

Mr. Vic Toews: All right.

So in the context of marriage in this multicultural society, as more and more people come from other countries where there are different concepts of marriage--polygamous relationships, for example--once we adopt homosexual relationships as acceptable in this country and within the definition of marriage, why not polygamous relationships, which have a moral basis among world religions and which we now deny? If a Muslim, for example, with three or four wives comes to Canada, we deny him that equality. We make distinctions. The witnesses I have heard, especially on the pro-same-sex-marriage side, say discriminate against them, but don't discriminate against us.

How do we, as parliamentarians, make that distinction?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Toews.

Ms. Sheree Drummond: Well, certainly I would say that's exactly the role of parliamentarians. I think what you need to consider is that you have a question in front of you, and it is the question of same-sex relationships. At present, I do not believe the committee is considering the issue of polygamous relationships. It may be a matter that will need to be considered at some juncture.

But I think as well that when we consider how we can look at rights and discrimination, we do have a charter that provides us with guidelines as to how to review these questions and to say whether there are times when we do in fact consciously make a decision to exclude something because as a society we view it is inappropriate.

And I would just conclude by saying again that if we as a society uphold the definition of marriage as a partnership of equals, to me that would automatically exclude a polygamous relationship. I think it's very difficult to argue that you'd have three or four equal partners in a relationship.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): First I would like to make a comment, Ms. Drummond.

Thank you for your presentation and especially for the very clear distinction you make between civil and religious marriage. If you could send me the little document Paul and Homosexuality: 1 Corinthian 6:9 and Romans 1:26-27, I would appreciate it.

Ms. Morcos, I was a bit surprised by many of your statements, more particularly when you said that homophobia does not exist. Is that really what you said?

[English]

Ms. Corry Morcos: [Inaudible--Editor]

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: That is a bit of a surprise. I do not want to get into a debate, but have you seen the Internet sites where they say "Fag, burn in hell" or "Must kill fags»? Have you ever heard that anything like that was around?

[English]

Ms. Corry Morcos: I am sure they exist, but the word “homophobia” is fear of homosexuals. People who have disagreements and an opposite position doesn't mean that they fear them. I think we should not refer to name-calling, and just have an open debate, like we have here. I encourage this very much. I certainly have never referred to name-calling in any other way towards the homosexual community. So we respect one another.

“Homophobia” is just thrown out to silence us. I feel that we should have an open debate, and in that way I feel that homophobia does not exist. People who speak out against them do not have a fear of homosexuals; they have a disagreement.

¿ (0935)

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: You will agree with me that for some people, it is more than a disagreement. It can go all the way to hatred. I am not saying that is your case, but I do want us to agree on the fact that it does exist.

[English]

Ms. Corry Morcos: Actually, if I can just refer to that, if you do not mind, I have stated for quite some years the position that heterosexual marriage is the best for society and children. After stating this publicly, my husband and I have received infected semen in the mail, cut-up mice, bloodied things, and I don't know what. And we have had death threats to our house. I am very familiar with hate mail. I have never done this and will never promote this, but I have received it.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Well, we do agree to say that it is not right on either side.

[English]

Ms. Corry Morcos: Actually, I have—

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I would like to hear your thoughts on freedom of religion. You state, probably because of your religion, that if we allow homosexual people to marry, freedom of religion will be threatened. Many major religious traditions refuse marriage for same-sex couples.

Now, you are not without knowing that some people who came before this committee, more specifically the United Church, the Unitarian Church and some branches of reformed Judaism, told us that their freedom of religion was being flouted because they want to marry those people but the State will not allow them to.

Now, if the State allowed marriage of same-sex spouses, the pastors from those denominations would be able to marry them, but nothing would oblige the Catholic Church, for example, which is the tradition I come from, to marry same-sex spouses just as nothing has managed to force the Catholic Church to ordain women priests or marry divorced people. Ms. Drummond was quite eloquently clear in that respect.

I would like to know in what way allowing same-sex marriage would be a danger for freedom of religion while that was not the case in the past.

[English]

Ms. Corry Morcos: I'm not familiar with all of them, but some denominations or groups of people.... For example, in Vancouver there are some Anglican churches where the bishop has said that they will allow marriages of same-sex unions. It's not a policy of the Anglican Church worldwide. So there are some small minorities of congregations who will decide that this is not the Biblical perspective of the main congregation or the main faith. I will just leave it at that.

Actually, religious freedom has already been threatened by several of the court decisions made. For example, in the Brockie case in Ontario, which you are familiar with, someone had advertised.... And in Saskatchewan, a case was brought before the Human Rights Commission, where someone had quoted Bible verses. And there has been a case about books in schools in B.C. The parents, who are the prime educators of their children, have to comment through the school board on decisions made in the schools. They were forced to accept homosexual material. So if you look at this from a religious freedom point of view, there are threats all the way around.

I believe that if this goes through there will eventually come a point that religious freedom will be threatened or suppressed, or whatever you would like to call it.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: One last point, because I am unfortunately running out of time. When you spoke about homosexuals, you stated: "They want marriage to fail"

How can the wish to have access to an institution mean that you do not want that institution to work or even that you want to see it destroyed?

[English]

Ms. Corry Morcos: I meant heterosexual relationships or heterosexual marriage. If they want to come into marriage, of course they want to accept marriage. That's for heterosexuals and homosexuals.

But I meant that a traditional or natural establishment of heterosexual marriage is the ultimate aim of the homosexual movement.

¿ (0940)

The Chair: Ms. Fry, for seven minutes.

Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to thank everyone for coming this morning.

My first question is directed to Ms. Morcos. I wanted to pick up on where Monsieur Marceau left off with regard to the fact that some churches have come and told us they would like the religious freedom to allow them to marry same-sex couples. In fact, the United Church told us that in 2000, the 37th general council of the United Church--which, as you know, is made up of the Methodist, Presbyterian, and a few other churches--affirmed that human sexual orientations, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are a gift from God and part of the marvellous diversity of creation, and they currently sanctify those marriages in their church.

So it's not only rump groups that have split off the church that are feeling like this. There is a whole church that has decided this at one of their synods.

In terms of religious freedoms, I have not seen anyone complain that because the Catholic Church refuses to marry people who are divorced--even though divorce is a legal entity set out by and supported by the federal government--anyone has brought charges against the church.

However, for me the question is this. You made a comment that at the end of the day, the bottom line for same-sex couples or gays is to want to get married. I don't see what is wrong with that. I would like you to tell me what is wrong with them wanting to get married. This is historically the argument that was made when women first wanted the vote. The argument was “You give them the vote and the next thing is they're going to want to sit in Parliament”.

When people of different colours and races wanted to have equal rights and become involved and participate fully in society, it was “If you let them in they're going to want to marry our children; they're going to want to marry our sisters.”

I think always there is this sense that the thin end of the wedge will lead to horrible things happening. I would like to know what horrible thing would happen if, in order to celebrate a conjugal relationship--and I understand Ms. Folkman's argument about other relationships, but we're speaking of conjugal relationships here--to celebrate the commitment, the bond, the love, the family, the children of that conjugal relationship of same-sex couples...what will that do to harm society?

Ms. Corry Morcos: Actually, I believe that throughout history we have seen that societies--and I referred to that in my brief--that start accommodating other forms of sexuality besides the committed heterosexual marriage relationship...it would be detrimental for societies. I believe this will happen to western society too.

I am just looking at the broader picture.

Ms. Hedy Fry: What societies and what harm?

Ms. Corry Morcos: Oh, if you look at the societies of the Greeks and the Romans and other societies that have basically gone downhill from there.

So I think there is harm. There is a confusion for children in their identity, being male or female. We also know that homosexuality is changeable and that many have come out of that lifestyle. It will be very difficult for children to have them as role models. It should be a father and a mother to grow up with a male identity and a female identity. There is a biological and an actual norm.

Ms. Hedy Fry: The point, though, is that the reality of life, the reality of the society we live in today, is that there are same-sex couples with children, and those children may or may not be confused. You say they may be. We have heard from many same-sex couples who have children who are not confused, but those children are currently not allowed to come from “real” families. There is no sanction by the state that says that your parents are real parents, that you are legally a family, that you can see these people as your parents.

That kind of support of the state would help those children to be able to hold their heads high when they go out into the rest of society, to really get a sense of belonging and validity for their families. Otherwise, what harm does it do to those children to continue to believe that they are never part of the mainstream, that they can never be part of a real family, that their parents are not real parents?

¿ (0945)

Ms. Corry Morcos: The children within that relationship might have two mommies or two daddies, but they still have one biological father and one biological mother who donated sperm and an egg. Unless you go to cloning, that will be the case. So this child will always be searching, saying, “What is my identity? Who are my biological father and my biological mother?”

And then we see that with children who are adopted now, there is always this longing, this desire to know, where do I come from? This is something very much biological in nature, and I think that search will always be there, regardless of who raises this child.

Ms. Hedy Fry: But that does not stop us from recognizing adoptive families as being real ones or from having two parents who have adopted a child being able to be legally recognized as a family, nor for that matter from having a heterosexual couple who is unable to have children accepting a sperm donation from outside of the family. That has not stopped us from allowing those couples to marry and to be families, so just what do you answer on that one?

Ms. Corry Morcos: I think my bottom line is let us have a referendum in the country. Let's have a vote. I think 80% of the people in this country will be in favour of keeping marriage as it is. And if this is not the case, then democracy rules, and the laws will be changed. But I think we should bring this to all the people and put it to a referendum, one vote for one person.

The Chair: Mr. Cadman, you have three minutes.

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Drummond, I'm just following up on Mr. Toews' line of questioning here. I appreciate that we are dealing with same-sex unions here and not other types of relationships, but we have to consider the ramifications of the decisions we make here. Unfortunately, there could be a box opened up here where we're not sure where we are going.

I was interested in your comment in your response to Mr. Toews when you suggested that marriage should be between equals and that people involved in polygamous relationships are not equal. Can you explain to me why you could not have four or five people involved in a relationship where they couldn't be equal partners?

Ms. Sheree Drummond: Again, I guess we go back to the basis of what I would consider to be a covenantal relationship, and I think that's how I understand marriage. In a covenant you have two partners. Simply put, when you move beyond that, you no longer have that kind of covenantal relationship.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Well, I am still a little confused. What you are suggesting is that in other world religions that do have polygamy, there are not equal relationships. Is that right?

Ms. Sheree Drummond: That's correct. I think if you have a husband and four wives, you have four women relating to one man and one man relating back to four women. I do not see how that would be a covenantal partnership.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Macklin.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, witnesses, for appearing this morning.

One of the issues we've tried to deal with--and I notice again, Ms. Drummond, that you have raised it--is that children of a same-sex relationship can be considered to be outside the social structure. The claim is made that the inclusion of same-sex couples in marriage would rectify this. I'm still having difficulties with that concept, because to me, just because the parents have entered into that union, that covenanting process, it still doesn't change the effect on the child of going to school with two moms or two dads. Can you help me understand how you believe marriage would actually rectify that situation?

Ms. Sheree Drummond: Well, certainly I wouldn't argue that it would immediately rectify that situation, but I think that's what I'm arguing and what others are arguing, that when we look at these things in a social context, if already there is a state, a sense in which these people aren't accepted at the level of a legal reality, that has a way of permeating through the way society views things.

So I think I would see that the long-term effects of including same-sex partners in marriage means that eventually that would help us to accept as a society the ramifications of that and how people would react to these children and to these alternate models of family that, frankly, exist already.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: But do these models of family have to be defined under the term “marriage”? Is there magic within that term that would rectify it, or is it in fact just an acceptance of that social structure known as the same-sex union that needs to be adopted within our society?

¿ (0950)

Ms. Sheree Drummond: Well, no. To use your words, there is magic in that term. I think people do understand it to be something different, that when we talk about something being a marriage, we understand it as being a different kind of relationship. If you are suggesting, then, that the alternative would be to have it a civil union or a registered partnership and all of that, what is qualitatively different about the relationship that requires it to have a different label? So I don't see why we would go down that route.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: But in a sense, hasn't marriage over the years developed this, if you wish, goodwill that goes with it, relating to the union of a man and a woman, and if society is about to change its vision of how we wish to view certain relationships, shouldn't those relationships have a chance to build up their own goodwill, and therefore a parallelism might work?

Ms. Sheree Drummond: Well, I don't think that parallelism would work. Maybe I would just refer to the question. I know that many people keep referring to the fact that marriage has basically existed throughout time and history almost in a static sense. I think that we have seen the evolution of what we understand to be marriage, particularly in the last century, where it would certainly not be fair to say that marriage has always been a partnership of equals, for example—though I do believe that we understand that today. So I think that it's important to understand that in fact there has been a changing understanding of what marriage means. To continue to change would be entirely appropriate.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Macklin.

I'm going to Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: In the context of this committee proceedings, I have heard it said many times that if we were to allow the marriage of same-sex couples, that would mean the fall of civilizations. The examples of Greece and Rome were given.

When you talk about ancient Greece, the Greece of Pericles, Plato or Aristotle, it is important to point out that the greatest heights of ancient Greek civilization were reached during a period where homosexuality was recognized and practised.

Then, we are given the example of Rome. I would submit that when Rome was totally destroyed in the 5th century, it was at a time when it had a single official religion which was Christianity. So I find it a bit peculiar to hear people say that homosexuality led to the destruction of Greece and Rome.

Amongst other arguments that have been brought up, there are historical arguments, but we are also told that today, the family is in trouble, that 40% of all couples separate, that we have a depopulation problem.

Ms. Morcos, the depopulation problem and the divorce problem cannot actually be the fault of the gay community.

[English]

Ms. Corry Morcos: Certainly not.

But it was mentioned that for the last two, three, or four decades, the heterosexual marriage relationship raising children has not been very well supported, or supported as much as we would like, by governments and laws.

I believe very strongly that we should ideally go back to this covenant relationship that's been talked about between a husband and a wife, and that the common-law relationship should also be looked at, and maybe revisited through laws, and that we should provide more support through laws and tax benefits, etc., to families or fathers and mothers who are raising children. I think that all of this helps. No-fault divorce is part of this too.

So I think that if you look at all of this, it's a sliding scale; every step adds a little bit to undermining the natural family, instead of helping it to survive. So everything is against it.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I have two questions for you.

First, would you like to see no- fault divorce abolished?

Second, people are saying that the government should support families, but at the same time, people are talking about personal choice. Mrs. Folkman is the one who said that: people have to have a choice. We are lawmakers. What concrete measures could the government take to strengthen the family?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Marceau.

¿ (0955)

[English]

Ms. Corry Morcos: I'm very much in favour, and I would applaud you if you would start, as the government, to help with strengthening marriages that are struggling. I think no-fault divorce has had a tremendous impact on the divorce rate. It went much higher immediately after this went into affect.

And I believe that now with the counselling that the Alberta government has instituted to help parents to deal with the children when there is a divorce case or a potential divorce case, many cases have come back to not going through the divorce. If there is support there to help resolve the problems that are in the relationship, it definitely helps.

The tax laws that both parents have to go out to make enough money to raise the children.... If instead of spending all the money on day care, we give this money to the parents who decide if it's given to the mother to raise the children, stay at home and raise the children, or to go out and give them to a day care, or to have a grandmother take care of them, or a neighbour, whatever.... Give the choice to the parents and I think you would strengthen families and you would strengthen traditional marriages.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. McKay has generously offered me the opportunity to put a question, but I have to watch his finger. I should say this is my first question in two days.

Ms. Folkman, currently in law a same-sex couple who go to my church and want to marry, can't. My church will allow them to marry. My church would actively encourage them to marry as religious people; but the law says they cannot. In that particular case, the law of Canada is a prohibition against the wishes of that couple and the wishes of my church.

In order for us to justify this prohibition, we need to make a case. We would have to make a case that points to the consequence, the harm that would be done if we were to allow this prohibition to be removed. We have heard arguments about the fact of the continuation of humanity in the context of procreation, although I don't myself understand what's going to change in the context of the heterosexual community of the world. It is going to continue populating the planet in the same way it has been doing. I don't know what's going to change.

I need to know if you can help me understand the justification we would put forward for this prohibition against that couple in my church.

Mrs. Linda Folkman: In terms of procreation, it wouldn't change anything right now. But what happens next generation, and the generation after, in terms of opening marriage and widening it to include that? A man and a woman are required to have children.

So what of the children who then see two men or two women--who cannot create a child--defined as being in a marriage? I'm not saying it's instantly going to shift one way or the other. But I'm looking beyond this generation to the following generation.

The Chair: As I'm asking this, I recognize that, as you said in your opening statement, you have come here because you saw it as a responsibility of citizenship and are perhaps less comfortable in this environment. I'm asking these questions extremely respectfully and I admire the fact that you've come to express yourself.

Do I understand the argument? And colleagues, I'm watching the clock. Is it your view that if we give legitimacy to same-sex families, in this case, the children who would be brought up in those families would more likely be gay or lesbian as a result of that? I'm not putting words in your mouth, but is that not your case?

Mrs. Linda Folkman: No, I'm not saying it's more likely, but it creates such confusion. You also lose a natural order and an understanding.

We have a responsibility--as parents, as a government--to create an environment where children do not have to deal with that confusion. They are raised with clear understanding. They make a choice when they get to a certain age. But during those formative years we have a responsibility to give them clear-cut instruction and training, and then they make their decisions. They will have a broad view. They will go out and understand, but they will have a clear basis. I think this is critical for future generations.

À (1000)

The Chair: I think I understand the position, and I cut myself off.

I have one minute left, and then it would be Mr. Toews' turn.

Mr. Vic Toews: To follow up on an earlier question, Ms. Drummond, you indicated that your understanding of marriage is that it is a covenantal relationship, which I understand is two people. That understanding of marriage is based on the Judaeo-Christian understanding of what marriage is. So you're essentially asking this committee to adopt a Judaeo-Christian understanding of marriage and to exclude those who do not accept that understanding of marriage. So those who have a moral justification for multiple-partner relationships will not find a welcoming home in Canada for their marriage relationship. Yours is a narrow, Judaeo-Christian relationship, which says that “We simply want to expand it to include same-sex couples, but not beyond that”. Is that correct?

Ms. Sheree Drummond: No, it's not correct. First, I would say that while it is very similar to a Judaeo-Christian understanding, it is the legal definition. It is what our state has decided; it's also what a marriage is understood to be.

Mr. Vic Toews: But our state has decided for one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, as recently as 1999 in a resolution of Parliament.

Ms. Sheree Drummond: And early on, our state also decided that an Anglican marriage would be the only appropriate marriage. So I think what we have evidenced clearly is that we are obviously shaped by our cultural and religious traditions; but then as a secular institution, we then choose to make a law informed by these various traditions—and they may in fact even reflect those traditions. But that does not then make the definition a religious definition.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

It's been a wonderful hour. I do thank the panelists for coming and sharing their views with us. This is a very important consultation, and our understanding has been enhanced by your being here. Thank you.

Thank you to the committee.

I will suspend for three minutes while the next witnesses come to the table and the present panel excuses themselves.

À (1003)

À (1009)

The Chair: I would like to resume the 30th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights as we continue our study on marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions.

Between ten and eleven o'clock we will be hearing from one representative of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Joey Sayer, and as individuals we have Don Sheppard and Lise Gotell, who is an associate professor of women's studies in a program at the University of Alberta.

As you understand, you have seven minutes to make a presentation. At six minutes you'll see this; at seven minutes you'll see this; and at seven and a half minutes you'll see this. So please try to allow us to engage in a dialogue. There are some issues we would all like to explore.

Without further ado, we go to Mr. Sheppard for seven minutes.

Mr. Don Sheppard (As Individual): Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee today as you continue this very important work.

My name is Don Sheppard, and I am a member of the affirming congregation committee of Southminster-Steinhauer United Church in Edmonton. We strongly urge you to support changing the definition of marriage in federal legislation to include same-sex couples.

Southminster-Steinhauer United Church is an affirming congregation in the United Church of Canada. An affirming congregation is one that publicly recognizes that gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or straight, we are all God's children and called equally to participate in the life, leadership, and mission of the church.

We became an affirming congregation in 1999 when we were told by our gay, lesbian, and bisexual members that although they felt welcome at Southminster-Steinhauer, they weren't always certain they were welcome in all activities of the church. We are recognized as an affirming congregation by Affirm United, the national support and advocacy group for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people in the United Church of Canada. There is one affirming congregation in Alberta, and 25 affirming ministries in Canada.

In 1984, the United Church of Canada affirmed its acceptance of all people as made in the image of God, regardless of sexual orientation. In 2000, the United Church resolved to advocate for the civil recognition of same-sex partnerships. The church has made these decisions out of a commitment to justice and fairness for all people. We submit that it is time our government did the same.

Although some people talk about creating a new institution for same-sex couples, equal to marriage but not called marriage, in our view that reinforces a second-class status for lesbian and gay people. Same-sex marriages can be just as loving and committed as opposite-sex relationships. They should be allowed to marry and have their marriage recognized by governments.

We agree with the United Church of Canada that many of the alleged benchmarks for confining marriage to opposite-sex couples do not bar same-sex couples. Procreation can no longer be cited as the defining dynamic of marriage in western society. Ironically, in Canada we do have heterosexuals who marry with no intention and in some cases no ability of having children, yet we have same-sex couples with children who cannot get married.

Others may argue that including same-sex couples undermines society's understanding of family. It is the experience of the United Church that non-traditional family forms may equally advance these family values.

Included in our brief are contributions by members of the Southminster-Steinhauer United Church congregation. The first is entitled “A Lifetime Covenant,” by Debbie Culbertson, a member of our congregation. She wants to share a brief journal account of the covenanting service that she and her partner shared nearly four years ago. Suffice to say, that couple believes in committed relationships and believes there should be no impediment to legal marriage for gays and lesbians.

She writes: “My partner and I feel that we both come to this question from a strong faith perspective.” She describes many years of theological education and work in the church that she and her partner have been involved in. So she says:

“We come to this question of marriage out of a deep faith commitment that is expressed in all elements of our work and personal lives.”

“My partner and I share our values with our children, both of whom celebrate and are supportive of our relationship. We teach our children by example; we model a committed and loving relationship to them. What then does it teach them when the state denies the institution of marriage to us? It is a devaluing of the lifetime of commitment that we have promised to one another.”

“If marriage is designed for the upbuilding of supportive relationships and the establishment of families, then I would say that we fulfil this requirement.”

She goes on:

“Gays and lesbians in committed relationships contribute to their communities as couples. They create stable homes, participate in churches, social, political, and economic institutions. Why should marriage be denied to them because a small and vocal group should wish to exclude them from one of society's bedrock institutions?”

À (1010)

She then goes on and describes the covenanting service. I don't think I have enough time within the seven minutes to read that, but she said: “A legal court may never recognize the pledges we make this day. But our covenant is blessed by a greater judge, and we have faith that it will endure.”

The second story came from Rachel, the daughter of Debbie and Heather, and she says: “My name is Rachel Culbertson. I'm sixteen years old and I'm blessed to have two mothers. My immediate family consists of two mothers, an older brother and me. We are socially conscious, politically aware and active citizens.”

And before I came up, she indicated quite clearly, contrary to things you've heard earlier, that she is not confused by that relationship.

She goes on to say: “Legalizing gay marriage would finally recognize that homosexuals do indeed feel love and are deserving of having the choice to legally marry. Why else would two people get married except to publicly state their love and devotion for one another? If we keep gay couples in hiding, we will only continue the cycle of intolerance and hatred. I would like to see a generation arise that is free of restrictions on who it is 'right' to love and who it is 'normal' to get married to.”

There are several other stories.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, we the members of the affirming congregation committee of Southminster-Steinhauer United Church urge you to give all Canadians the right to choose for themselves whether or not they wish to celebrate and commit their relationships through marriage. We urge you to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

À (1015)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sheppard.

Now we'll go to Mr. Sayer.

Mr. Joey Sayer (Representative, Alberta Division, Canadian Union of Public Employees): Thank you.

I'm here this morning representing the Alberta Division of the Canadian Union of Public Employees. I currently sit as the co-chair of CUPE Alberta's equal opportunities committee.

CUPE Alberta has a strong commitment to equality, and through its equal opportunities committee addresses such concerns as women's issues and disability issues as well as concerns related to our lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered, or LGBT, members. This committee works closely with our anti-racism committee, which sees to the issues surrounding people of colour and aboriginal members.

The equal opportunities committee has a commitment to deal with issues involving our LGBT members, and we reserve at least one space on this committee for a member from this group. We work toward educating our membership as a whole on the concerns of LGBT members in the workplace and in society through various forms of education, from workshops to an upcoming “Pride Conference” to be held here in Edmonton in June.

CUPE Alberta's ongoing commitment to the advancement of equality issues is reflected in our collective agreements. We have successfully negotiated provisions, for example, that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Many of our collective agreements contain comprehensive no-discrimination clauses; provide for an inclusive definition of spouse and family to include same-sex partners; and provide for a range of benefits to same-sex couples, including accessibility to medical, dental, and pension benefits and bereavement leave.

To illustrate how same-sex marriage would impact on CUPE members in Alberta, I would like to share a brief statement from one of our members. Natanya Mullen is a CUPE member working for the City of Calgary. Ana Paula Mullen, her partner of ten years, is co-parent of their six-year-old daughter. They were married in the United Church of Canada in 1995, and although their marriage is recognized by their church, it is not recognized by the Government of Canada or the Alberta government.

To quote Natanya and Paula:

When we were married in the United Church eight years ago, we were hoping to be able to renew our vows by our tenth anniversary and to finally have our marriage legalized by the government.

Not having the same legal rights and responsibilities of opposite-sex married couples impacts our lives and the life of our daughter in a number of ways, particularly when dealing with institutions such as the school system, branches of the government, insurance agencies and hospitals, which do not always recognize our marriage as such. For example, when our daughter had surgery not long ago, we had to fight in order to allow her non-biological mother to be able to see her in the hospital.

We look forward to a time when our daughter will not have to argue with her friends to defend our family's status as a family, and to a time when government sees our marriage as validly as our Church does.

As you are aware, in its discussion paper released in November 2002, the justice department outlined four options to address the question of what marriage should look like in Canadian law. Those options include retaining the opposite-sex definition of marriage, creating a so-called equivalent to marriage for same-sex couples, legislating equal marriage rights for lesbian and gay Canadians, and the creation of a registration system for all conjugal relationships in which marriage would be a strictly religious ceremony.

CUPE Alberta's commitment to equality extends naturally to our LGBT members. The retention of an opposite-sex definition of marriage is not equality and serves to convey the message that same-sex relationships are somehow of lesser value.

Also, true equality cannot exist in a system that would only provide so-called separate-but-equal arrangements, such as domestic partnership or civil unions. Such arrangements would serve to marginalize the same-sex relationships of those couples who feel that marriage is a desired and logical expression of their love and devotion to each other. This option would also add nothing new to the legislative landscape. This is because lesbian and gay couples already have a majority of the rights and responsibilities enjoyed by opposite-sex married couples.

In Alberta Bill 30-2, the Adult Interdependent Partnership Act, was recently passed and is expected to become law soon. This act allows for many marriage-like rights and does alter a number of Alberta laws. However, it does not allow for all the same rights, notably in terms of not altering Alberta's Matrimonial Property Act, which deals with the division of property upon the breakup of married persons only. The Adult Interdependent Partnership Act also sends out a clear anti-marriage message by specifically reserving marriage for heterosexuals only. As such, it serves to support the notion that discrimination against same-sex couples is justified.

There are those who feel that the current reformation of laws to address the realities of same-sex couples is sufficient for their purposes, but the majority of those whom these laws affect recognize that a true equality and recognition of their relationships can only exist if the choice of marriage is available, whether or not they themselves choose to enter into this institution.

À (1020)

I would like to share one more statement from CUPE members in Alberta. Jerry Fawcett and John LeBlanc are both CUPE members. John's working for Air Canada and Jerry's working for the Calgary Public Library. To quote Jerry and John:

We are a homosexual male couple whose relationship together is now in its twenty-first year. We love and care for each other deeply. We reside together. In fact, when a change in the career of one partner necessitated relocating from Vancouver to Calgary fifteen years ago, the other partner requested and received a transfer so that we could continue to live together as a couple. We share all household and other living expenses. We frequently travel together. We look after each other in times of emergency, of sickness, and of family crises. We share many common interests, hobbies, possessions, and friends. Our families and friends and many of our co-workers are aware of and supportive of our relationship and treat us with dignity and respect and love. In fact, we can think of only two characteristics of an opposite-sex relationship which we lack. We do not have children nor are we legally married.

CUPE Alberta has adopted the position that true equality for lesbian and gay Canadians logically entails the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples. We view the current restriction on equal marriage as discriminatory, for it denies a segment of our population access to a legal, religious, and social institution that is otherwise extended to the majority of Canadian citizens.

Many people regard marriage as lending legitimacy to our most intimate of relationships as it is imbued with social, cultural, and symbolic significance. To achieve equal citizenship under the law, it is paramount that marriage be extended to same-sex couples.

CUPE Alberta views equality as a commitment toward inclusion. To grant a segment of the population access to rights and responsibilities denied to others as unacceptable. CUPE Alberta asks the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to recommend the federal government pass legislation that would redefine the opposite-sex meaning of marriage, thereby extending the choice to marry to same-sex couples.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

To Dr. Gotell.

Dr. Lise Gotell (Associate Professor, Women's Studies Program, University of Alberta, As Individual): First of all, I'd like to thank the committee for inviting me to present my views. I'm presenting as an individual but also as a legal academic who's written extensively on equality rights jurisprudence, including jurisprudence relating to sexual orientation. I'm also a woman who lives in a committed relationship with another woman, and I have a son we're raising together. He's eight years old.

I want to begin by saying that allowing same-sex marriage is the only constitutional and pragmatic option that I believe is available to Parliament. Many have argued that the courts, through their charter decision-making, are usurping the legitimate power of the legislatures. I want to remind the committee that the charter doesn't simply empower the courts to decide upon the constitutionality of government actions. The Constitution also imposes an obligation upon governments to act in a manner that is consistent with the charter.

This is why I'm pleased that Parliament is exploring a political response to the same-sex marriage challenges, and I hope very much that a political response will not be deferred to a Supreme Court decision.

If the question of exclusion from marriage were to reach the Supreme Court, however, I have very little doubt that the court would affirm the lower court rulings in Halpern and Hendricks. In its 1999 decision in law, the Supreme Court articulated a coherent approach to section 15 of the charter. This approach emphasizes the dignity interests of applicants. It is of course straightforward to argue that exclusion from marriage deprives an already marginalized social group of dignity. This exclusion constitutes a form of withholding access to the full exercise of citizenship rights.

To paraphrase Justice Cory in M. v. H., such exclusion perpetuates the disadvantages suffered by those in same-sex relationships and contributes to the erasure of their existence. While Cory is referring to the exclusion from common-law status, it seems to me clear that exclusion from marriage constitutes an analogous form of denial of equality. Indeed, all of the five lower-court judges deciding this question have found it a denial of section 15 rights.

I also believe that the Supreme Court would follow the lower-court rulings in Halpern and Hendricks in finding that such exclusion cannot be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. It is difficult, if not impossible, to argue that there is any rational connection between this exclusion and the objective of heterosexual procreation. Indeed, as Iacobucci argued in the Egan case, it is difficult to understand how according same-sex couples recognition in any way impedes the heterosexual union.

Some witnesses before this committee and some committee members seem to believe that allowing same-sex marriage would erode a fundamental social institution--the heterosexual nuclear family. The heterosexual nuclear family has been presented as the very foundation of society, now and throughout history.

These apocalyptic predictions ignore the recent experience of the Netherlands. The Netherlands legislated same-sex marriage two years ago. To my knowledge, there is no credible social science research charting the erosion of Dutch society since that time. Heterosexuals have continued to marry and have children.

My partner is Dutch, and we were in fact married in Holland almost two years ago. I can say, albeit anecdotally, that perhaps the only change that may have resulted from the legalization of same-sex marriage is enhanced tolerance and acceptance. I don't think there are very many social scientists who would argue that tolerance is an indication of social erosion.

As for the government's options, then, maintaining the status quo is a policy choice that would inevitably require the unprecedented use of the notwithstanding clause. Creating a coherent civil union scheme with the same consequences as marriage in all jurisdictions would, in my view, be a jurisdictional nightmare.

This option, as the discussion paper acknowledges, would require the full cooperation of the provinces and territories. Some jurisdictions, including the Government of Alberta, have strongly resisted any recognition of conjugal same-sex relationships. Given this, securing such cooperation would be difficult, if not impossible.

Allowing for same-sex marriage, then, is in my view the only immediate constitutional and practical policy choice that is available to the federal government.

À (1025)

This said, however, I also have many concerns with how this debate has been framed. I see same-sex marriage as perhaps the final step in creating a regime of formal equality for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered Canadians. But as past experience has taught us, creating formal equality on the basis of things like sex or race has failed to produce substantive equality.

To give you an example, overturning anti-miscegenation laws, ending racial segregation, and recognizing civil rights did not end racism in the United States. These were necessary but not sufficient steps. Combatting racism requires social policy and other coordinated and broad-based government actions that go beyond mere formal equality.

Similarly, homophobia is a deeply rooted and serious social problem that requires coordinated government action that extends beyond formal equality. I've been troubled by how the intense focus on same-sex marriage creates the illusion that once gay and lesbian Canadians have secured marriage rights they will have secured equality.

I'm also concerned with how the focus on same-sex couples in committed long-term relationships ignores those lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered people who do not conform to this model. I'm concerned that focusing on marriage may work to create a hierarchy among us where only those in committed long-term relationships are seen as deserving of respect and recognition.

These concerns are raised not to thwart the struggle for same-sex marriage; they are raised merely to underline its incompleteness.

À (1030)

The Chair: Mr. Cadman, for seven minutes.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'd like to thank the witnesses for appearing today.

I just have a couple of short questions here. Mr. Sheppard, you made reference to how there was only a small but vocal minority opposed. I'd just like some clarification as to how you support that view, that it's just a small vocal minority. That's certainly not been my experience, where I am.

Also, you made a comment that the state should essentially stay out of it and let people decide for themselves. Well, if we are going to leave people to decide for themselves, why would we want to just restrict it to couples?

Dr. Gotell, you commented that the Netherlands has had the legislation in place for two years. I'm just wondering if you feel that two years is long enough to determine or assess the long-term impacts on a society.

Those are my questions.

Mr. Sheppard?

Mr. Don Sheppard: For my point about a minority, I am looking at work we did when we met with the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General, and I have some statistics from Leger Marketing that show 75.7% of Canadians and 71.5% of Albertans feel gays and lesbians should have the same rights as heterosexuals.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Is that specifically the right to marry, or the same rights?

Mr. Don Sheppard: That's the same rights.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Okay. The other question was why would we restrict it to couples if we should just have the state stay out of it and let people decide for themselves who and how many people they--

Mr. Don Sheppard: Well, I think if we allowed same-sex couples the same rights to marry, then they would make a decision.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: No, my question was why would we restrict it to couples--

Mr. Don Sheppard: I'm sorry.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: --as opposed to multi-partners, to polygamists.

Mr. Don Sheppard: Okay. We're back to polygamy.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: No, no--it's an issue we have to consider, a ramification of the decision that--

À (1035)

Mr. Don Sheppard: As I understand the law in Canada at the present time, polygamy is illegal. Many of the people who come from states that allow polygamy are escaping from that particular law. Those states actively demean women. In those states, female circumcision is still practised.

I quite frankly don't see how polygamy is even a part of this discussion. Polygamy is against the law in Canada.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Well, so was homosexuality at one time.

Mr. Don Sheppard: But it is not now, sir.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Of course, and you know I agree with and fully support that. I don't take any issue with that at all. We just have to consider the ramifications of the decisions we make here and where we go with them.

Mr. Don Sheppard: Well, sir, I don't believe allowing same-sex couples the right to marry will really open that Pandora's box, as you seem to be thinking it will. Polygamy is against the law in Canada.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Fair enough.

Dr. Gotell.

Dr. Lise Gotell: The short answer to the question is yes, I think it is long enough. I would also expect those who predict social erosion or social instability to follow from same-sex marriage to be able to point to some emerging indication of that in the Netherlands in the last two years. To my knowledge, there has been no one who has been able to do that. That's my short answer.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you to our witnesses for being here this morning.

Mr. Sheppard, your Church sanctions same-sex marriages. However, under the law, this is illegal. You said that your freedom of religion is violated because you are not allowed to follow the principles of your faith.

[English]

Mr. Don Sheppard: I'm not getting it very well.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: While you were waiting your turn this morning, a previous witness said that allowing same-sex marriage would be an infringement on freedom of religion. Without knowing that you would be up later on, I had told this witness that the opposite was true, namely that certain Churches, which sanction same-sex marriage, cannot do so under the current legislation, which represents an infringement on freedom of religion.

[English]

Mr. Don Sheppard: Correct.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: That's what I wanted to hear. Thank you.

Doctor Gotell, you are a legal expert. You have studied the legality of the issue. That was the basis of your presentation.

I would like to know what you think about the other options which were presented by the federal government, more particularly the option of the civil union. In my opinion, the federal government could not authorize a form of civil union or national register, because the power of the federal Parliament with regard to family law is specifically and exclusively defined in section 91 of the Constitution, which deals with divorce and marriage. Therefore, any form of partnership which is not a marriage could not be authorized by the federal Parliament.`

As a professor and legal expert, do you share my take on this issue?

[English]

Dr. Lise Gotell: First, I should clarify that not all legal academics are lawyers. I'm not a lawyer, but I am a legal academic.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I see.

[English]

Dr. Lise Gotell: Some people do make that argument, that to create a civil union or a registered scheme would exceed the federal government's jurisdiction under section 91. At the very least, we could say that the federal government's ability to create such a scheme is limited to its own areas of jurisdiction, so to create a coherent scheme would require--as the discussion paper lays out--full cooperation from the provinces and territories.

I'm not opposed to the creation of a civil union scheme, but I do see the creation of a civil union scheme as being something that would be in addition to same-sex marriage if marriage is maintained.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: The document presented by the federal government outlines four possible options.

There is the civil union and registration system option, and we agree on the fact that the federal Parliament could not authorize this type of union.

Another option, and I don't know if you agree with me on that one, would be to authorize religious organizations to sanction marriage, although the federal government could not confer this authority on its own, because the federal Parliament does not have the right to decide who may preside over a marriage ceremony. These people are officers of the civil state appointed by the provinces. Therefore, legally, it would not work.

The third option is to maintain the status quo. But in your presentation, you clearly said that this is not possible unless the notwithstanding clause were invoked, which is not ideal.

So we have three options which are not legally enforceable. Therefore, from a strictly legal point of view, the only possible option is allowing gay marriage.

À (1040)

[English]

Dr. Lise Gotell: I agree that it is the only immediate constitutional option that is available to Parliament. If you look at how the Supreme Court has articulated its approach to section 15 and how it's articulated its approach to section 1, if you look at the three lower court decisions--and I do believe that the decision in EGALE is deeply flawed--and if this issue is litigated, I have no doubt that the Supreme Court will decide in favour of same-sex marriage. I believe that it is the only constitutionally available decision.

The Chair: Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Thank you, Chair, and thank you, witnesses, for coming this morning.

First of all, Reverend Sheppard, I'm confused. I thought you were speaking on behalf of a congregation, an affirming congregation.

Mr. Don Sheppard: I'm speaking on behalf of the affirming congregation committee of Southminster-Steinhauer United Church. I'm a layperson.

Mr. John McKay: Thank you. My assumption. Sorry.

The first question has to do with the definition of marriage, and currently it's pretty simple. It's one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. There are three components. The first one is the number, which Mr. Cadman has alluded to as a concern, the second one is that it constitutes two genders, and the third is, to the exclusion of all others. You advocate that we should take one component out of that definition so it would be one set of persons, if you will, to the exclusion of all others.

There has been some concern raised about the number. In other words, we wouldn't have any number in some argumentation, some of the arguments being quite analogous in that we shouldn't be restrictive. Now, the number, if you will, is on the table. Gender has been eliminated. I suppose what's left is, to the exclusion of all others.

So the question I have for you is essentially what does marriage then mean if in fact those concepts are substantively eliminated from marriage? Is marriage then just something that gets blessed? When you bless something in your church, for people who get married in a traditional form, are they any more or less blessed than the folks who get married in a covenant relationship?

Mr. Don Sheppard: No. I don't think they are. As to the covenanting service we talked about, Heather and Debbie's covenanting service, I believe they were every bit as much blessed. But they're not legally recognized as being married.

Mr. John McKay: So from a religious standpoint, if you will, you've essentially accomplished the goal of recognizing the relationship. You have a public affirmation of a relationship.

Mr. Don Sheppard: That's correct. But it's my understanding that there is a separation between church and state in Canada--

Mr. John McKay: No. I'm just asking you from a standpoint of a religious institution.

Mr. Don Sheppard: I believe that a covenanting service does bless them equally, but they still do not have the legal.... Same-sex couples that have been--

À (1045)

Mr. John McKay: They don't have the piece of paper is what you're saying.

Mr. Don Sheppard: Pardon me?

Mr. John McKay: They don't have the piece of paper.

Mr. Don Sheppard: They don't have the legal recognition by the state that they are married.

Mr. John McKay: They have a substantive recognition by the state of all of their characteristics in the absence of simply that piece of paper?

Mr. Don Sheppard: In the absence of legal recognition, sir.

Mr. John McKay: So from the standpoint of the couple you mentioned, they have, from a public affirmation standpoint, from a recognition standpoint, from an acceptance in the community standpoint, from a substantive legal standpoint, accomplished virtually everything that a marriage would accomplish.

Mr. Don Sheppard: They have a recognition in a certain part of the community, in Southminster-Steinhauer United Church.

Mr. John McKay: In a part of the community that's important to them.

Mr. Don Sheppard: No, sir. I think they would like recognition. They have recognition from their friends, and they have recognition in their church, but they're not equal. They're still in many respects second-class citizens because they have not been given the legal right and legal recognition in their country.

Mr. John McKay: Second question--

Mr. Don Sheppard: Sorry. In regard to the piece of paper, there is something more than just a piece of paper. I have the piece of paper. When I was married it meant something more, and it continues to mean something more. That's all many same-sex couples are asking for.

Mr. John McKay My second question is to Dr. Gotell. Your testimony is that a change in the definition is the only realistic and practical and constitutional option that's available to this committee. You didn't expand at all as to why the definition of marriage as it presently exists could in fact be justified in a free and democratic society. It seems to me that you skewered the argument, if you will, to ignore that section of the Constitution, and we are left with analogous grounds.

One of the people giving testimony yesterday talked about the unintended consequences, or the unanticipated consequences, of the last time that Parliament played with marriage, which was the Divorce Act. Frankly, to try to summarize his testimony, he talked about how we switched from a marriage culture to a divorce culture. We've seen the incidence of the feminization of poverty, we've seen the incidence of violence going up, and we've seen demographics changing substantially with single parenting and things of that nature. His point was that the state ends up backstopping all of those changes in what marriage and family used to do.

Wouldn't it be your view that given the absence of evidence, the paucity of evidence--even in the Netherlands, as you mentioned, there's nothing there you can really go to--we should tread very lightly in this fundamental institution?

Dr. Lise Gotell: There are really two questions, and one is about the section 1 arguments, about how the current definition of marriage might be justified as a reasonable limitation that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. It cannot be, according to the tests that have been elaborated by the courts. If that's what you're asking me, then that's the answer I'll give.

The Supreme Court, for example, has said that an objective that is also discriminatory cannot be seen as being pressing and substantial. It has ruled that in at least two decisions. Justice Laforme, in the Halpern case, said that there is no way you can rationally connect the ban on same-sex marriage to the objective of fostering heterosexual procreation; there's no way you can rationally connect it, and the only rationale, the only objective that seems to exist is a discriminatory one.

So I believe that under the current interpretation of section 1, as it has been elaborated by the courts, there is no way to justify the current definition of marriage.

The second question relates to should we be making fundamental changes without carefully interrogating what their consequences might be, and the example that is raised is around no-fault divorce.

The consequences that many people want to lay at the feet of no-fault divorce are complicated things. For example, the feminization of poverty, as many social scientists have investigated this problem, cannot be laid at the feet of no-fault divorce. We've gone through a period of economic restructuring. We've gone through a period in which there has been an erosion of high-wage, unionized employment. There are many complicated reasons for the feminization of poverty.

À (1050)

The Chair: Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: All three of you eloquently spoke in favour of recognizing same-sex marriage.

However, you surely know that many witnesses have told this committee that they are afraid that their religious group, Church or synagogue may be forced to sanction same-sex marriages despite the fact that the Charter protects freedom of religion.

If the committee recommended going ahead with same-sex marriages, would you feel more comfortable if there was a provision or section which clearly stated, as does article 367 of the Quebec Civil Code, that no member of any faith would be forced to preside over a ceremony which went against his or her religious beliefs? Would the three of you be ready to say, here and now, that you would support such an approach?

Mr. Sayer.

[English]

Mr. Joey Sayer: Thank you.

It's CUPE's perspective that we respect religious freedoms as much as we respect all freedoms. Religions can and do discriminate on a regular basis within their own institutions. And while many members of CUPE may not necessarily agree with that, we do respect that.

I'm sure that you've heard a number of different examples of how discrimination does occur. A classic example is the Catholic Church not ordaining women priests and not marrying divorced couples. So discrimination can and does exist within churches.

I don't see how opening the option to marry people within churches forces churches that do not wish to do so, to do so.

The Chair: Mr. Sheppard.

Mr. Don Sheppard: I agree with Mr. Sayer. I think the separation of church and state in Canada means clergy are not required to marry couples when it would be contrary to the faith community's religious beliefs.

I don't think that's necessary. On the face of it, I don't see what you suggest causing a problem, but I don't think it's necessary.

The Chair: Ms. Gotell.

Dr. Lise Gotell: I'd absolutely be comfortable with some kind of a legislative provision that would recognize the right of religious institutions to define for their purposes who can marry.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms Fry.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I have one question and would like it directed at Dr. Gotell.

Over and over I have heard the question asked and I wanted to follow through with this question. The statement is made that no-fault divorce has created chaos, that it is the reason why people are getting divorced more often. Because of this, single parenting has increased, and violence has increased because of this, and the feminization of poverty has increased.

You made a very strong point in which you say.... And I agree with you, having been Secretary of State for the Status of Women and having studied it. I knew that the feminization of poverty has existed since time immemorial, that in fact violence has occurred within marriages, and that divorce is allowed for people to leave situations and be protected. And single parenting is not new. Single parenting again has been there since the beginning of time.

What the Divorce Act has done is to assist in protecting, especially women, when they leave relationships or when they are left. But the fact that this question is asked over and over prompts me to ask, because it is obvious that some may be concerned that by allowing same-sex marriage one would increase the divorce rate or do something with regard to divorce. And I don't understand what this would do, but I wondered if you could think of some way in which allowing same-sex marriage would increase the rate of divorce in this country.

À (1055)

Dr. Lise Gotell: It doesn't make any logical sense to me. If a student tried to make that argument on an essay I'd say substantiate it. You have to substantiate claims like that, and there's no way that such a claim could be substantiated on the basis of the existing research.

I think we could substantiate a claim that recognizing same-sex marriage might in fact strengthen the institution of marriage and decrease the divorce rate. That kind of an argument could more plausibly be made.

Ms. Hedy Fry: I tend to agree with you. If you have people breaking the door to get into an institution, it obviously means that they value it, and that it would strengthen the institution.

There's another question that I wanted to ask. Some people suggested today that the children of a same-sex couple are confused, that they tend not to understand what is going on. I don't know if it means that they have gender identity problems, or whatever, but it is obvious that I have seen no studies showing that children of same-sex couples grow up, or have a greater tendency, to become same-sex themselves or to have same-sex attractions.

Is there anything you can tell me that would support the idea that a same-sex family with children is a less worthy family, or a more dangerous family, or has a greater propensity to harm the children in that family?

Dr. Lise Gotell: No. The only studies tracking children who have come out of same-sex relationships that show a difference between those children and children raised in heterosexual relationships are on the question of tolerance. Children raised in same-sex families tend to be more tolerant, perhaps because of the discrimination they experience as children when they're growing up. It makes them understand tolerance.

So, no, you cannot say that children who are raised by two parents of the same sex who are loving and good parents are harmed. You cannot also say that they are confused. Studies show that there is no increased rate of homosexuality among those children as they grow into adulthood. But in any case, I don't think we should be worrying about that.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Toews.

Mr. Vic Toews: Mr. Sheppard, I want to follow up on your comments that there is a separation between church and state in this country and therefore that churches should be entitled to continue to discriminate—whether it's refusing to marry people who have already been married, among Catholics, for example, or the Roman Catholics refusing to have priests who are female. That's a separate issue. They're entitled to remain separate, and it has nothing to do with the state.

However, churches and religious educational institutions receive financial support from the state in this country. They receive charitable tax status, which is a financial benefit, and they receive direct financial grants from the state. I would assume that in order for you to remain consistent with your position on the separation of church and state, and allowing the church to continue discriminatory practices, you would of course advocate cutting off the funding of those religious institutions that carry out discriminatory practices, which are contrary, in your opinion, to the Charter of Rights.

Mr. Don Sheppard: I don't believe I used the word “discriminate”. I said there's a separation between church and state—and that's as far as I went. In response to Mr. Marceau, I said that I didn't see anything on the face of it.

Á (1100)

Mr. Vic Toews: All right.

So as a society we can then allow churches to discriminate by refusing to marry same-sex couples, for example, because that's a religious issue—not a state issue. But if we say they can discriminate, how can the state then say that we'll also support them through financial laws and practices? If we're a secular state, wouldn't you see that as being somehow inconsistent?

Mr. Don Sheppard: Well, sir, I didn't think we were coming here to discuss that particular aspect.

Mr. Vic Toews: I keep on hearing “We're not discussing this, we're not discussing that”. The problem we're faced with is that once you open up an issue, we have to consider the ramifications. We can't just stand here and say “Oh well, we're just talking about same-sex marriages”.

I've heard it argued today that same-sex relationships are entitled to the same thing as common-law relationships and therefore, by analogy, that marriage should also be open. But somehow, when we move beyond that to say that if we're opening up a marriage to same-sex relationships, we can't consider polygamous relationships, or we can't consider state funding of discriminatory practices conducted by churches....

We're not simply here to answer a question in a total societal vacuum; we are here to consider the broader ramifications of what we do when we change the law. We create precedents that are applied in a much broader area.

The Chair: I need a question, Mr. Toews.

Mr. Vic Toews: It's a comment. I'll just leave it at that.

The Chair: That's much easier. I then don't have to figure out how to cut off the witness.

I want to thank the witnesses for coming here today and presenting their case. Again, you've informed this exercise, which is very important to us. We appreciate very much your being here and giving us your time.

I'm going to suspend for three minutes, so that you can excuse yourselves and the next panel can find their way to the table.

Á (1102)

Á (1109)

The Chair: I call back to order the 30th meeting of the parliamentary Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We're continuing our study on marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions.

For the next hour we will be hearing from, as an individual, Professor Ted Morton of the University of Calgary and Alberta senator-elect. I'm sure that will raise a question or two. The Alberta Council for Global Cooperation is represented by Cherie Klassen. And as an individual, we have Chris Martyniuk.

Each panellist will make a presentation of seven minutes.

Professor Morton.

Á (1110)

Mr. Ted Morton (Professor, University of Calgary and Alberta Senator Elect, As Individual): Thank you, Mr. Scott, and thank you to the committee for allowing me to present today.

I submitted a written statement already that I believe you have, and today I will simply summarize the four points that are in that submission and add a fifth.

My first point in the submission to you is that same-sex marriage is a contradiction in terms. As Katherine Young, professor of religious studies at McGill University, who has submitted an extensive affidavit in the court case litigation that's pending here, pointed out, it's an oxymoron. It's an oxymoron because it lacks the universal or defining feature of marriage according to religious, historical, and anthropological evidence, according to Professor Young.

I would add that the purpose of the family is to nurture the offspring of heterosexual couplings, and the laws of marriage seek to strengthen the triad of father, mother, and child. The public consecration of marriage through marriage laws reflects an enduring social fact. Children need both parents if they are to prosper, and societies that wish a future need intact families. Strong families serve as a transmission belt between a nation's past, present, and future.

This is true not just in the physical sense of reproducing the next generation, but also in terms of transferring society's moral infrastructure from one generation to the next. Civilization may be thousands of years old, but, as others have remarked, it is only a generation deep. Or as Thomas Sowell has more pointedly observed--and I apologize to new parents in the room--“each new generation born is in effect an invasion of civilization by little barbarians who must be civilized before it is too late.” Parents who have teenagers can maybe appreciate that more than new parents.

That is point number one.

I would also draw the committee's attention to much of the contemporary social science research done on the effects of family break-up or single-parent families on children, specifically Sarah McLanahan's work, a sociologist with Princeton University, and her book Growing Up with a Single Parent from Harvard University Press. It correlates all of the hazards that await young people in our contemporary society with a much higher incidence for children coming from single-parent or divorced families.

My second point is that the gay culture of sexual hedonism and promiscuity is inconsistent with the requirement of stable families. I don't think I have to go into details of this. You have before you, I believe, a very interesting factum from John McKellar, the executive director of a group called HOPE, Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism, who will be addressing you in Toronto, and he goes into this in some detail. It's also of interest to note that he asserts he is one of many homosexuals who are strongly opposed to gay marriage.

In my factum, however, I do point out to you that one of the more influential feminist groups in Canada, LEAF, in their factum in a recent Supreme Court case, emphasized the role of pornography in homosexual culture. So you have several self-admitted or self-confessed, if you like, admissions of the role of this in the homosexual community.

And I would argue, as I do in my submission to you, that it is this dimension of the gay liberation movement that undermines the claim for marriage. I suggest that the gay community cannot have it both ways when it comes to sex. They cannot ask us to believe they are simultaneously straight and kinky, responsible parents and sexual libertines. Sexual promiscuity is simply incompatible with stable families.

Now, Canadians' commitment to individual freedom and privacy may lead us to tolerate a sexually promiscuous subculture--and I think freedom and privacy do require that--but it does not require us to enshrine this in law, especially law so fundamental to our collective well-being as marriage.

Á (1115)

My third point is a legal one, namely, that same-sex marriage is not required by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Sexual orientation was intentionally excluded when the charter was being written in 1981. Svend Robinson was on the committee that was looking after the drafting of the charter. He tried numerous times to insert explicit or implicit references to homosexual rights or sexual orientation. The then Minister of Justice Chrétien seven times explained why this wasn't going to happen, and the final view was 22 to two against. So the judges have basically misinterpreted section 15 by reading in new meaning that was intentionally kept out.

In effect, this is a judicially driven constitutional amendment to section 15 by the judges. Parliament is under no obligation to accept judicial interpretations, or in this case a misinterpretation of the charter.

This, of course, is why the section 33 notwithstanding clause was put in, and the Supreme Court itself has acknowledged this in the Vriend decision, one of the most important gay rights decisions of the Supreme Court. The court itself said that its decisions are not binding on Parliament, that it wishes to engage in dialogue and that the notwithstanding clause is a tool or instrument of that legislative judicial dialogue.

The fourth and final point of my written submission was that I ask the committee and Parliament not to equate disagreement with policy demands of a group with the dislike of the group. Since I'm running out of time, I'll simply make a reference to Jean Bethke Elshtain's Massey lectures--CBC Massey lectures at U of T, in 1993--where she warns of the dangers of what she calls identity politics and identifies the gay rights movement as the worst offender in this respect.

My fifth and final point is simply a plea for caution. I would suggest that we as a society have gone far enough fast enough on the equality rights file in the last ten years. I think we've done enough social engineering for one decade. You are being asked to dismantle an institution, marriage, that has served as the cornerstone of stable human societies for the past 3,000 years. We have no idea what the social consequences of this will be. I suggest responsibly, the issue can wait a decade. Again, there's been enough social engineering for one decade. To proceed now without any knowledge of the consequences, to abandon the traditional definition of the family, I suggest would not be leadership but an act of recklessness.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms Klassen, for seven minutes.

Ms. Cherie Klassen (Executive Director, Alberta Council for Global Cooperation): I'd like to thank you for this opportunity today to present to you my position on same-sex marriage.

Before I begin, I would like to tell you a little bit about myself. I have had the extreme fortune to be born into a white, upper-middle-class, educated, Christian family as a Canadian citizen. I've enjoyed all the opportunities afforded me because of this fortunate birth. I am now a professional with a post-graduate degree, returning to school in the fall to study law. I have a wonderful partner and a committed relationship.

My partner and I have a mortgage and a cat. We do laundry, baking, and yard work together. In short, my partner and I are average tax-paying, law-abiding, socially active citizens, as are both our homosexual and heterosexual friends. My partner and I have the same type of relationship as the heterosexual couples we know, with one notable difference: we can't legally marry each other, no matter how committed we are to our relationship, no matter how deep our love for one another.

To start with, I would like you to take a moment to imagine a scenario with me. It's Montgomery, Alabama, 1956. It has been a year since Rosa Parks was arrested and charged for refusing to give up her seat to a white passenger while riding a public transit bus, a year marked by turmoil, the bus boycott, and growing human rights movement protest led by Martin Luther King, Jr. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that bus segregation is unconstitutional.

But now, imagine that instead of allowing the black people to sit wherever they wanted on the bus with the white people they came up with a different solution. Suppose for a moment they came up with the following action plan.

Cities would run duplicate buses for each schedule and route, with both buses arriving at the stops as close together in time as possible. However, one bus would be painted blue, the other red. The blue bus would be allocated solely for white people, but if they so wished they could choose to ride either bus. Black people, however, would be restricted to riding only on the red bus, but now with the generous court provision that they could sit wherever they wanted on that red bus. Voilà, equality!

Or is it? I hope this imagined scenario sits as uncomfortably with you as it does with me. I would argue that enacting the proposed “separate but equal” alternative—the registered partnerships and civil unions proposal in the options paper in lieu of the inclusion of same-sex partnerships into the institution of marriage—smacks of the same institutionalized albeit marginally cloaked support for inequality and discrimination.

Here in Alberta we have the new Adult Interdependent Relationship Act, which defines for our province's citizens a legal context for interdependent relationships outside of marriage. However, the act does not even go so far as making it separate but equal to heterosexual marriage. Rather, it stipulates various conditions, such as continuous cohabitation for a minimum of three years or the formal entrance into an adult interdependent partnership agreement. My grandmother and my heterosexual sister could file to enter into this relationship as easily as my partner and I could.

In addition, this act mentions relevant factors that are taken into consideration when determining whether two people function as enough of a domestic and economic unit to declare themselves adult interdependent partners. These factors include the presence of a conjugal relationship, the degree of exclusivity of the relationship, and the extent to which the two contribute towards each other's well-being. As far as I know, none of these factors are examined by the legal system when heterosexuals apply for a marriage licence.

I believe some of the religious arguments that will be presented in this forum against recognizing same-sex partnerships legally as marriages are based on the beliefs that homosexuality is immoral and that homosexuals participate in indecent acts when they love one another. Some individuals hold that our presence within the institution of marriage taints it, although surveys have shown that the majority of Canadians do not feel this way.

In America in the 1950s, I'm sure there were also some individuals who justified discrimination against visible minorities with a religious or moral argument. Today we call them white supremacists. Perhaps we should counter these arguments about the morality of homosexuality with a discussion on the morality of hatred, intolerance, and prejudice.

Á (1120)

Of course, all individuals are entitled to the freedom of beliefs under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. My point is that, in reality, the moral debate on this issue is irrelevant and does not belong in this hearing or decision-making process, as the issues of human rights and personal beliefs are completely separate.

The church and state are, and have been for a long time now, separate institutions. The question debated here today is one solely of basic human rights. In Canada, government policy must be based upon the charter and must protect the rights of all Canadians to access legal institutions. Thus, it follows that the federal government should pass legislation to remove opposite-sex restrictions on legal marriage in order to provide equality for all citizens.

Recognizing legal civil marriages of same-sex couples will not harm religious institutions, nor the right to freedom of religion. It will not force any religious institution to perform religious marriages for same-sex couples against their creed or belief system. Extending access to the civil institution of marriage to same-sex couples will, however, support the basic human rights of all individuals and help to end discrimination based on sexual orientation.

As long as the state continues to explicitly or implicitly sanction discrimination, prejudice will continue to be institutionalized. It is disconcerting that today I am still required to plead my case that I am part of a marginalized minority, and then prove that this marginalization is wrong. In my way of thinking, it should be self-evident that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees all citizens the right to be included in all Canadian legal institutions.

However, I am encouraged by the prospect that by removing the opposite-sex restrictions on legal marriage and not endorsing the other options set out in the justice department options paper, this committee and the Government of Canada will take further steps to advance human rights in Canada and promote acceptance of fairness, equality, and dignity, and will work to prevail over injustice and the marginalization of any of the citizens of our country.

Thank you.

Á (1125)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Martyniuk.

Mr. Chris Martyniuk (As Individual): Thank you for the opportunity to present to the committee today.

To give a bit about myself, I'm 26 years old, have lived in Edmonton all my life, and for the past seven years have worked as an IT, a computer consultant. When I had an opportunity to come to this committee, I decided I would approach this the same way I would approach an issue with my clients; that is, to provide an objective analysis with some sober recommendations.

My discussion today is a summary of a brief that should have been distributed. It is not a discussion of faith or religion, but instead a discussion of society and civility.

I'm not here with a quivering lip and teary eye to claim a victim's status, but I would say that I have been lied to in my life. I was brought up believing that Canadian society was one based on fairness and tolerance, and yet eleven years ago, when I realized I was gay, I understood that Canadian society was not entirely fair or tolerant.

We've made some significant changes in the recognition of equality ever since, but today, with respect to marriage, there is still a significant issue. I think the words of the minister in the introduction to the discussion paper identify the crux of the issue, where he says that the issue of the definition of marriage is of interest to “everyone—those who are married, those who have chosen not to marry or remarry, and those who have not had the opportunity to choose”. The crux of the issue is that same-sex couples do not have the opportunity to choose to marry.

What we need to look at is the definition of marriage and its function in society. One way of looking at this that I would offer is a utility theory, or a concept whereby through law there's a transaction between married couples and society. Through law, society essentially pays for marriage by the benefits that are conferred upon those married couples, and in return society receives utility. To examine this issue we need to look at the utility of marriage and the responsibilities of the marriage and the subsequent benefits.

On the topic of the utility of marriage, the most typical traditional definition of marriage is the procreative heterosexual couple. The utility here is that they beget children for the next generation. Also, an important part of it is the conjoining of their families, which creates kinship. It's this kinship that creates a network and builds the foundation of our community. So in essence, marriage is the cornerstone of a family, and families are the foundations of our communities.

But in Canadian society we see that there are many, many different types of families who form this foundation who don't have children. There are childless married heterosexual couples who contribute to their communities and society as an example of their commitment, as being leaders in the community, and even helping with other families—for example, single-parent families. We see elderly couples who marry who serve as examples in their community of commitment and love and respect.

Same-sex couples, if they were to be included in the definition of marriage, would help further the same goals of cohesion in community within our society. There are examples of this in the holy unions—again not legally recognized, but churches grant this. They are examples of the ideals of stability and cohesion within their relationships. Their respect of these relationships in their communities demonstrates the reciprocal support of the congregation, but because they aren't legally recognized, that recognition is not extended to the larger community.

Certainly the procreative heterosexual family fulfils its societal need by producing the next generation, imbuing those children with society's values. But some have argued that this is the only definition of family: a mother, a father, and a child. This incorrectly presumes that community takes no role in the family. It fails to recognize the influence the community has in raising children and in imbuing them with societal values. These people see family as an island with impermeable boundaries. But families are dependent on communities, and successful families are permeable units that openly receive support from the web of their community.

Those who argue for a definition of family that denies this importance of kinship in community must admit that the function of family brings no benefit to society. On the other side, if you do value the strengthened web of society that family and marriage bring, then you must admit that society is strengthened by broadening the inclusiveness of the family definition; therefore, broadening the definition of marriage is beneficial because of the increased utility to society.

With respect to the responsibilities of marriage, there is a responsibility not only in terms of the commitment between partners but also to the obligations of the marriage. Through the couple's meeting these obligations, utility is provided to society. The chief responsibility of a marriage is to uphold, cherish, and respect one another, the partners within that couple. This leads to an enduring and stable relationship, which is then the example to the community.

Á (1130)

In some respects, this duty is private and internal, but it is also a public concern because of the role that family has in the community. Couples who have children shift this duty to the child, and their responsibility is then to create a healthy environment and to provide a thorough education to produce responsible citizens. In both cases, however, the family must be productive and nurturing, which requires the support of community. The responsibility flows both ways.

In Canadian society today, we have same-sex parents. They exist, and yet they are not supported by our society. As a result, it's difficult for them to create a nurturing environment for their children. But despite this, many of these parents and their same-sex families do create a healthy environment, and are successful parents.

In return for these responsibilities of marriage, there are certain benefits that are given by society through law. In exchange for meeting their responsibilities, these benefits are given to encourage and protect the stability. At the forefront is the emotional stability founded in part on the trust of the relationship. With its treatment of confidentiality, we see that legal marriage protects the trust of spouses. There are also economic benefits, and benefits in terms of compassion, including visitation in a hospital, for example.

So the clear path then is to give same-sex couples who are willing to assume the responsibility the opportunity to choose, as the minister says, to marry, by changing the legal definition of marriage to be inclusive of same-sex relationships. This is consistent with the principles of fairness in Canadian society, that fair rules and fair outcomes should be available for every Canadian. By expanding the definition, the same fair opportunity to be in the web of families constituting society is extended to same-sex families.

With respect to the legal structure of this, I have made responses in my brief to the four options outlined in the paper.

I thank you for your time.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I go first to Mr. Toews, for three to seven minutes.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you.

I note from Dr. Morton's presentation the quote from Thomas Sowell on each new generation being barbarians. In fact, Robert Bork takes that a little step further. He refers to it as “the vertical invasion by the barbarians”, and says that because of the baby boom, we weren't able to civilize all of our little barbarians. What happened in the universities was that we put barbarians in charge of teaching barbarians. That's Robert Bork's view of it.

As a university professor, I don't expect you to agree with that. However, I do note with interest some of your comments about the importance of the family. I agree that family is very important.

However, why do you think that same-sex marriages threaten the traditional family, Dr. Morton?

Mr. Ted Morton: With reference to your first point, I'm still trying to figure out whether I'd be the victim or the victimizer on the barbarians, with professors and students.

Moving on to the more important point, both Ms. Klassen and Mr. Martyniuk indicated that they thought that by broadening the understanding or the definitions of “family” and “marriage” that both those concepts would be strengthened. I concede that has a certain plausibility, but the opposite can be argued as a matter of logic just as well. The broader you make a concept, it would probably be considered a right. Today everything is a right.

If everyone has a right to everything, then rights mean nothing. So you can destroy the core meaning of a concept or an institution by broadening it as well. More to the point, and I don't impute this motive to either of the two other witnesses appearing with me now, there's a large body of gay legal advocacy literature in our leading law journals, the Osgoode Hall Law School reviews, the University of Toronto Law Review. They are written by professors at those same universities who are very explicit about what they consider to be the disease of heterosexism; that is, the ideology of normalcy associated with heterosexual marriage. What they call the “ideological centrepiece of heterosexual supremacy” is the family.

Stated differently by another Osgoode Hall professor, she writes, “Heterosexuality is central to women's oppression.” Another writes that the heterosexual family “is an oppressive and exclusive institution”.

Contrary to the two other witnesses today, here you have some of Canada's most articulate leading gay rights activists and, not by coincidence, law professors arguing very explicitly that it's critical to rid society of so-called heterosexism, that the so-called heterosexual family should be destroyed.

I'll give you one more quotation from a law professor at York University, Professor Bruce Ryder. He has written that since “heterosexual privilege is socially and legally constructed, it can be socially and legally dismantled.” The key to this dismantling is the legalization of homosexual marriage.

In the words of Peter Rusk, another gay rights activist lawyer, sanctioning of same-sex relationships by the state would imply a high degree of social legitimation of these relationships.”

Jody Freeman, a law professor at, I believe, the University of Ottawa, states that “recognizing marriage between gay men or lesbians would revolutionize its meaning.”

My reading of this literature is that by destroying legal support for heterosexual marriage and the family, gay activists hope to foster what they call a plurality of sexual and familial arrangements, which I believe is consistent with what both Ms. Klassen and Mr. Martyniuk said.

Also, it seems to me that the delegitimization and the destabilizing of the traditional heterosexual understanding of marriage is central to the objective of the militant gay rights movement. This is not people like Mr. McKellar, who's made a submission to you. There are many gays who don't agree with the gay marriage project.

Á (1135)

Mr. Vic Toews: Dr. Morton, are you familiar with Dr. Daniel Cere of McGill University?

Mr. Ted Morton: Yes. In fact I have his submission to you here that I read.

Mr. Vic Toews: Well, Dr. Cere has asked us, as a committee, essentially to advocate restraint in making changes to the definition of “marriage”, because he indicates that most of the academic research and debate in fact only comes from one side of the equation, the homosexual side of the equation. The heterosexual or straight side has not yet really begun to analyse the legitimacy of the research done by the gay side, and this academic debate really has not reached any stage of maturity.

I'm wondering if you could comment on that. Do you agree or disagree with that particular view?

Mr. Ted Morton: I have two points. One is the novelty or the recentness of so-called gay families or lesbian parents. In some cases, much less frequently, it's homosexual male couples who have the children. All this is so recent that there hasn't been the necessary timeframe yet to make any studies that have any validity over time. These are long-term propositions.

I think the more important point that this leads to is my plea for caution, my plea for going slow. In the last decade, mainly through court challenges, but not exclusively, Canadian society has prohibited not just public but also private discrimination against gays. It has changed property law regimes, again because of court decisions, to include same-sex partners, and also all government benefit programs, again because of another court decision.

In other words, we've gone about 90% down through the agenda. As parliamentarians, you know that almost no advocacy group or interest group gets 100% of what they want.

And to repeat what I said before, we're not talking here about a benefits program or this policy or that policy. We're talking about an institution that served as the cornerstone not just of Canadian or western society but of all civilizations.

You're dealing with social engineering, changing an institution without knowing what the consequences are. I would say it would be very prudent for people to take a deep breath, wait a decade, wait for more research to come in, and wait and evaluate.

It may be that the Mr. Martyniuks and Ms. Klassens and the John McKellars...there will be some sort of consensus within the gay community on some of these issues. At the moment there is none. I think it would be very prudent to wait.

Á (1140)

The Chair: Mr. Martyniuk, did you want to make a comment?

Mr. Chris Martyniuk: I think Mr. Morton put the words in my mouth that I'm looking for a plurality of marriage and sexual arrangements. That's not true. I'm simply looking for an extension of the definition of marriage to include same-sex conjugal couples' loving relationships based on mutual respect and trust. This is hardly a plurality or, to put words back in his mouth, an orgy of sexual arrangements.

The Chair: I'll go to Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to begin by thanking our witnesses for having made their presentations.

Mr. Morton, I would like to say three things before getting to my questions. First, in your brief, you say that a single country has recognized same-sex marriage, namely Holland. I would just like to clarify that Belgium has now also authorized same sex marriages.

Second, you talked about the role pornography plays in homosexual culture. I'm not saying whether this is good or bad, just that pornography is not exclusive to the homosexual culture. I recently watched a television program called Naked News and one of my young nephews asked whether CNN could not also adopt the same formula. I think that pornography is much more pervasive in society in general, rather than strictly limited to gay culture.

Third, and this is the last thing I want to say before I get to my questions, you seem to insist a lot on the fact that some gays are opposed to gay marriage. I recently met with the daughter of a woman who, in 1939, and this was happening across Quebec, circulated a petition in my riding calling on women not to obtain the right to vote. Just because a woman is against the right of women to vote or a homosexual is against gay marriage does not make it, at least in my view, a logical argument.

Since you are a university professor, you are in a good position to answer my question. You say, and I quote:

[English]

They cannot ask us to believe that they are simultaneously straight and kinky, responsible parents and sexual libertines. Sexual promiscuity is simply incompatible with stable families.

[Translation]

Dont' you think that many people whom we could call straight had fun for a certain period of their lives, for instance when they were in university—I'm sure that there are people around the table who were sexual libertines—and who lived life to the fullest for a while, and then became responsible parents, dedicated to their partner in a monogamous relationship?

[English]

Mr. Ted Morton: Well, I suppose that it might even be autobiographical in some respects for me. But the difference is, Mr. Marceau, that in what I call traditional, the traditional sexual mores of Canadian and most western societies, it is accepted that at the margins and also at certain points of time, over time in a person's life there may be pornography in other parts of society or a period of greater sexual freedom and so forth. But the norm that has been preserved at the centre all along has been that of heterosexual marriage, and I would stand completely by my assertion or claim in the paper that stable marriages cannot survive sexual promiscuity. Almost all of us have friends who have suffered the consequences of that truth.

The difference, again, with the pornography and with the sexual promiscuity is that the gay community refuses to make a distinction between good sex and bad sex. They may have good nights and bad nights--I'll qualify that--but in the gay lexicon, in terms of moral and immoral sex, all sexual experimentation--in fact, that's the term used in the LEAF factum--is central to the gay identity or gay culture.

Now, it's a free society; people are free to do that, and privacy gives them the opportunity for that. But to put it into a law and particularly into a law for the definition of marriage, I would suggest respectfully, is a very dangerous and subversive act, one many of the most articulate advocates of this position--now again, perhaps not Ms. Klassen and Mr. Martyniuk--admit is subversive.

The quotations I read you from the Osgoode Hall Law Journal, the U of T law journal, are by the gay rights legal activists. Their explicit purpose is to de-legitimate and undermine what they consider to be the so-called centrepiece of heterosexual supremacy, the traditional family.

Á (1145)

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: But there are homosexuals, just as there are heterosexuals, who have had many experiences and who one day decide that they have had enough one-night stands. I'm convinced that you are familiar with this situation, since you are a university professor. One day, you meet the man or woman of your life and decide to turn the page on a certain period of your life. You've had your fun, but you want to move on to a new chapter in your life and formally commit to another person. You want to get married.

You quote David Frum, who says:

[English]

the gay marriage argument pits the wishes of adults against the needs of children, the urgings of the self against the obligations of the family.

[Translation]

You could reverse the argument. Many couples have children and have told us that they want to get married to meet the needs of their children, to give them a stable environment filled with love and respect for one another.

I would argue the opposite of what David Frum is saying and I want to know how you feel about that. Allowing same-sex partners to marry does not pit the wishes of adults against the needs of children, but rather allow to reconcile them. It would satisfy the development needs of any human being, adult or child, and address the need a child has to be in a stable and loving environment.

[English]

Mr. Ted Morton: I'll just refer you to the affidavit or submission you have from John McKellar.

The Clerk of the Committee: It may not be translated yet.

Mr. Ted Morton: Okay.

He simply makes the claim that the picture of homosexual couples you refer to and I think Ms. Klassen and Mr. Martyniuk refer to represents a small minority of, if you like, the homosexual community; he says there's a much larger group out there that is very uninterested in copying the heterosexual model because it's too restrictive. They want privacy, they want to be left alone, and they do not want the model either normatively or legally imposed on them.

Á (1150)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Professor Morton.

If no one else has questions for my clerk, we're going to go to Mr. Macklin.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Thank you very much, Chair.

Witnesses, we appreciate you coming forward today.

In listening to the testimony not only today but in days past, I find that one of the issues that keeps raising its head is the so-called trump card of the charter. The question I would primarily direct to Professor Morton concerns the fact that when we look at, from Parliament's point of view, social policy protection and the primacy of Parliament within the process of governance, there does appear at some point, with the arguments that are being raised, the proposition that either you change it or in fact the courts will do it for you.

You've advanced that maybe, if I heard your testimony appropriately, the only response we may have available to us as parliamentarians to distinguish, not necessarily to discriminate, may be to use section 33, the notwithstanding clause.

I come back to the question I'd like to get your sense on, and that is, where do you as a political scientist see the efficacy of section 1 and its reasonable limitation in this process of governance, in particular of course on the subject matter we're dealing with?

Mr. Ted Morton: Unfortunately, the applicability of section 1 is totally in the hands of the judges. In other words, if section 1 was intended to be a check on excessive or unwise judicial decision making, it's not a very effective check because it's a self-administered check. In the end, if the judges decide what's reasonable or not, what a reasonable limitation is or not, then it's no check at all.

I don't think the story ends there. Professor Peter Hogg, probably Canada's most distinguished constitutional scholar, has advanced the model of constitutional dialogue or charter dialogue between courts and legislatures, both Parliament and the provincial legislatures. In theory, the dialogue model is a good model and one that in fact the charter was intended to facilitate.

Again, in 1981-82 I thought putting the notwithstanding clause in was maybe Canada's unique contribution to the development of modern constitutionalism. At the same time we adopted a written Charter of Rights with judicial review as a check on governments, with section 33 we also put in a counterbalance, some checks and balances, against the misuse of the judicial review. I think that anticipated a give-and-take, and not necessarily with the use of notwithstanding. Of course, there's something short of notwithstanding.

The problem with the constitutional dialogue model is that it's fine in theory but it's just not being reflected in practice. Here are two quick examples. On prisoner voting, the court struck down prisoner voting five or six years ago. A number of jurisdictions, including Parliament and also the provinces, went back and said, okay, a complete disenfranchisement may violate section 3, so we'll go to a partial disenfranchisement. Usually it's that people serving two years or less won't be disenfranchised but we'll leave it on for the more serious offenders. This was held up as a great example of dialogue. Lo and behold, the court comes along and says no, you didn't get it right, and they strike down that as well.

So this dialogue looks pretty one-sided. In fact, as no doubt members of this committee have heard--in an earlier panel I heard this recounted--there have been claims or charges made, again typically by university law professor gay rights activists. There was the thing here in Ontario after the M. v. H. decision, when M. v. H. brought in the regime Ms. Klassen referred to, the separate but equal regime; they threatened, well, that's not good enough, we'll get the courts to strike that down too.

Ideally, this dialogue between courts and legislatures, between judges and elected members, is where we want to go. It just hasn't developed in that direction yet, mainly, I would say, from a lack of self-confidence on the part of legislators and a bit of passing the buck.

Á (1155)

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: With respect to Mr. Martyniuk's presentation, I noticed that you talked a lot about the utility of marriage as it related to our society. I was looking through your responsibilities in marriage and it talked about an arrangement that was a commitment of partners, a commitment of responsibilities and obligations, that married couples are to uphold, cherish, and respect one another. But nothing in there dealt with the utilitarianism of creating our society--in other words, the procreation of children. Why would you leave that out as part of the definition?

Mr. Chris Martyniuk: It certainly is a responsibility. I think it is stated in there quite clearly that this is one of the functions of family, to procreate the next generation and to pass on the values of our society to that next generation. Certainly that's a responsibility of the family.

The Chair: We'll move on to Mr. Toews.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you.

Dr. Morton, I'd like to come back to you again. I agree that there seems to be a reluctance among parliamentarians to contradict the courts through the use of the override in section 33 because it is somehow seen--mistakenly, I would submit--as somehow unconstitutional, or illegal, or inappropriate.

In fact, it is a constitutional mechanism that Quebec uses quite regularly in order to reassert its constitutional authority that was unilaterally taken away by the federal government in that agreement in 1981 that brought about the Charter of Rights. So Quebec sees this as quite a legitimate exercise of its function, to override regularly the Canadian Charter of Rights.

Do you see section 33 as a legitimate constitutional mechanism to reaffirm Parliament's role in establishing public policy, rather than the judicial fiat of unelected judges?

Mr. Ted Morton: Yes, absolutely, both on the axis of Parliament having the final say in public policies, but also on the axis of federalism, as your example of Quebec points out.

The push for the notwithstanding clause came from the three western premiers of the day, who came from three different political parties: an NDP premier, Mr. Blakeney from Saskatchewan; a Conservative premier, Mr. Lougheed from Alberta; and a---

Mr. Vic Toews: And from Manitoba, Sterling Lyon.

Mr. Ted Morton: —from Manitoba, Sterling Lyon, a Conservative, but also the Socred premier, Mr. Bennett. So you had a broad diversity, with four premiers who did not have a lot in common in terms of policy and political background, but who all knew their Canadian history and knew about the fight over the old disallowance and reservation powers, and wanted a way to protect provincial policy autonomy from an institution of the central government.

There would be no Charter of Rights without the notwithstanding clause. That was one of the quid pro quos of Mr. Trudeau with those premiers. But I think that the real proof of the absolute legitimacy of the notwithstanding clause as one of the instruments of dialogue is the Supreme Court's decision in the Vriend case, which is one of the three main gay rights decisions of the Supreme Court. In the fifth or sixth paragraph of that decision, there are two or three paragraphs where the court adopts Professor Hogg's dialogue metaphor for how the courts are interacting with the legislatures. The Supreme Court itself says that section 33 is a completely legitimate instrument of that dialogue.

Mr. Vic Toews: Do you see the Supreme Court as an institution of central government authority imposing central government public policy?

Mr. Ted Morton: If you see with clear and open eyes from western Canada, I think that it absolutely is.

Â (1200)

The Chair: I've got one minute left, Ms. Fry, if you want to use it.

Ms. Hedy Fry: My question is for Professor Morton.

First, I want to make a statement. I think that the person who actually wrote the charter, Mr. Chrétien, has obviously acknowledged his oversight since then, and has subsequently amended the CHRA, changed the Immigration Act, and effectively given same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual common-law couples and created a modernization of benefits. I think we can see that's definitely how the law changes and evolves to meet the changing needs of society.

You made the comment that you felt that one of the reasons why same-sex couples should not have access to marriage is because they have a sexually promiscuous subculture. I'm a physician, and I don't actually have any scientific evidence to prove that. Do you believe that it is genetic? Have you got anything to support this?

I believe that many people who are not married have serial monogamy promiscuity in many ways. By giving same-sex couples access to marriage, one may actually be able to help to cement and make these relationships stronger, when they choose to make that definite commitment within a relationship.

But I'd like to know if you have any fact or any proof scientifically or otherwise that there is something about same-sex couples that makes them sexually promiscuous.

Mr. Ted Morton: I would refer you again to a document you have before you, by Mr. McKellar, who's an out-of-the-closet gay man in Toronto and who addresses this issue extensively. He quotes from several articles in gay journals, Xtra , the Toronto area magazine, and also an American magazine, The Advocate, in which gays themselves comment extensively on the promiscuous side of the gay culture.

Again, as a freedom-loving, privacy-loving, liberty-loving person, I'm willing to tolerate lots of things that I don't personally care for, or even that I disapprove of. But I think there's a difference between tolerating something and enshrining it in law.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Fry.

Thank you very much, Professor Morton.

That ends this round. We're going to take an hour for nourishment. We are suspended until one o'clock.

Â (1203)

· (1304)

The Chair: Good afternoon. Bienvenue. I'd like to call back to order the 30th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights as we continue our study on marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions.

From now until two o'clock we'll be hearing from four individuals: Beverley Smith, Reverend R. Wayne Lee, and Craig and Mark Stumpf-Allen.

Each of the presenters has seven minutes. We see this as three groups. Please hold to your seven minutes so we'll have an opportunity for some dialogue. I think some of you were here this morning to see how this works. At six minutes I'm going to give you an indication you have a minute left. Please observe it. When you're finished, I'll make this gesture; please close when you see it.

Ms. Smith.

· (1305)

[Translation]

Mrs. Beverley Smith (As Individual): Good morning. My name is Beverley Smith. I am a women's and children's rights activist and school teacher in Calgary.

I am interested in the issue of equality and have studied many equality movements, such as the gay movement.

[English]

The equality fight for gays resonates with me. This issue of same-sex marriage is clouded by emotion. I have changed my thinking about it over the years. I ask you to be open to my comments.

We must first consider what this is about, which for me is the right to marry. What it's not about often gets in the way. First, this is about two adults who want the responsibility of marriage, who want to express a comment to each other for life, in public, as a legal obligation.

I am married, and I made this promise I took very seriously--love, honour, comfort, forsake all others, sickness and in health, for better or for worse--it's a pretty heavy promise. Mine is a heterosexual marriage and traditional, but the vows we made were acts of courage. No one knows what lies ahead, and our vows simply say that what we face, we will face together. Same-sex couples want to make that vow to each other, and I don't see that as threatening.

Second, this is about money, not sex. In the law, marriage is the union of a man and a woman, but physical union doesn't determine it. Many heterosexual couples have intercourse and are not married; many married couples do not have intercourse and are married. The law does, however, require financial consequences of marriage. In present law, marriage is more penalized than rewarded.

Marriage creates an obligation for spousal support even after the marriage ends. There is a sharing of standard of living, responsibility for joint debts. Two individuals, once married, lose GST credit, child tax benefit, interest gained on a tax return. They lose the deductibility of principal residence. They lose the equivalent-to-married credit for a first child. They get the lower spousal deduction, not the full personal deduction. These are financial penalties for marriage--and yet gays want it. I don't see that as threatening.

Some feared that giving women the vote would lead to anarchy. Let us look at some of the mistaken impressions people have about same-sex marriage. First, this isn't about whether we approve of gay sex. Some people feel revulsion--a strong sentiment--but most of us disagree on what's appealing sexually anyway. Most children express revulsion at the thought of their own parents having sex. This isn't about that.

Second, this will not open the floodgates to polygamy. Historically, polygamy ignored the will of one of the parties--usually the woman. We're not forcing anyone here. It would be somewhat logical if the state forced people who were living together to make a commitment, but here we have people who want to make the commitment and the state won't let them.

Third, for me this isn't about or against religion. I'm a lifelong member of a mainstream Christian church, and the message I read in the Bible is to love one another. The Bible goes to some length to say what it defines as love because to love is difficult. Love is not ambitious or self-seeking. It's patient and kind. We read that if we love one another, God abides in us. I don't see any race or gender qualifier to that.

In the Judaic tradition, love is not seen as a virtue but as a part of justice. There are passages in the Bible that actually speak against marriage. The apostle Paul thought marriage was a sign of weakness. So for me the Bible shows a number of views of how to have a religious life, with the focus being service to others and love. From my reading of it, those who choose marriage must keep their promise; I see no threat from a gay community that wants to keep that promise.

Fourth, this is not about corrupting youth. I teach school, and I can assure you, where I teach it's not cool to be gay. I discourage gay bashing, but there's no danger from what I've seen that treating gays with dignity will make children want to be gay.

Many of the classes I teach have students from different cultures. The climate for them is much more accepting than in the fifties. Our school literature removed insulting references to people of colour, natives, people who speak different languages, and now kids accept this equality. The Russian, Polish, and African children really do all play together. That's the wave of the future, and we can make it so for gays, too.

This is also not about going against nature. Those who are heterosexual can rest secure knowing they're right, most people are drawn to someone of the opposite sex. That's their nature. You can't go against your nature. By the same token, a small minority of people apparently do not have the same biological urge. For them, it's natural to feel drawn to someone of the same sex. I'm not part of that drive. I don't feel it personally. But I see that, for them, it exists.

The fact that it is natural for most of us to feel differently should console us. The minority's attractions pose no threat to us. They can't change our nature, just as we're unlikely to change theirs. This is not about making youth gay. We don't have to be afraid.

Some suggest children would be shocked at having gay parents and seeing gay sex, but it's offensive to have any kids see the sex act. We shouldn't assume gays would expose children to it any more than heterosexual parents do. Private acts will remain private.

I don't see gay marriage as a threat to tradition. If I serve my family ginger beef at a family dinner, it's a departure from turkey, but it maintains the tradition of the family dinner. When we speak of marriage, the intent is what is worth upholding. Surely the commitment, permanence, and love are the intent--and that is not threatened by gay marriage. Gays want the same burdens we have--the cost, the financial responsibility, and the public promise. They are not rejecting tradition; they're endorsing it.

Nowadays, many people hesitate to marry. The United Kingdom in 2001 had the fewest marriages since 1897. Common-law unions are sky-rocketing. One in three marriages ends in divorce. For me, it's sad to see this lack of commitment people feel, and I find it heartening to see a small group who wants to make this commitment. Gays want to be part of what anchors society.

Finally, in a democracy, we defend not just the right of people to act as we do, but their right to act differently and, where no one is harmed, to have the freedom to practise their beliefs, their political views, and their religion. This isn't about agreeing with them; it's about defending their right to have those views.

Canada has a tradition of being one of the first off the mark to extend equal rights. We gave women the vote long before other nations. We have a health care system--the envy of most nations--ensuring the poor don't suffer illness more severely because of poverty.

Canada is the right place to ask for openness in defining what love and commitment are. I have no problem with allowing that small group of gays who want it to make a marriage commitment to each other.

· (1310)

The Chair: Thank you.

Reverend Lee.

The Reverend R. Wayne Lee (As Individual): To members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, thank you for the honour and the privilege of being able to address the controversial issue of marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions. My brief follows.

I'm glad this issue has been raised above the level of the courts to the elected members of Parliament and from there to the people they represent. Marriage does have a continuing value to society. Society is struggling with stability these days not because marriage has lost its value, but because people have ceased to value marriage as the sacred union God intended.

Marriage has always been holy--that is, perfect by design-- and therefore of immeasurable value. How the state recognizes marriage as far as privileges is of consequence to me both as an individual and as a representative of God and the church. I see it as honouring the very people who gave us life and the institution that makes life safe and liveable.

No life has ever come from a same-sex union. As a minister of the gospel, I honour all people regardless of their choices. Because I honour God above all, including myself, I feel it only right to stick with his design for marriage, if I should choose to be married, that is.

As the state is in defence of human rights, I believe it should honour all human beings and their rights to freedom of choice. As a member of the clergy, I have a right to refuse to marry people in the presence of God who I believe refuse to honour Him as God in their marriage. I wish that privilege to remain.

If the government representing the will of the majority should choose to honour all forms of relationship, then that is the choice of the people. If the government insists that I, as a minister, should participate in that choice, then it is taking my human rights away from me, and the right away from the church to offer to society the choice of a different and better morality.

Although I do not and cannot agree with same-sex unions, either as an individual or as a minister of the gospel, I do defend the right of all Canadian citizens to freedom of choice. Having said that, allow me to speak the obvious.

If everyone in the world today chose the homosexual lifestyle, human life on planet earth would be over in approximately eighty years. If life and human rights are the issues, then it is necessary to realize that not all choices made by humans will be for the betterment of life. I expect government to make choices that will be a benefit to society as a whole, and not just pleasing to a short-sighted few.

Although I would like to raise the morality level in this country and on planet Earth, it is not my place to force this on others. By the same token, I do not believe it is the right or the place of others to lower the morality level of this country by lobbying for government approval of lifestyle choices that are not in keeping with the long-term goals of life and society as a whole.

When the Constitution of this fine country was originally drawn up, people honoured God's choices. I pray for that to return. God said we should be fruitful and multiply, and we should stick with that mandate. I don't see how that is possible in a homosexual relationship.

Sincerely yours, Reverend Wayne Lee.

· (1315)

The Chair: Thank you.

We will now hear from Craig Stumpf-Allen and Mark Stumpf-Allen.

Mr. Craig Stumpf-Allen (As Individual): Good afternoon. I'm Craig Stumpf-Allen. This is my husband, Mark Stumpf-Allen.

We'd like to start by talking about how the decision of this committee and of Parliament will affect individual Canadians.

We have been together for 13 years. We had a ceremony in 1995, and it was a beautiful and very personal celebration of our relationship.

Marriage has many different aspects--economic, sexual, emotional, and spiritual--but in Canadian society today it's primarily about two things: a celebration of love between two people and creating a legal commitment between those two people. Given that, you have to ask yourself: who would be affected by denying or granting same-sex couples the right to marry? The answer is very simple: us. No one else.

Some people would have you believe that it would have an effect on society as a whole, but I don't believe that's true. It's about individuals making an individual choice. People who say that it will affect society as a whole are, I believe, acting on their own perceptions, whether you want to call that homophobia, hatred, or ignorance. They're not responding to our relationship. They're responding to their own perceptions.

Mr. Mark Stumpf-Allen (As Individual): As Beverley Smith pointed out, her perception has changed over the years. There's been a trend in society toward tolerance and to those changing perceptions in every aspect of our lives.

As an example, in our lives in the six years since we have purchased our house and moved into our community, we've got to know our neighbours and we've got to know and become part of a community that treats us as equals. In the beginning there was some controversy. Usually our discussions would talk about Will and Grace, or they would try to fit into our lives. But pretty quickly they realized that we're just another couple.

We complain about the weather. We talk about our families, sports, television, our passion. And because I'm a gardener, our conversations also tend toward the flowers in our garden and our different gardening styles. I'm going to use garden as a metaphor for marriage.

We have a unique garden. We have the colours that we like. Our neighbours may not particularly agree with our colour choices, but that's our choice and not theirs. I don't go and plant my neighbours' gardens, and I expect them to stay out of my garden as well.

The beauty of a garden and of marriage is that each of us can have our own unique garden. We can each have our own unique front yard and the world will only be a more beautiful place because of our relationships.

What is the government's role in marriage? It is appropriate for the government to create a legal framework in order to recognize existing relationships and to reflect society's trends. The simplest way to do this, of course, is to expand the definition of marriage to include all Canadians.

Mr. Craig Stumpf-Allen: It's our belief that under the current system the government is essentially sanctioning discrimination. By doing anything other than expanding marriage to allow all Canadians to marry who they love, or by continuing to deny gays and lesbians a right that most Canadians take for granted, we believe the government is sending the message that it's okay to discriminate.

We would like to see the government send a strong message against discrimination. We'd like to see a time when, if a son comes to his parents and says “I'm gay”, we'd like to see that....

· (1320)

Mr. Mark Stumpf-Allen: We'd like the parents' response to be not one of negativity by saying their child will not have a big wedding, their child will not have the family, their child doesn't deserve those things. We'd like every family to celebrate their child's diversity and their child's own unique orientation and unique choices.

Mr. Craig Stumpf-Allen: I'm sorry about that.

My parents were present at our ceremony and could not have felt more joy for us on that day. Whether or not it was a legal marriage didn't matter to them. But I think it would have eased their minds if they had known that we would not face barriers from our own government for our relationship. I know they'd like to see what everybody wants to see for their kids, for them to be happy. And we believe that marriage is a step in that direction.

Thank you.

Mr. Mark Stumpf-Allen: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I'll now go to Mr. Toews, for seven minutes.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you very much for your presentations.

Specifically to Reverend Lee, we recognize in our society that there are those relationships outside of the traditional marriage institution in which we find children. If we choose, as a committee here today, not to recommend an expansion of the definition of the institution of marriage to include same-sex couples, do you have any ideas how we could legally respond in order to provide stability for children and others in relationships of dependence in the context of those relationships outside of the context of traditional marriage?

Rev. R. Wayne Lee: As far as stability is concerned, I would always refer people back to God's mandate as to family: a husband and a wife and children. Sometimes we have single-parent families. Again, it's always that connection to honour the Creator and how he has designed things to be.

Mr. Vic Toews: I appreciate and respect the important role of the church in providing that support and that direction, and I'm thankful that we have an institution like the church in our society to provide that. There are many, however, who do not have the benefit of a church community, or simply have no legal power in order to insist on certain rights. I'm thinking particularly of children, in dependency situations, in perhaps a context of a same-sex couple, which we now know have children through one means or another, and indeed we see that in elderly people sometimes in that relationship of dependence.

Is there anything you would like to suggest to us that we could recommend in how to strengthen and protect the interests of those individuals who fall outside the context of traditional relationships?

Rev. R. Wayne Lee: I think the government would be wise to not persecute, if you will, the church if they decide not to marry same-sex couples. I think that should be our choice. Then that way we can offer society what we believe to be the moral high ground in all of this.

But if it comes to my refusing to marry a couple on those grounds and then I am prosecuted for it, sued, refuse to pay, and end up in jail...that is a very real direction we are looking at, which I hope the government doesn't go in.

Mr. Vic Toews: I respect your fear in that respect, but let's assume we build in all those protections--and I know that's a difficult thing to do. We have seen some very disturbing trends about the attack on constitutional rights of Catholics, for example, in Ontario and where courts have overruled those long-held constitutional rights from 1867.

I understand that, and it's a great fear that I have as well, but I'm also very concerned that if we have a child in the context of a same-sex union, whether that child has been brought there as a result of a heterosexual relationship or artificial insemination or reproductive technology, whatever we want to call it, we need to deal with that issue to ensure that our society responds in an appropriate way when the child needs help.

Is there a mechanism that you see outside the context of the traditional marriage that would assist us in that regard?

· (1325)

Rev. R. Wayne Lee: I can't help you with that one.

Mr. Vic Toews: Anyone else, without committing yourself to that alternative?

I understand the position you are taking. I just think it's something we need to address as parliamentarians.

Beverley?

Mrs. Beverley Smith: Apparently many of your tax laws respecting children are marriage-based, and I think that is unfair. You could address that, because really, children should be treated equally. It shouldn't depend on the marital status of the parent, on the gender of the parent, or on the employment status of the parent. Every kid is of equal value.

If you change your tax system, that's another issue, but it's certainly one--

Mr. Vic Toews: No, I think it's very relevant.

Mrs. Beverley Smith: I care deeply about that, because we're discriminating against children and gay couples by stigma and by some of these financial penalties. So we should remove both of them.

The Chair: Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First, thank you for your presentations. Reverend Lee, in your written brief, you alluded to God's design and in your oral presentation, to God's mandate as interpreted by your particular faith.

But this morning, we heard from all kinds of witnesses, including representatives from the United Church. We also heard from a representative of the Unitarian Church and from a representative of the reformed branch of Judaism. We heard from others who would also be willing to unite in marriage same-sex couples, who would like to do so but cannot, because even though their Church would allow it, the State does not.

Some witnesses said this was an infringement on their freedom of religion, since the State did not authorize something allowed under their faith.

You say that if the committee and Parliament authorized same-sex marriage, your freedom of religion would be sullied or threatened. However, do you know of any case involving the Catholic Church being accused, prosecuted and convicted of discrimination against divorced persons, who cannot be married within the Catholic Church, or because the Church refuses to ordain women as priests, which also represents a form of discrimination?

[English]

Rev. R. Wayne Lee: I'm not aware of any such cases at this point in time. I'm aware of similar cases of Christians being persecuted in a manner because they would not hire gay couples to teach in their Bible schools and stuff like that, which again to me is a violation of choice.

You mentioned my interpretation of the Bible. To me it's not even interpretation, unless you take the words out of the Bible. When God says to be fruitful and multiply, to me it's a simple matter of how am I going to do that? I can't do that if I violate the original design. That's a matter of choice, and I'm not saying take that choice away. What I am saying is not to force people to declare this is what you must do because you choose to worship in this country.

· (1330)

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: You expressed a fear before this committed which is also shared by other people, namely the fear of being forced to preside over ceremonies which go against the principles of your faith.

I think your fear is unfounded, since your right to refuse to officiate over such ceremonies is protected by your constitutional right to freedom of religion.

Would your concerns be appeased if the committed opted to endorse same-sex marriages, with the proviso that the law clearly stipulate that no member of any faith could be forced to preside over ceremonies which go against the principles of his or her faith? This is how Quebec's Civil Code works. If it were clearly spelled out in the law, would that allay some of your fears, which you shared with us this afternoon?

[English]

Rev. R. Wayne Lee: Yes, it would, very much so. I think people should be free to choose. People should be free to make wise choices and what others may consider not wise choices. But they need to be free to choose. I believe God leaves us free to choose, and we will answer to Him one day for everything we do.

I think freedom of choice is of ultimate importance. I wish, as I've said in my brief, not to force any kind of morality on anyone. I know what I believe. I believe what is true and what is right about how I believe. But to force that on another is not my place.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, witnesses.

My first question is to Reverend Lee. In the last part of your paper you say:

By the same token I do notbelieve that it is the right or the place of others to lower the morality level of thiscountry by lobbying for Government approval of life style choices that are not inkeeping with long term goals of life and society as a whole.

Could you tell me what you mean by “lower the morality level”?

Rev. R. Wayne Lee: Again, it would be simply that which goes against the natural design of the Creator. We didn't just happen here. We were placed here. We were told how to maintain life here--to be fruitful, to multiply. I consider that the morals to live by.

To put myself deliberately in a situation where I cannot fulfill that mandate, which would happen by choosing a gay lifestyle, to me is lowering that morality. It doesn't change a person's worth at all. It doesn't limit their ability to choose. But it does by their own free volition change their ability to be a part of that mandate as God chooses. And I realize there are many people who cannot reproduce children, but that's not their choice per se, as it's God's choice in their lives.

Mr. John McKay: Ms. Smith, you say in your paper:

Gays simply want in. They want to be part of the tradition of the burden, the cost, the financial responsibility, the public promise of a lifetime commitment to someone else. They are not rejecting tradition. They are endorsing it.

In the panel before yours, there was a witness who talked about simply the concept of gay marriage as a contradiction in terms--“an oxymoron” I think is the phrase he used.

If you will take that your argument is that the admission of gays to marriage would not have any impact, that it in fact would strengthen and enhance marriage... I think that's kind of your view of admission of gays.

On the other hand, his argument was that there's another agenda here, and the other agenda had to do with, if you will, an attack on “heterosexism” as the dominant form in our society of sexual beliefs and views and activities, that in fact the idea here is ultimately to destroy the core meaning of marriage and to delegitimize marriage. I think all of those are fairly accurate quotes from that.

He was painting a picture that in fact it's not a matter of just simply wanting in, that once that goal is accomplished, it's a little like a Trojan horse, and in fact it will blow apart marriage as we know it.

This is a certain disingenuity in your argument that there will be no impact on the institution of marriage by the admission of gays. At the bottom of it, at the core, really, you have substantively changed the definition of marriage, and you would have to anticipate that other consequences, which we can't possibly anticipate, will play out over the course of the next few years.

So I put it to you that gays simply wanting in, that they want to be part of it, has a certain superficial attractiveness to it, but in fact may well cover another agenda, intended or otherwise.

· (1335)

Mrs. Beverley Smith: Is that a question?

Mr. John McKay: I'll put a question mark at the end of the comment.

Mrs. Beverley Smith: I didn't say it would have no effect. I meant that the effect would not be negative.

Obviously it would have an effect. If you were going to a wedding ceremony and there were two men up there, you would be surprised. That would have an effect.

But I think, in the end, the way I read this committee, for example, is to look at our traditions periodically and see if they're still in touch with what people want. I think we're seeing by polls that there's a question out there right now. The fact that something is traditional doesn't mean it's right. We have to reassess periodically.

I also think it is a red herring argument to say, oh well, everything will go to heck in a handbasket if we do this one thing. We said that when we were going to give women the vote. That was the main argument against giving women the vote: Heavens above, we'll never have women taking care of their kids.

The thing is, I think we have to stay on topic here. I think we're talking about not only a small group of people--gays--but a small group within the gay community that wants to marry. This is why I don't think they're a threat.

Does that help?

Mr. John McKay: So it is your view that there will be an effect. The real question, then, is that we're in effect invited into a realm of speculation as to whether this will be a positive effect or a negative effect, or a multiplicity of effects.

Mrs. Beverley Smith: I think the point that these two gentlemen raised here was that it's really not going to affect you and me at all.

Mr. John McKay: That's a bit of an assumption.

Mrs. Beverley Smith: Okay, but we are free to disagree. I mean, what they do is none of my business and it doesn't hurt me; it doesn't affect me.

I think that's the beauty of democracy. We are here to say you have a right to do what you want to do, and that's why I don't buy the argument that was made earlier this morning, that we'll cut the funding to churches unless they do gay marriage. That's ridiculous. But democracies exist in order to permit this wide variety of values, and that's the strength of democracy.

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a question for Craig or Mark. I'm sorry, but I have to call you by your first names, since you share the same family name. It is not out of a lack of respect towards you.

Some people have told us that if you obtained the right to get married tomorrow, it would take any and all meaning out of the notion of marriage, and that allowing gays to marry would disparage the institution of marriage in the eyes of most people to the point where fewer people would want to get married.

My question is very simple. I presume you have friends, family or know of people who are heterosexual. Has anyone ever told you that if the two of you, Craig and Mark, got married, that this person would not get married because they would not want to be in the same category as you, or that they would decide against having children simply because you have the right to get married? Have you ever encountered this attitude in your circle or has anyone ever expressed feelings to that effect?

· (1340)

[English]

Mr. Mark Stumpf-Allen: Thank you.

It has not been my experience at all, certainly in our circle of friends, that our marriage diminishes their idea of marriage at all. As they get to know us as a couple, they can see there is a love and commitment between us that fits only under the umbrella of marriage.

However marriage is defined legally, there is still a societal definition of marriage that includes love, respect, self-dependence, and the commitment that two people show to one another.

The argument that if we got married someone else wouldn't makes me consider, for example, marriage between blacks and whites or people of different racial groups--to use that term. Again, that's an example of the slippery-slope argument that is just not valid in this case or in that one.

Allowing people to be married, allowing them to celebrate their relationships, has nothing to do with society as a whole. Our relationships only enhance....

The Chair: Thank you.

Dr. Fry.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Thank you very much.

My question is to Ms. Smith. I know you have a very deep knowledge of women's equality issues. You asked a question earlier about definitions in our institutions. Obviously there was a definition that had stood for millennia that was challenged in 1929, and that is the definition of a person. Only persons were allowed to sit in the Senate in this country. Women did not fully fit the definition of persons. We changed the definition, and women were allowed to sit in the Senate, and the rest is history.

The question then is that by changing a definition, yes, you change things. By allowing women the vote, you changed millennia of a patriarchal institution of governance. It would necessarily change it, because by allowing another group in, they bring with them a difference of perspective, a difference of opinion, but not necessarily a negative one.

It's the same thing with mixed-race marriages. It was always said that if a mixed-race couple got married, the children would absolutely suffer. This was said earlier on in the last century, when mixed-race marriages had just begun to happen. The children would have to face enormous discrimination, it would be terrible for them. They wouldn't be able to cope; they would confused; they would be vilified.

It was the same thing with interfaith marriages. How do you get a Jewish man marrying a Muslim woman? How could their children ever grow up with any sense of values?

I would like to ask you a simple question. In all of those, whether they be injecting mixed faith, mixed race, or women into very traditional institutions, did those institutions suffer?

Some might argue that by letting women into politics, it did suffer, but do you really think they suffered? Can you point out anything negative about that inclusion? And what negative things had occurred because of the exclusion prior to that?

Mrs. Beverley Smith: The negative things from of the exclusion are easier.... When women were not allowed to vote, we lost the point of view of half the people in the country. It also alienated them. So the inclusion gave us a fairer system. Inclusion in interfaith or interracial marriages has only made us a little more what the world is supposed to be—it's a global village. Why are we feeling in a little isolated area that “I'm better than you”? It's a nice mixing, where we are getting a little closer to God's plan.

· (1345)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Macklin.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for appearing today.

I know at times we may appear a rather intimidating group, and I hope you don't feel that way. We're really trying to work together to try to achieve knowledge and share knowledge, and hopefully at the end we do come up with some suggestions that will be made to Parliament and ultimately lead to some form of change. The question is what form of change.

One of the questions I would like to address would be to you, Ms. Smith. You made a statement that the state won't let people make a commitment. I'm wondering whether that is a little bit of an overstatement when you are referring to those who are dealing in same-sex unions. I think the evidence was brought out this morning--and Reverend Lee might want to comment on this--that in fact in the eyes of the church many of those who go through covenanting processes at the moment, in effect, within the church and within God's opportunity to bless these relationships, the church has gone as far as it can go as a religious institution. Therefore, because we are talking commitment, which to me is between people, what do you mean that the state won't let people make a commitment?

Mrs. Beverley Smith: Well, I'm talking about the law. Legally, it is not recognizing their long-term permanent commitment with the same benefits and burdens of marriage. That's what we are here about.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: What we're also here about, though, seems to be the relationship between people, that commitment and that commitment blessed. Those are two parts of it.

We have to look at more than only the commitment. We have to look at the social effects of that and where we incorporate it within our society. That's why I was a bit surprised you would say that, because you can make a commitment and the state doesn't have to be involved, in my opinion, in order to make that commitment very effective and meaningful.

If the state, however, is taking away rights and privileges that would accrue to you through that commitment had you been heterosexual versus gay, I understand that difference. But how are we stopping the actual commitment?

Mrs. Beverley Smith: I see your argument. I also believe that kind of backfires a bit, because a lot of people make the commitment and don't marry. Yet our government believes in marriage. That's what a lot of people here believe in. I think I'm applauding the public nature of the commitment because that takes guts, and I'm also applauding the legal consequences of it, which are binding, and that's the difference.

These people--any of us who get married--are taking a leap into the dark, and I think it's kind of neat.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: But looking at it from our perspective, aren't we looking at more than only a commitment? Aren't we looking at the effect of incorporating this into our social structure, and what does that lead us to?

For example, we've had many witnesses who suggested that marriage is an institution. It may not be one that we should seek after because in fact it's slipping in terms of its ability to hold heterosexual couples together.

Maybe we should, from our committee perspective, look at how we preserve marriage as an institution and support it. And the inclusion of gay and lesbian relationships, will that help us support that or not?

Mrs. Beverley Smith: Well--

The Chair: I am signalling to Mr. Macklin that he has exhausted his time. I'm also signalling my interpreters.

Mrs. Beverley Smith: Okay. I think they want you to answer, too, but I will give my little answer first.

I think the society has a vested interest in stability of relationships, because that's good for children, it's good for mental health, it's good for financial stability. It also bails out the government if they don't always have to do it themselves, if other people are going to do it. So we have an interest in permanency of commitments, and, really, I think marriage is one of the best ones. That's why I applaud it with the gay community. It's good for society for them to make this commitment to each other. It's good for them to take care of each other when they're sick. It's a nice network there.

The Chair: Reverend Lee.

Rev. R. Wayne Lee: Referring to comments made earlier as to how children would be looked after in same-sex marriages, again, children don't come from same-sex marriages; they come from heterosexual marriages. So I really believe that the gay movement, as much as I support freedom of choice, is a very self-oriented, self-centred decision that is not good for society because, again, if everybody made that choice, we wouldn't have to worry about children, we wouldn't even have to worry about mankind in a short period of time. Therefore, I don't believe it is good for society, on that basis.

· (1350)

The Chair: I'm going to follow up on this because it is following up on Mr. Cadman's. That is two questions in one day. It scares my colleagues.

Reverend Lee, what I'm trying to get my mind around is that if the Government of Canada recognized same-sex marriages--I'm heterosexual--that won't make me gay, nor most people I know. Consequently, the argument that somehow if everybody were to become gay the planet would not go on may be the case, but I'm not sure what connection it makes with whether gays are fit to marry.

Rev. R. Wayne Lee: Well, in the sense that when you are declaring or comments are made that it's good for society and that sort of thing, it isn't. It's something that society could possibly endure, but it would not be good for it. And I think it's important for each member of society to be able to contribute to it, not just take from it.

The Chair: My second question--and then I'll go to Mr. Cadman--is one I asked this morning. I recognize a real fear, which Mr. Toews referred to earlier, about performing same-sex marriage ceremonies in your church. If you as a pastor were forced to do that or asked to do that, you would see it as a violation of your religious freedom. But if a pastor were here who felt otherwise--and there have been some--and a couple were here who wished to marry, would not the same religious freedom at least cause us to consider that the prohibition was a violation of that freedom?

Rev. R. Wayne Lee: In the church and out of the church, people are free to choose. I'm for that. But I'm raising my point today because I never want to be in a position where the government has ordained something and says I have to do it as well.

The Chair: But you don't have difficulty with a pastor in a different denomination, whose convictions are different, marrying--and I say marrying deliberately--a same-sex couple who chooses to be married.

Rev. R. Wayne Lee: I have difficulty with that, but that pastor wouldn't answer to me; he would answer to God.

The Chair: Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is purely for clarification, Mr. Stumpf. Those of us around this table clearly know what happens when we go on the record and something isn't clear and it's taken out of context and turned back on us. I don't want to see that happen to you.

You made a statement that Parliament should grant all Canadians the right to marry whoever they love. As we all know, there are people who profess love in relationships that are clearly illegal. I don't honestly believe that's what you intended to say or imply. So I just want to give you the opportunity to put on the record that's not what you were trying to say.

Mr. Craig Stumpf-Allen: No, it certainly wasn't what we were trying to say. We were talking about relationships between two consenting adults.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Okay. I just wanted to make sure your words wouldn't be turned back on you some time in the future.

The Chair: I would like to thank the panel and the committee. I invite you to follow our work as we head east and as we report to Parliament, probably in June. We hope you will see in our work some reflection of the contribution you've made here today. Thank you.

I will suspend for a few minutes so this panel can be excused and the next panel can find their way to the table.

· (1354)

¸ (1404)

The Chair: I call back to order the 30th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in our study on marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions.

Until three o'clock we will be hearing from three organizations: the Open-Door Club, represented by Joel Chapman; OHM Corporate Health Consulting Limited, as represented by Shannon Jacobi and Julie Rak; and the Catholic Women's League of Canada, as represented by Marie Cameron and Agnes Bedard.

I think you're all familiar with the way we operate. Each organization has seven minutes to make a statement. I'll motion to you when six minutes have expired and when seven minutes have expired. That will give us more opportunity for dialogue with the members of the committee.

I'll turn to Joel Chapman, the president of the Open-Door Club, for seven minutes.

¸ (1405)

Mr. Joel Chapman (President, Open-Door Club): I'd just like to start by saying thank you for having me here. I have to admit this is a first for me, and I'm a little nervous, so just bear with me.

Everything I have written in my brief comes from a lot of experience dealing with youth and students, as well as through my organization, the Open-Door Club, which is a social group that allows students of Grant MacEwan College to just to hang out and talk with people.

After talking with them for a few months and doing interviews and a lot of research, I come here today just to make a few simple statements, in general terms. When I talk about the views of Alberta, Canada, or Edmonton, I mean what the general result has been from the amount of research I've conducted.

One of the first things we discussed when I was doing interviews and sessions was that a lot of the youth I spoke to felt that allowing same-sex marriage in Canada would be a really huge step forward for human rights. They find that homosexuals in Canada are treated as second-class citizens by not having the same rights and freedoms as all other people in Canada.

Secondly, one of the recommendations youth would like to make on the same-sex marriage idea that's coming up, if it passes, is to keep it separate from all churches that are based in Canada. They find that many of them aren't accepting or understanding of homosexuality, and it would just be easier to keep those two separate. If the church wishes to bless same-sex unions they may do so, but it's ultimately up to them. When we talk about same-sex marriage, we see that the best place to do it is in private locations with a justice of the peace, or something simple like that. They don't see the need to involve church organizations or the church itself. They feel that's a separate entity altogether, and it's ultimately up to the persons themselves or to the church to allow it.

On the third and last point on the research I did, our group went over the minutes of one of the meetings--I don't remember which one, offhand--and found that same-sex unions would really bring the institution of marriage a fresh start. As I think someone mentioned earlier, heterosexual marriage is slowly crumbling right now, and if you allow two people of the same sex to be married and just live their lives it will strengthen the institution.

I guess it's the subtle nuances of marriage that they look at the most. They see marriage as being the opportunity to live your life with one person, settle down, raise a family, work a career, and just live their lives. They don't see it as an excuse for anything. They don't see it as a tax break or anything like that. A lot of the youth I've spoken to really don't understand why this is such a large problem, just based on societal concept. They do understand, however, about the backlash from a lot of groups, a lot of people. Most of that's just based on misunderstanding and differences in opinion regarding that.

¸ (1410)

That's about all I had to bring to the table today.

Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thank you, Mr. Chapman.

Next are Shannon Jacobi and Julie Rak.

Ms. Shannon Jacobi (President, OHM Corporate Health Consulting Ltd.): First of all, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to this issue today and allow my time to be shared with Julie.

I am a 38-year-old registered nurse who specializes in the area of occupational health and safety. I work at a Christian-based health care employer, where I use the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to ensure that those employees who are mentally or physically disabled are accommodated as per the Charter of Rights.

Academically, I have a bachelor of science degree in nursing, certificate of occupational health and safety, and I teach with Grant MacEwan College, which is somewhat ironic here.

Most important, however, is my four-year relationship with my same-sex partner, a relationship that I define as more loving, caring, committed, and financially stable than any I have known. I even check the marriage box off on my tax forms, because that is how I define my relationship. I'm sure I will hear from Revenue Canada on that.

My relationship exceeds every characteristic that we associate with marriage except that given our laws, it cannot be recognized as such. At one time I was married for seven years. So was my friend, and she'll speak to her experience. I had all the rights associated with marriage not because I am any different or because the quality of the relationship at that time was better or more stable. I had those rights only because my partner was a male. That ceremony was blessed by the United Church, the same church where I was baptized.

The use of the notwithstanding clause is a tool to promote segregation, minimization, and exclusion. Alberta's new Adult Interdependent Relationship Act does not provide inclusion. Rather, it places terms and conditions, such as three years of cohabitation, on these relationships that it does not place upon marital relationships. In other words, I do not have equality under the law. I now have a relationship that is more loving, caring, committed, and supportive than that of my married relationship, yet I cannot access certain rights such as adoption because of the ties to the definition of marriage. My ability to work outside of the country is limited because same-sex partners are not treated equally under immigration law. I have had my relationship questioned when my partner went to the hospital because I was not a direct family member. If my partner does not complete her will, I fear that in the event of her death those assets are automatically transferred to the state.

There is little question that you will hear and have heard, as I have, a fundamental Christian argument that wishes to keep the institution of marriage and the definition of marriage as that between a man and a woman primarily for the purposes of procreation. However, modern society recognizes that even within marriage there are alternative methods of creating a family that include adoption, reproductive technology, and the right to produce no offspring at all.

I urge you from a legal perspective to separate church and state in this debate and respect the rights reflected in the charter. I ask you to recognize my relationship with my partner as I do, that of a marriage. And I want to know by what rights others have to judge that current relationship, to limit my access to rights that I formerly held only because that partnership was with a man.

I want to marry my partner. I want to adopt a child. I want my family structure to be recognized for the relationship that it is. I simply want to enjoy the same rights--not more rights--that are so freely afforded to other members in our society. If a country takes pride in its record of enshrining human rights, then I find it somewhat disconcerting that we have to actually come here and talk about exactly that.

Ms. Julie Rak (As Individual): I thank you for listening to me today, and I thank my friend for inviting me to share some of her speaking time.

First I'd like to tell you a bit about myself. I'm a professor of English at the University of Alberta, and I am not here to check your grammar. I'm off duty. I've been an Alberta resident for five years. I've been living in a committed relationship with a woman for two years, and my anniversary is in fact next week.

I am an evangelical Christian, although I do not attend church regularly right now, because when I left my husband of ten years, who is a Baptist pastor, and when I came out as a lesbian, I was asked to leave my church and I'm no longer allowed to be a member of my denomination.

When I was married I enjoyed two kinds of privilege, and I want to tell you about those. I enjoyed what I call the material benefits of marriage, and those included the automatic right of my husband to inherit my property and my assets if I died; the right of my husband to be on my medical benefits plan; the ease, which is not a right but something that happens, of getting a bank loan with relatively little capital and the ease of getting a joint credit card; the right to adopt children if we wanted; and the right to have a legally binding ceremony where friends and family acknowledged our desire to be together.

Then we enjoyed what I call the intangible benefit of marriage, which can't be measured but is no less real for married couples. My former husband and I were automatically seen to be legitimate in the eyes of the world. I was supported in my marriage by my religious community, my family, and my friends.

As a lesbian today, I live in a society that asks me to live up to my obligations as a citizen but where I do not enjoy all the rights of citizenship. So I have to file a joint income tax return with my partner if we have been living together for five years, but I can't legally marry my partner if I want to. Although the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees me some protection in Alberta, I am not allowed to adopt children or even in some cases to have my partner be on my medical plan, and that's partly because I'm not allowed to marry. I'm now allowed some rights, such as the automatic transfer of property to my partner, but I have to justify how committed my relationship is before I'm allowed to do that. Although some marriages last for less time than my relationship has, no married person has to justify how committed they are in order to receive those same benefits.

The creation of a separate but equal status for gays and lesbians who live in committed relationships and who want the intangible and material benefits of marriage is un-Canadian. For one thing, gays and lesbians who want to marry do not want to destroy the institution of marriage; they want to support it. They do not want to take anything away from others; they simply want to be treated the way others are.

It seems to me that the institution of marriage is more under threat from other factors, such as divorce, than from the wish of gays and lesbians to be married. But democracy itself is threatened when there is one law for gays and lesbians and another law for everyone else. If you believe that gays and lesbians are human beings capable of love and commitment, then the law should not exclude them when they want to marry.

Thank you very much.

¸ (1415)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

To Marie Cameron and Agnes Bedard of the Catholic Women's League of Canada.

Ms. Marie Cameron (National President, The Catholic Women's League of Canada): Thank you.

The Catholic Women's League of Canada is the largest national voluntary organization of women in Canada. The league has more than 102,000 members, represented in every province, territory, and in the military. On behalf of them, I am speaking today.

Since its inception in 1920, the league has called on members to exemplify the Christian ideal in home and family life, and to uphold Christian values in the world. Every league member believes that the core teaching of the Catholic Church is to love and respect every human being. It is vital, therefore, that thoughtful and sensitive conversation be made to truly reflect the responsibilities and obligations of the state and society in this complex issue.

To answer your question right away, does marriage have a continuing role in society, and should this be reflected in our laws, yes, marriage “between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”, as defined in the motion passed by the House of Commons, definitely has a continuing role in modern society. We believe that the role should continue to be reflected in Canadian law. Members are firmly committed to strengthening and protecting marriage as an institution that we believe is fundamental to the growth and prosperity of civilization. League members believe that marriage is a solemn and voluntary public commitment between a man and a woman. Strong family units produce a stable harmonious society benefiting all citizens, and throughout history marriage has been and is the basis of the family unit.

We believe there are three ways in which Parliament can best act to support marriage. It can do so by enacting a statute that first and foremost defines marriage as between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Secondly, it can allow for civil unions to be registered between heterosexual couples and same-sex couples, with all legal implications and responsibilities, including separation, divorce, maintenance. Thirdly, it can reinforce respect for individual church doctrines by recognizing that marriage ceremonies may be performed by religious faith groups according to their traditions, customs, and faith laws, without being considered discriminatory and without any interference by the state.

Government, especially the federal government, has a duty and responsibility to regulate society in order to avoid chaos. It also has the duty and responsibility to not discriminate against the majority who hold traditional values sacrosanct. Erosion of age-old concepts can lead to a society without principles, without ethics, and without a sense of what is best for the common good.

Although social norms are evolving and changing, the league is concerned about the fragile nature of a society that attempts to adapt its institutions to conform to current trends. To our members, it is not necessary to change an institution such as marriage to address the complex questions being considered.

Common-law heterosexual relationships have existed for many years, and have a different role from that of marriage. These relationships often appear to be temporary, as they usually result in either separation or marriage. Most provinces have laws protecting common-law relationships, and so do some federal statutes, as you're well aware. It would be best to have a uniform law encompassing common-law relationships across the country.

Canadian elected representatives entrusted with the task of reconciling the traditional definition of marriage and the recognition of same-sex unions have the duty to discern the historical, religious, and social ramifications of their decisions. It is our belief that people throughout the world know innately that heterosexual marriage is essential to the future of society, as it has the permanence of a cohesive unit on which society is based.

The league suggests that this committee recommend to the justice minister and the federal government the establishment of a legal process for recognizing same-sex unions, and outline their entitlements, benefits, and responsibilities. Contracts can be made and unions can be formed, but the term, ceremony, and tradition of marriage should never be extended beyond being a commitment between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. We strongly urge you to maintain that distinction of marriage.

¸ (1420)

In conclusion, the Catholic Women's League believes that the role of marriage is the starting point of the family and the stable environment for the procreation of children and the development of a secure society. The league stands firm in its commitment to the bond of matrimony between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to begin by thanking the witnesses who took the trouble to share their views with the committee.

Ms. Cameron, I read your brief. At the start of your presentation, you said that you were nervous and not used to this type of situation. However, it did not show. You made a very good presentation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to think that same-sex couples should have the same rights, responsibilities and obligations as a married heterosexual couple, but you don't want to call it a “marriage”. I do not want to put words into your mouth and that is why I am giving you the opportunity to clarify what you said. So, what you're saying is that they should have the same rights and responsibilities, except we would call it something other than marriage. Is that correct?

[English]

Ms. Marie Cameron: To a certain extent, yes. A contract can be made between the people who are represented here today. And part of marriage is a contract: it is an agreement and a legal recognition between a husband and a wife. But we're saying don't use the term “marriage”. We suggest that it should be a union between the same-sex couples as a contract.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: So, if I understand correctly, on the one hand, there would be marriage, defined as a marriage between a man and a woman, involving certain responsibilities and obligations, and on the other hand, there would be a civil union registry, that would be much the same except that it would not be entered in the same book and the book would not have the same title. Is that correct?

¸ (1425)

[English]

Ms. Marie Cameron: The title remains “marriage” for heterosexual.... The title remains “union” for common-law relationships, both heterosexual and same-sex relationships, because we have both.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I do not remember whether this was said this morning, but some witnesses have said that this approach would be discriminatory, because it is reminiscent of the "separate but equal" approach that applied in the past in the United States, in a racist context. It would be a sort of "light" marriage, to repeat the terms that were used this morning.

What would you say to the people who made that comment?

[English]

Ms. Marie Cameron: I have a great deal of difficulty with that, because I feel that we as a heterosexual group are being discriminated against as well. The term “marriage” has traditionally been ours for millennia, for 5,000 or more years, with marriage being known as between a male and a female. So here I am defending marriage when I have no proof that someone else who is taking on this name is going to enhance it.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you.

Mr. Chapman, you seem to be saying, and I want to be sure that I understand correctly, that you would like marriage to be a responsibility of the State, not of the Church.

Would the system you advocate be similar to the one in France, where people who want their unions legalized must go to city hall, to a State authority? So the civil ceremony is conducted by an officiant and then, if the couple wishes, they cross the street and go to the church they belong to have their marriage blessed. Is that what you are suggesting in your presentation?

[English]

Mr. Joel Chapman: Yes, that's actually almost right on the button. Yes, it is. But we feel that actually keeping a separation of the two would be best. I think I mentioned that before. Yes, if you were willing to be married in a church of any denomination, you are free to do that or may do so. But if the church refused to do that, based on church doctrine or anything like that, then you would still have the opportunity to be married by a justice of the peace at city hall.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: My question was more specific. Would the ceremony in the church , the synagogue or the mosque have a legal weight, or, in order to be married, would a couple absolutely have to go to a justice of the peace or a notary? That was more the question I was asking.

In other words, do you think that a minister, pastor, rabbi or imam would remain civil officiants when they perform marriages, or would there have to be a complete distinction between State and Church?

[English]

Mr. Joel Chapman: I'd have to say that I believe the easiest way to put that would be to go to a justice of peace to have your marriage or your union recognized by the state and by the country. I do believe that it is the same thing when a heterosexual couple is married in the church. When they sign the marriage licence, it does become the same thing.

Is that correct?

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Yes, at the moment, a priest becomes a civil officiant; in other words he has the right to marry people and religious marriage also has civil weight. In France, religious marriage has no civil weight and couples must go before an officer of the State.

I therefore come back to my question. As you see it, would a religious marriage have a legal weight, or would couples have to go before an officer of the State to do that?

¸ (1430)

[English]

Mr. Joel Chapman: There shouldn't be a difference; it should be the same thing. If you go before a religious entity it should have the same effect as going before a justice of the peace.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Dr. Fry.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I want to thank everyone for coming.

I just wanted to follow through to try to follow a logical pathway from statements made by Ms. Cameron.

You basically don't seem to have a problem--and this is to follow up on what Mr. Marceau was saying--with a relationship that is known as a civil union, that is sort of separate and isn't called marriage but has all of the rights and responsibilities and confers all of the legalities of marriage. You said it would be similar to what heterosexual common-law couples now do.

The only problem is at this point in time, heterosexual common-law couples are a sort of second class to marriage. There are certain rights that come with marriage that are not there legally. So if a certain heterosexual common-law couple wishes to get those rights, they can get married.

Now, if you bring same-sex couples on a par with them, giving them all of those things, and they choose to strengthen and get the full benefit of the rights, they would have to get married, but they can't. And they won't ever be able to under your suggestion.

I wanted you to respond to that, because it doesn't actually give the same rights you were speaking to.

The second thing is your reason for not changing the term “marriage”. It seems to me it's only the word you feel has a special significance to it, and I agree with you. This has lasted for well over 5,000 years. But lots of things, even in the Bible, were claimed to have been good and have lasted for millennia--for instance, slavery, the right to have slaves. Isn't it in Corinthians 14:35 that it says it is a disgraceful thing for a woman to speak in church?

So there are all kinds of things that were set out in the Bible, in the Old Testament, that we no longer accept. In fact, one may argue that Christ came and changed some of the things we believed in the Old Testament. I mean, fornication was wrong, yet Mary Magdalene was very closely one of his team, so to speak. And when he was asked why she was there, given who she was, he said “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone”. He felt he had come to build something that was far more inclusive. The old eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth was all gone and he wanted to move forward substantively in changing the texts and the laws that were handed down in the Old Testament.

So something having been there for 5,000 years does not mean it's carved in stone. We've seen that.

Those are some questions I wanted to ask you. First and foremost, how would a same-sex couple having this parallel structure give them the equality they seek, not only in terms of the law but in terms of that ability to say they're married? Because they value it, obviously.

And secondly, what justification do you have for suggesting that because something was there for 5,000 years it's necessarily good, when we have seen so many things that have been there for 5,000 years that today we believe to have been morally wrong?

Ms. Marie Cameron: We value marriage between a man and a woman, the personal commitment, the spiritual commitment, the fact that it's a stable environment for children. But in our Catholic faith, we deem it as one of our seven sacraments, and with us the seven sacraments are a male and a female. So that is what is different for us, in that marriage is a special benefit.

We would think the heterosexual couples and same-sex couples have all the other benefits, and to me that should be sufficient.

I see the denigration of marriage. We've heard the term “diminishment” of marriage, and that is what it is for me. I have difficulty with a union being called a marriage.

¸ (1435)

Ms. Hedy Fry: I respect the tenets of the Catholic faith. In fact, I am a Catholic, was born, bred, and grew up with nuns for many years of my life. I understand what you are saying and I understand the sacraments.

But I think what everyone has said, most people who have understood the law, is that under the charter, clearly, no one is forcing the church to marry couples. No one will force the church to give sacraments to those apart from whom it chooses to give sacraments to. There is protection for this in the charter. And in the past no one has forced the Catholic Church--for instance in divorce, and in terms of gender equality in making women become priests. No one has ever forced or brought retribution or penalties against the church for that reason. So this is fair enough.

Would you have a problem with it if the Catholic Church still could refuse to do it, but marriage could occur under other auspices and in other churches, like the United Church and others that seek to do it now?

Ms. Marie Cameron: Yes, I still would. To me, marriage is that special commitment between a male and a female, and I do not want to see it—to use the term—diminished, denigrated.

The Chair: Mr. Macklin.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for appearing before the committee today as witnesses.

I think I'd like to go back first to Mr. Chapman and hear more of the youth perspective as you seem to be presenting it today. When you say you met with and talked with youth and spent time with them, I guess one of the questions that comes up is was anyone you were talking with in that group married?

Secondly, did they talk about such things as preservation of our society, the procreation of children, role modelling? What was their concept of marriage, looking at it in the broad context? Or did they ever engage in that type of conversation? Or was it simply that equality is the—we use occasionally the word—“trump card”? That's the one that rules the day; the other issues don't necessarily carry that much weight.

Could you comment on that from a youth perspective, please?

Mr. Joel Chapman: Sure. On the first point you mentioned, yes, we do talk about that sort of thing. We have members who are in fact married. We have members who are in same-sex commitments who have had commitment ceremonies that aren't legally recognized by the state but are more for themselves right now than anything.

We talk about how we view marriage as something we can strive to get to, because I agree that marriage is something everyone holds dear. It's something we all want; we all want to get married. It's like a goal. You have to achieve it; you want to find someone to spend the rest of your life with. You want to find someone to have children with. You want to find someone to spend the rest of your lives with. These are all things we talk about all the time. But when it comes down to the actual implementation of it, there's not a whole lot we can do.

We see a lot of people who say they would go overseas to Holland or to Belgium or would go down to the United States to adopt children and live there. Things are sometimes easier that way, just because there's a lot of difficulty here with the situation we have.

We have a lot of people who talk about these things.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Do they talk about how to reinforce the institution of marriage, or do they see it as an institution that is failing at the moment to meet all of the needs of the society?

Mr. Joel Chapman: They see that if they allowed same-sex people to marry, and we've talked about this as well, it will strengthen the institution, because marriage does bring out those simple paradigms—the fidelity, the commitment, the lasting of it. We're not interested in shotgun marriages, to say the least: just get married on the spur of the moment and then divorce. That's not what we're looking for.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: If I still have time, I would like to talk to Ms. Cameron.

In your paper, you raised—

¸ (1440)

Ms. Marie Cameron: That's Ms. Bedard.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: I should ask Ms. Bedard? Okay, I'll let you share the choice. I won't make it specific; we'll be inclusive.

In your third recommendation you say you would like us to enact a statute that reinforces respect for individual church doctrines by recognizing that marriage ceremonies may be performed by religious faith groups according to their traditions, customs, and faith laws without being considered discriminatory or with interference by the state.

At the moment obviously you feel under attack. Do you have any examples that would suggest that you are under attack for those? In fact is the charter not working at the moment?

Ms. Marie Cameron: No, there's no attack yet. We're looking to the future, because same-sex unions have not been allowed the term “marriage”, or they are not allowed to be married in the church at this point, but in future that could happen. I think Reverend Ray spoke about that this morning, that there is a concern among church groups that the next step would be “We now have marriage; therefore, now you must perform this in any church”—not just in some churches, but in any church they would demand it of. That is the fear.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Did you want to pop in here, Chair?

The Chair: Well, your time has elapsed.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Oh, my time has elapsed? All right. Well, then, thank you.

The Chair: I do want to follow up on that line of questioning. Clearly your third recommendation indicates a fear that if it happened that the government decided they were going to change the definition of marriage, you would not want that new definition imposed on your faith, on your church.

Ms. Marie Cameron: Yes, and I'm thinking there are Buddhists, there are Hindus, there are Muslims who would not want—

The Chair: So you can then appreciate the quandary of those faiths that would like to... The interference you refer to here, others would argue, is now being applied to their desire. Because the claim against the... Well, put it this way. In order for us as a committee to support the present situation, we have to call upon some public policy reason in section 1 of the charter to say this is a reasonable limitation: it is a reasonable limitation to cause same-sex couples not to be able to be allowed to be married.

We are struggling, trying to determine what that argument is. I shouldn't say “we”; I'm trying. I don't know what that argument is. What is the argument that would justify the state's denying a church that wants to marry a gay couple who want to be married? What's the argument the state would use to deny that as a matter of public policy?

I understand you don't want to do it, and for my part I would defend your right not to. But I don't know what the public policy—

Ms. Agnes Bedard (National President-elect, The Catholic Women's League of Canada): Well, if the definition is there that marriage is between a man and a woman, then there is no question.

The Chair: But it is a limitation that we need to determine—that there's some justification for that limitation, perhaps.

I'm wading into arguable points here, but—

Ms. Agnes Bedard: Then why stop there? Why not allow other people to call themselves married—a brother and sister living together? There are a whole bunch of other people we can trot out.

The Chair: The only difference is that currently a same-sex couple is legitimate in law. It's not illegal. Sisters can't marry. It's illegal. So there's a difference.

I'm just trying to see if I can't explore with you, because I see how important you think it is that the state not interfere with your religious faith. I see that in what you're saying. And I also see it in what other people say about the state not interfering with their religious faith, and they're going to argue just as forcefully.

That's the dilemma we're struggling with, because if we are to deny that religious expression, we need a reason that would have to satisfy section 1 of the Constitution.

I don't want to take any more time from my colleagues.

Ms. Marie Cameron: This morning I heard Professor Morton suggest caution, and that is the caution I would also recommend, that we look at it very carefully, but don't immediately jump in with saying okay, we will allow same-sex marriage, we will allow this, we will allow that. But we will look at it carefully--and I know you're doing that--before you make any changes to the current definition of marriage. To me that will always remain as between that of a man and a woman.

¸ (1445)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Toews.

Mr. Vic Toews: Mr. Chair, I've listened to these questions over and over again being put to witnesses about what attacks have been made on the religious institutions when they've expressed fear.

The definition itself has not yet occurred. There is apprehension. And it appears to me that there are very valid concerns for religious organizations to be concerned. I can just go off the top of my head. We can go under first of all human rights legislation.

In Saskatchewan there was the Owen decision, where someone simply published a scripture verse with a red slash through two male stick figures holding hands and it was deemed to be hate literature. In Manitoba a non-denominational Christian camp is now being prosecuted by the Human Rights Commission for refusing to let out its facilities to a homosexual organization because that violates its faith-based statement.

In Ontario we had the case of the printer being persecuted by the Human Rights Commission. In British Columbia we have the Trinity Western case and we're talking about the teacher from Quesnel now undergoing the same kind of persecution by the B.C. Teachers Association.

In Alberta we had the Vriend case--again another attack on an independent religious institution. In the constitutional context we have in Ontario the Marc Hall case, a direct attack on the constitutional rights of Catholics in Ontario guaranteed since 1867, pushed aside by the courts.

So I'm surprised that any member in this committee would ask what evidence you have seen. First of all, the definition hasn't changed. And secondly, in analogous legislation--human rights legislation--we see it over and over and over again.

So is there a fear? There's an absolute fear, and people have a right to be worried. Simply because they can't come up with the examples that I have.... And there are more of these--this is just the top of the list. There are more of these.

I can say in my own constituency in the town of Steinbach there was a human rights prosecution against a Bible college for refusing to hire someone because they weren't evangelical. I offer that comment. And I think we should recognize that the fears the Catholics are raising and evangelicals have raised are very, very legitimate, deep concerns, and they're based in law.

The Chair: We have a list. I think Hedy's already spoken, so I'm going to go to John, and then I'm going to go back to Richard.

Mr. John McKay: For my part, Chair, I agree with Mr. Toews' analysis, and I would add that it has literally cost millions and millions and millions of dollars to defend themselves against this variety of incursion, with very mixed success. So when various groups come before the committee and express their apprehension, I think their apprehension is well placed.

I want to address this to Ms. Cameron and Ms. Bedard. It had to do with the “we want in” argument, which is that the folks in the homosexual community essentially want to get into marriage in order to enhance it and strengthen it and that they want to take on all of those responsibilities and enjoy the traditions and public affirmations, etc.

I want to put their question to you. What could possibly be the harm of letting folks like Ms. Rak and Ms. Jacobi into that institution? What's the apprehension here? What's the fear? What's the point?

Ms. Agnes Bedard: I guess we go back to the very basis of marriage, which is a commitment of two people. Most people go in knowing that they will have children. Most people will have children. It's the basis upon which our society grows. We nurture our children. We nurture our future. We celebrate our past.

Do they have a role to play in this? Absolutely, as part of this society, but I can't call their relationship marriage. Opening the door to them, again are we opening the door so that other groups that aren't as respectable are also going to be able to say they want in too?

Groups--polygamists.... We now talk about a polygamist marriage. I think that's a concern. They have a great deal to offer society. As a couple living together, they have a great deal to offer to each other. But I cannot see it as marriage. Marriage to me is that term.

I don't think it would diminish marriage overall. I just can't see it as opening and allowing same-sex couples.

¸ (1450)

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Marceau.

Mr. Richard Marceau: My comment, Mr. Chairman, is that we must be careful not to mix up apples and oranges. When people say that freedom of religion is under attack in Canada and the example given is that of the boy in Ontario who wanted to go to the graduation dance with his boyfriend, I think that situation is completely different from one in which a Catholic priest, for example, would be asked to marry a same-sex couple.

In the case of Saskatchewan, where there were quotations from the Bible with two men holding hands and a big red X on top, Bible quotations are one thing. However, if those quotations are placed next to a big X over the two men holding hands, this could be interpreted as something very hateful, because any reference to banning certain activities is much stronger than simply quoting the Bible. It is something different.

I think that if we want to make valid comparisons, the best example and one that has been repeated many times here before the committee, is that of practices that are clearly discriminatory, prima facie, even though certain religions, for example, the Catholic Church, in which I was baptized, which does not allow women to become priests or divorced people to remarry. Never ever have people of the Catholic faith who have resorted to the discriminatory practices I just mentioned being charged with anything or taken to court because they refused to marry people because such a marriage would have been in violation of the principles of their faith.

I think people must be very cautious when they say that freedom of religion is under attack and particularly, we must take care to situate within the context of our discussion on marriage and possible changes to its definition the impact that these changes would have on the obligations or choices that could be made by certain religious denominations.

Thank you. That was my comment.

[English]

The Chair: Is there any response? Ms. Cameron.

Ms. Marie Cameron: You were asking us for examples. We cannot give you any, of course, other than what you've given us. They are human rights. That is where we are concerned as well. Marriage between same-sex couples has not occurred yet. However, once that happens and the litigation starts, what do we do, wring our hands and say sorry, pay up, churches? No. What are we going to do?

We have annulment in the Catholic Church, so divorced people can marry in the Catholic Church.

¸ (1455)

The Chair: Ms Fry.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Thank you.

It seems I'm always picking up on Mr. Marceau's logical train of thought and following with it, because he made some points I wanted to make with regard to the apples and oranges issue.

I have said before, and other people have reiterated it, that in terms of the issue of polygamy and in terms of the charter, we do discriminate on the basis of age with regard to marriage, as people below a certain age cannot marry. We do discriminate on the basis of consanguinity within marriage. The charter has never been challenged with regard to that, because at the end of the day those things were seen to be harmful to society if they were allowed. Consanguinity carries certain health risks. We know of the genetics associated with that. With respect to age, if we allowed a ten-year-old to marry, as they do in some countries, we know that would be complete and total exploitation of a young child. Similarly with polygamy: I think we have talked very clearly about the inequity of one man with many wives. So there are good and reasonable grounds for not allowing those.

With regard to sisters, or uncles, cousins, or good friends living together, I think we should not muddy the waters with those, because we're speaking here of a relationship that is similar to marriage in many ways, in that it is a relationship that is a conjugal one. I don't think anyone would argue that a mother and son have a conjugal relationship--we would hope not, because that becomes incest and we know is against the law--or that we should have sisters having conjugal relationships.

So we're speaking of equivalent relationships, or the same relationships in terms of conjugality. I think that is what we're talking about, so let us stick to the issue at hand and not muddy the waters with bringing what I consider to be sort of the usual fear, fear that has always been brought forward when anyone has knocked on the door to become part of an institution, whether they be people of a different race or whether they be people of a different gender. When women wanted to come in, there was always a fear trumped up. Oh, my goodness, what next? They will want to be this and they will want to be that. Horrible things will happen.

I think we've seen clearly, as Mr. Marceau has said over and over, that we have not had challenges to the charter with regard to the churches and divorce and the churches and ordination of women that goes against gender equality, etc. Those things have not happened because freedom of religion has always been that competing guarantee within the charter.

For me, I have yet to hear and I would love for somebody to come up and give me reasonable cause that would say that we cannot allow for same-sex marriage that will not only harm society but will harm heterosexual relationships. Will a heterosexual couple love each other less? Will they have fewer children? Will they get divorced more readily because a same-sex couple gets married? I need to hear somebody tell me those things will happen. I have not heard them. So I can't see a reasonable ground. If you have one, fire it out.

Ms. Agnes Bedard: You know where we're coming from. We are the Catholic Women's League. Our response is biblical, sacramental, and our experience is as mothers. That's our response.

Ms. Hedy Fry: A valid one.

Ms. Agnes Bedard: And that's all we can give you. We can't manufacture.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Those are valid, and I think we agree that they won't be harmed.

The Chair: I thank the panel and I thank the members. I don't think there was anybody else.

I will ask the present panel to excuse themselves and I'll call the next panel to come forward. I'll take three minutes for that to happen.

¸ (1459)

¹ (1506)

The Chair: I call the 30th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights back to order. We are continuing our study on marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions.

We have, from now until four o'clock, representatives from two organizations: OUTreach and GLASS, Matthew Woodley; and OutNorth, Lorne Gushue. We also had identified someone who is appearing as an individual. Their card is there, and if they show up, that will explain their presence. That is Rainer Knopff, from the University of Calgary.

The presenters have seven minutes. At six minutes you'll see this, and at seven minutes you'll see this. At seven and a half minutes Mr. Marceau will come around and....

Without further ado, would Matthew Woodley please proceed.

Mr. Matthew Woodley (OUTreach and GLASS): Thank you.

I'm here on behalf of two groups today, OUTreach, the gay, lesbian, and bisexual group at the University of Alberta, and GLASS, the gay, lesbian, and bisexual group at the University of Calgary.

As member of Parliament Vic Toews stated on February 12, this committee is undertaking its task with the interests of the next generation of Canadians in mind. As far as I'm aware, OUTreach, GLASS, and the Open-Door Club, who spoke earlier, are some of the first student groups to appear before the committee.

We're here to present the views of a part of our generation. Stated simply, we advocate changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. In light of the serious nature of the hearings so far today, I thought I'd just begin with what might be the most convincing rationale for gay marriage. It was put forward by comedian Margaret Cho, who said that a government that would deny a gay man the right to a bridal registry is a fascist state.Of course, I'm not indicating that we have a fascist state, but it's a good argument.

With that in mind, however, I'd like to take you back to the serious issue at hand. As the committee members may be aware, today is a very important anniversary for the gay and lesbian community in Alberta. Five years ago, on April 2, 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada released its judgment in the Vriend case. Sadly, although we have made some progress since then, very little has changed. For example, gay and lesbian Canadians are still forced to expend financial and emotional energy simply to establish that we and our relationships are equal--not special, just equal.

We come before you today with trepidation, because we fear that you may not appreciate the effect of your decision, whatever it might be, on young gay and lesbian Canadians, on our families, and on our communities. In our opinion, either this committee will affirm the principles of justice and equality or it will be remembered as an occasion when Parliament dropped the ball and proved itself unwilling to fairly and fully deliberate on the meaning and scope of human rights in Canada.

Gay and lesbian Canadians are the victims of discrimination, and we have traditionally looked with success to the courts to vindicate our human rights. We have relied on the courts because, in our opinion, Canadian legislatures have been unwilling to truly adopt an approach to majority rule that fully accounts for the place of minorities. Our faith in democratic institutions is therefore not so strong, and we are scared that this committee will not appreciate the implications of its decision.

We agree that Parliament is the proper forum for determining these issues and that Parliament should be making these historic decisions. But as you make your decision, we ask you not to forget, first, that you are bound by the spirit of the charter and that you must legislate in conformity with its provisions; second, that your decision will be seen as a litmus test for whether or not Parliament can fairly and authoritatively deal with human rights issues; and third, that you are dealing with real lives, with real, valuable relationships, and with the futures of thousands of gay and lesbian Canadian youth.

The importance of positive governmental recognition of same-sex relationships in the lives of young gay and lesbian Canadians cannot be overstated. We do not demand that you approach your task with moral neutrality in mind; we simply ask that you recognize that the only moral issue in question here is discrimination and whether Canada as a country and as a just society can condone it.

Parliament's recognition of fundamental human relationships must be based on a modern and functional understanding of equality, one without discrimination resulting from destructive and incorrect stereotypes of gay and lesbian Canadians. These stereotypes have emerged in earlier committee hearings, and indeed earlier today, and they include, first, that same-sex relationships are by their nature transient; second, that same-sex relationships involve more infidelity; and third, that same-sex relationships cannot involve or should not involve the raising of children. These stereotypes are based on assumptions that same-sex relationships are by their nature different, while ignoring the fact that if they are different, it may be because they do not receive the same institutional and societal support as do opposite-sex relationships.

¹ (1510)

Of course, these stereotypes have not only been historically tied to same-sex relationships. The committee must keep in mind that the same scare tactics and floodgate arguments were used in the face of challenges to statutes barring interracial marriage in the United States in the 1960s, for example. Commentary from that time indicates that courts and legislatures felt that if they allowed blacks to marry whites, they would have to allow brothers to marry sisters or they would have to allow polygamous marriage, which we've heard a lot about today. They argued, as other committee witnesses have argued before you, that because it is about tradition, marriage should not be subject to change. If that argument had succeeded, interracial marriage would be illegal in the United States today.

It is our submission that marriage, as the central vehicle through which society recognizes intimate relationships between two people, must change to reflect modern values as it changed for interracial couples.

This committee has the opportunity to ameliorate the discrimination against a minority group in Canada and an opportunity to articulate for Canadians the spirit and application of the guarantees in the charter. This committee also has the power to recommend measures that would exacerbate the dreadful social realities of discrimination and to reject or compromise the charter value of equality.

We fear that decisions will be made without a serious examination of the problem from the perspective of the persecuted group. It is far too easy to affirm the status quo without undertaking an examination of what purpose that status quo serves and what effect that status has on individuals. We hope the legacy of this committee will be one of tolerance and justice. We hope that future generations will look back on the committee's decision as an important turning point in our struggle for equality.

Once again, we ask this committee to take a firm step in the protection of human rights. We ask this committee to take responsibility for human rights protection instead of leaving the hard questions for the courts. We ask very simply that you affirm the value of our relationships and allow us to marry.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. It took exactly seven minutes.

Mr. Gushue.

Mr. Lorne Gushue (Member, OutNorth): Thank you very much for the opportunity to make this presentation today on behalf of your neighbours in the Northwest Territories.

The NWT is no stranger to social engineering. We were the starting point for the Klippert case, which contributed to the decriminalization of homosexuality in Canada. More recently, the NWT is the first Canadian jurisdiction to enshrine protection from discrimination based on gender identity, among other things in our newly passed human rights legislation.

OutNorth is a social and advocacy group with a membership located primarily in Yellowknife. Members there, as everywhere across Canada, have fought for equality rights with some success. Our same-sex partners are recognized, we are able to adopt one another's children, and we can claim one another's pensions and benefits. The one thing we are not able to do is marry. We applaud the Department of Justice for initiating conversation about marriage as it relates to same-sex couples with the discussion paper.

We held a forum for our members to review the paper and discuss the options for recognizing same-sex partnerships. Members answered a few basic questions. Do committed conjugal relationships other than marriage have a role in society? If so, how are they different from marriage? Why would you marry? What role do you think the state and church have regarding marriage? Members also stated which of the options for recognizing same-sex partnerships they preferred.

OutNorth invited two guest resource panellists to our forum, a lawyer who practises family law in the Northwest Territories and the minister of the Yellowknife United Church, and they were very helpful throughout the forum. What follows is a summary of our discussion.

The first question is do committed conjugal relationships other than marriage have a role in society, and if so, how is it different from marriage? Our members recognize common-law relationships as a default option in the absence of either a marriage or a registry, but we have no other choice. The problem with common-law relationships is the ambiguity. What legal rights and responsibilities exist between common-law partners? What benefits are available to common-law couples? Who determines what a common-law couple is?

All these questions have different answers across the provinces and territories; all these questions have different answers from employer to employer. Marriage, for better or worse, is understood more clearly and evenly across the country and the world. Our members want to be able to marry as an alternative to living common-law with the same rights and responsibilities as opposite-sex couples.

The second question: Why would you marry? Marriage means many things to many people and people get married for many different reasons. In the justice department's discussion paper in the section “Seeking People's Views”, three reasons were given as to why gays and lesbians are seeking the option to marry. These same reasons were reiterated by our members. Marriage declares the greater commitment. Family law governing common-law relationships is various across the country, and legal recognition of a relationship when dealing with other institutions, hospitals and schools is more desirable.

Generally, our members' view is that entering into marriage is entering into a loving, lifelong relationship that has contractual legal obligations but it also has a covenant component, which brings us to the third question: What roles do you think the state and church have regarding marriage?

Members of OutNorth stated there needs to be a clear division between the church and state when it comes to marriage. We support the idea of the state passing laws to decide who can marry and to protect a vulnerable partner and any children in the event of marriage or common-law relationship breakdown or the death of a partner. We believe the state should continue to have primary responsibility for marriage. It needs to be more clearly understood by society at large that churches are not in the business of marriage. Rather, they offer spiritual guidance and blessing for two people offering a covenant. A number of countries make this much clearer than Canadian law.

Marriage is a civil ceremony that must be conducted in order to be legally recognized. A religious ceremony is optional for those who wish to celebrate their union within their faith.

Social recognition locally and globally cannot be legislated. As more gays and lesbians choose marriage and as more countries allow for same-sex marriage, social views will change. We do not suggest that churches be obligated to marry same-sex couples when it is against their beliefs to do so. Their freedom is as important as ours. They will continue to be responsible to the spiritual aspect of unions within their respective faiths. It is up to a state to make marriage accessible to all citizens in the form of civil marriage. It is solely this perspective that should be the consideration of the government.

And the final question: Which of the options as presented in the discussion paper do you prefer? Our members are not satisfied with status quo, nor are they satisfied with an option that is separate but equal. We are not interested in having the state leave marriage to the religions. What our members want is to be able to marry.

¹ (1515)

We want to see this government extend equal marriage rights to same-sex couples. In this way, all Canadians would have the same range of choices. We want the certainty and recognition marriage will provide to our partners and our children. Nothing less will do.

Now, in conclusion, I would like to invite all those present to consider whether Agnes McPhail sought to dismantle or diminish Parliament when she endured rhetoric and ridicule in order to gain equal access to that institution. Similarly, did that rabble-rousing agent for social change Nellie McClung desire the destruction or the delegitimization of the electoral process when she and her colleagues worked so hard to obtain equal rights? I just invite you to consider these questions.

Thank you for your time. Merci beaucoup. Mahsi cho.

¹ (1520)

The Chair: We'll go to Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Woodley, your brief is very, very interesting because it touches on issues that very few witnesses have dealt with in their presentations. I'm referring particularly to paragraph 18 on which I would like you to elaborate.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that under the division of powers provided for by the Constitution, Parliament could not create a national registry for civil unions because that would not be within the fields of jurisdiction given to Parliament by the Constitution of 1867.

I'd like to hear you on this, please.

[English]

Mr. Matthew Woodley: It's our position that while the federal government has jurisdiction, under section 91 of the Constitution, over marriage and divorce, there would be some very major issues to determine whether those would conflict with section 92 powers given to the provinces, which deal with civil rights in the province.

As we know, the Province of Quebec has recently instituted civil unions, and there is currently a very diverse set of rights available to same-sex couples across the country. So the problem the federal government would have, in our opinion, in instituting civil unions would be a jurisdictional one, in that they would very likely—and I think this is mentioned in the minister's position paper—have to have the provinces collaborate with them in setting up these institutions, which, as we've seen, is a rather difficult thing to do.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: There's also the other option that would see Parliament withdraw from marriage and leave it up to religious institutions.

The problem, and I would like your comments on that, is that Ottawa could not withdraw from that field of jurisdiction because the only jurisdiction Parliament has over marriage is to set out who has the right to marry, in other words the age and, presently, the sex of the partners.

It is up to the provinces to decide who will perform marriages, whether it is a church, a synagogue, a notary public or a justice of the peace. Consequently, Parliament cannot decide to withdraw from this field of jurisdiction and leave it up to religious institutions, because it is the provinces who decide who will be solemnize marriages.

I would like to hear your comments on this please.

[English]

Mr. Matthew Woodley: This gets nicely into constitutional interpretation. Arguably, the federal government could very well say that legally they would not let anyone marry, and that they would set up—or I'm assuming there would be—a civil union system that would replace it. Or they would leave it simply to religious consecration.

Whether or not they can do it, I think it would be an ill-advised step. If we're talking about an attack on marriage, I think that's what we're looking at there. It would be an abdication, I think, of Parliament's legitimate jurisdiction over marriage rights, over saying who can marry whom, and it's my opinion and the opinion of the people I represent that it's a very ill-advised step to take.

I'm not sure if I've completely answered your question. If not—

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Macklin?

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for appearing.

From my perspective, one of the concerns I have here is the issue of children. We've had a lot of discussion about that: whether they are, within this process, being omitted as a major consideration. Looking also at the society as a whole, we as parliamentarians have to look at a very broad range of issues and, although keeping the charter in mind, obviously have to look at all of those presenters who've come before us and raised a lot of social issues—anthropological and so forth—relating to our society going forward.

Some of the concerns that have been expressed are clearly serious, as we see in considering where we are going right now in terms of keeping ourselves reproduced. In fact, our ability to reproduce seems to be on the decline, and Canadian society is obviously a society that without immigration would pass into non-existence over a period of time.

The concern I have is a lot of people have suggested that we need to reinforce marriage, and marriage as a heterosexual institution. They believe that already, through the comments of those who say that because the government have gotten into divorce and in fact have advanced divorce as an easy means of escaping obligations, we have in fact created a society that at the moment is not conducive to family relationship and its reproductive capacity.

At the end of the day, how do you answer those who would raise that question about protecting society as a whole? The suggestion is we should be putting supports in place for marriage as a heterosexual institution. I think it's a question of how you argue your case for inclusion, when in fact at this point we've had suggested to us that we as a government have interfered in the institution of marriage to its detriment.

¹ (1525)

The Chair: Mr. Gushue.

Mr. Lorne Gushue: I would invite you to come to Yellowknife and meet the incredible numbers of lesbian couples that are remarkably fecund and having babies at an incredible rate. I heard your initial concern reflecting what you've heard, a decline in marriage. That's not linked exclusively to heterosexuality. Biologically, you still need male and female. But as a loving couple, two men or two women in a married relationship are quite capable of contributing to the increase of the population and raising loved, healthy, happy children. Come on up, and we'll have a tea and bring all those babies, and you can see that in that context there's no fear that we're going to run out of people.

We had one of our members of the legislative assembly say, when we were asking for adoption rights, that it's the end of civilization if we do this. We had a board member say afterwards, I didn't realize we had that much power. We should have more money in the bank.

I would say I hear your concern. I think it's unfounded.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Mr. Woodley.

Mr. Matthew Woodley: Thank you.

I think there were three areas you touched on. I'm not sure if you want me to address all of them, but I'm going to.

On the issue of children, I think there are two points to be made there. First, speaking as a gay man, I know that growing up as a gay child was rather difficult, and I think there are other people who can attest to that fact. Would the effect on gay children be different and important? Yes, I think so. If I had grown up in a society that recognized the importance of the equality of same-sex relationships, it would have made a big difference to me, as well as it would to a lot of the young people who are growing up and who are members of the groups I am representing here today. So if you're talking about affecting society as a whole, I think that's an important consideration.

Second, gay and lesbian people have children, as has been pointed out, and we won't stop having children. I think if we're going to be looking at addressing the importance of taking care of children in a variety of different relationships, we have to be able to put value on those relationships so that children can understand that they are in a valued family unit.

You briefly touched on the fact that we're looking at the problem of maintaining our population in society. Allowing gay marriage certainly won't make more people gay or lesbian. I think that the same people will be out there. We'll just be able to actually express our relationships in different ways.

I think the immigration problem is another interesting aspect, but I'm not prepared to comment on it.

Would it weaken the institution of marriage if same-sex people were to get married? I know that's the concern that was voiced here today. In our opinion it would not. We are asking to be allowed to be married. We're not asking that you completely destroy what marriage is so that everyone can be equal by levelling the playing field. That's not what we're seeking at all.

I think it's an interesting option, and the one that makes the most sense, because we're dealing with conjugal relationships. The state has an interest in fostering those relationships and in making sure that the partners to them remain responsible for each other after the relationships unfortunately break up. Extending the right to marry to same-sex couples would extend those same obligations to gay and lesbian people in Canada.

So I don't think it is going to weaken the institution. I think it will strengthen marriage by allowing same-sex couples to be part of it. It will show that our families are valued and that our government has a positive role to play in showing that value.

¹ (1530)

The Chair: John McKay.

Mr. John McKay: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, witnesses.

Mr. Woodley, you started out by saying that we may not appreciate the implications of our decisions. On that point, I actually agree with you; I'm not sure that we necessarily do appreciate the implications of our decisions.

We had a witness yesterday in Vancouver who had gone through Hansard when the Divorce Act was changed. The witness said that all of the predicted consequences from the changes to the Divorce Act didn't come true, and that all of the consequences actually emerging from the changes to the Divorce Act were simply not anticipated at all. In that respect, I think I share your opinion.

I also share your opinion that Parliament is the proper forum for this discussion. I have been somewhat less appreciative of those who say that “If you don't get it right, we'll sue you anyways”.

I think you make a valid point that we should be considering the future of gay and lesbian youth. I don't think I dispute that. But I think we cannot ignore others as well, not only those who are not gay and lesbian, but also those who are deeply concerned about the institution of marriage, where it's taking us, and where our society is.

I disagree with you that it is only a matter of discrimination, that this is the only point to be considered. I think it's far more significant than merely what a charter analysis could yield.

One of the areas where you might help me, though, is that my knowledge of the gay and lesbian culture is pretty limited. I'm perfectly candid about that. What we have heard in testimony thus far is that it is somewhat difficult to compare heterosexual relationships and the broad category of homosexual relationships, that in fact there is almost a division within the homosexual community between gay homosexual activity and lesbian homosexual activity. For want of a better term, there is a greater level of stability in lesbian relationships than there is in gay relationships. There is much more of a marriage-like commitment to monogamy within lesbian relationships than there is within gay relationships.

So I'm wondering whether you could expand on the testimony that we've heard that gay relationships have break-up rates of close to 100% after three years. The anticipation is that one does not have a concept of fidelity like one would have in a marriage-like relationship. If you could expand on that....

The other point that you made was that there's a difference in the sexual attitudes within the culture, and that part of it has to do with your currently having no access to the institution of marriage. Presumably, if you had access to the institution of marriage, I guess it logically flows that gay and lesbian relationships would therefore look much more “marriage-like”.

¹ (1535)

Mr. Matthew Woodley: First of all, my brief was specifically mentioning the implications of your decision on gay and lesbian people. I appreciate that there are implications across Canada that have to be examined. I'm not sure I'm the person who can address all of them. The implications it will have on the group I represent will be profound, and I think I've outlined that in the brief, so it's all I'll say on that issue.

You asked me to comment on gay and lesbian culture. I think that term is a misnomer. I don't think there is an identifiable gay and lesbian culture. I don't think there is an identifiable Canadian culture. I don't think there is an identifiable straight culture in this country. There is a diversity of views within each community. The types of relationships that exist between two men or two women are just as diverse as those existing between a man and a woman.

Personally, I find it insulting that my relationship is devalued because it is with another man, and that there is an expectation that there will be infidelity involved, or that it will last for a shorter period of time. Again, I have a difficulty addressing those concerns because I think they are a very broad stereotype and a generalization that does not apply to individuals. Individually, as an individual rights holder, I don't think they can really come into play in that respect. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by gay and lesbian activity in relationships. I know lesbian couples and I know gay couples who have been together for a very long period of time. I have family members who were married heterosexually in a church, and their marriage lasted six months.

Again, I think these generalizations are very harmful to the discussion we're getting at here. We can't look at generalizations and stereotypes of groups; we have to look at individual people who want to express their love to the community, and want to have the government recognize that.

I think you're right. You talked about how, but you didn't seem convinced, we're putting the cart in front of the horse in some respects. We're saying that there's a very high break-up rate among same-sex couples, which statistically might be true, but it's because we don't have the same sorts of incentives that are offered to opposite-sex couples when they enter into marriage. The same sort of investment isn't made. We can't make it right now, and that's the problem, I think.

The Chair: Ms. Fry?

Ms. Hedy Fry: I wanted to follow up on that question about the stability of gay and lesbian relationships statistically, same-sex relationships.

I don't know about you, and you may have further information, but as far as I'm concerned it has only been very recently that many same-sex couples have even had the courage to come out and suggest that they were in a relationship. I think it has only been since we've brought in the modernization of benefits that same-sex couples have even been seen to be equivalent to common-law heterosexual couples.

And it is only in the last census, 2000, that we asked questions on the gay and lesbian population. So I don't think that anyone who claims to have statistical evidence.... I don't know where they're getting it from. I could claim to have statistical evidence, because for 23 years as a physician I had a large percentage of gays and lesbians in practice. I can tell you that I know the difference in the relationships, and there's only one difference: they're as likely to succeed, or as unlikely to succeed, as heterosexual relationships. They bring the same amount of love, commitment, caring for, sharing of assets, sharing of hard times and good times. I think the only difference is in the manner in which they have sex, and that in itself is not even the thing. Heterosexual couples have anal sex, and in some cases they use it in Africa for birth control reasons.

So I think what we're talking about here is loving conjugal relationships that are.... What I see, in my experience--and I think I have as much ability to state what I think statistically as anybody else, having spent 23 years doing it--is that there is very little difference. In fact, I believe that given the opportunity to buy into an institution that is obviously valued by some same-sex couples who wish to join it, it will not only strengthen the relationship of the couples but it will strengthen the institution, because they believe the institution is a good one.

However, I wanted to ask you, do you know of any statistical evidence that I don't know of, that I have not heard of, that would give those who put forward these statistics an ability to do so? Have you done any studies within the community that show the longevity of relationships?

¹ (1540)

Mr. Matthew Woodley: No. I'm afraid I'm not the witness to come here today who could offer that perspective. The only thing I can offer is anecdotal perspective, and as a young gay man I am in a community with other gay and lesbian couples and it seems to be pretty comparative to my straight friends and couples. There are breakups and there are people who are together for the long haul. So no, I can't offer any statistical evidence on that fact.

The Chair: Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: I appreciate your point that there's diversity within the gay community on this point, that there's a variety of relationships. And we heard earlier today that in fact there is, if you will, a subset within the gay community that really sees this as, how shall we say, a much larger attack on heterosexism as the dominant sexual paradigm of society.

And there have been some quotes from various leaders, or purported leaders, in the gay community. I appreciate your candour, that the community--for want of a better term--is somewhat diverse, and there may actually be people within the gay community who are not at all interested in getting married. In fact, they see it as antithetical to their own identity as gay people.

But our problem here is that we're being asked to do a one-size-fits-all approach. The one-size-fits-all would, if we go a certain direction, mean that there would be heterosexual marriages, there would be lesbian marriages, there would be gay marriages, and they'd all have the same legal rights, obligations, etc.

Yet there's a deep and abiding suspicion that those relationships may in fact be substantively different. It seems to be devilishly difficult to try to get some social science that people can rely on so that if in fact we were persuaded to do this we could know that in fact we're doing the right thing. It's obvious that you're taking a significant element of the definition and collapsing that out of the definition. What you create as a consequence is somewhat more problematic, and it's difficult to figure out where that's going to go.

I think all of us around this table think that we're here in the best interests of society, to enhance the quality of life of Canadians. You have, within your realm of contacts, a variety of people who have a variety of opinions about this marriage project. Can you share with us what others think about this marriage project?

Mr. Matthew Woodley: Yes, I understand the concern.

I think the problem I have, and I will respond to the second part of your question after, is that I don't think we are necessitating a one-size-fits-all approach. There are gay people and lesbian people and straight people who would never want to get married. Perhaps they would just want to live in a conjugal relationship outside of marriage. Perhaps they would want to sign, as we will be able to do in the province of Alberta, an adult interdependent relationship contract.

What we are asking is that the gay people who do want to marry, who do want to say this is the relationship that I want to be in forever, have access to it. We are not recommending that you say that anyone who wants to be in an intimate relationship must get married.

So in that sense I think all we are doing here, in as you call it the marriage project, is seeking access.

There are people in the gay community who I know who have no interest in getting married. As you said, they have a problem with marriage as an institution altogether, which is fine. But some straight people have that same perspective. In saying marriage won't fit into their identity or their perception of themselves as a gay person, I think instead you have to say as an individual.

I think it is very instructive if we take down these kinds of definitional barriers and recognize that there are straight couples who never want to get married and there are gay couples who never want to get married, but there are gay couples who do want to get married, and that's the problem we are looking at here today.

So certainly I would say that there is a subset within the gay community who don't believe in the institution of marriage, as there is in the straight community.

¹ (1545)

The Chair: Thank you to the panel.

I want to advise those who are on the list to speak immediately following this session. We have three: Bruce Shaw, Rhonda Lothammer, and Julie Lloyd. I'm going to suspend for a couple of minutes to get access to the microphone that is immediately back there.

It will be a couple of minutes and then we'll hear the three individuals who wish to make two-minute presentations.

¹ (1546)

¹ (1550)

The Chair: I call the meeting back to order.

As I explained before our suspension, the opportunity now exists for three folks to come to the microphone that's sitting there to make a two-minute statement. I will indicate when it's two minutes.

I would ask that those people making the statements respect the tone we've tried to maintain in these hearings. It's an emotional issue, and we know that. We would ask people not to be constrained in terms of articulating their opinion, but do it in a way that is sensitive to the people who are gathered.

With that, I would go first to Bruce Shaw, if you would identify yourself for the record please.

Mr. Bruce Shaw (As Individual): Hi. My name is Bruce Shaw. Good day.

My partner, who came back to Canada having spent most of his life overseas, asked my help in reintroducing him into Canadian society. His obvious questions were these. What does it mean to be Canadian? What are Canadian values?

Earlier speakers have raised the issues of tolerance, fairness, and embracing diversity. I put it to you that good government is a core Canadian value, else we wouldn't be here today.

Earlier speakers have mentioned the contributions of ancient Greek culture to modern society before that culture fell to barbarians, if I have used the word in the proper context.

Ancient Greece gave us several gifts. One was representational government in the form of democracy. Another was the science of thinking--logic.

I am distressed by the number of speakers who avail themselves of the tools of logical fallacy in order to make their arguments--specifically, circular arguments and begging the question. Gay marriage is bad because gay marriage is bad. Slippery slope. That gay marriage leads to other things that lead to the downfall of civilization or the legalization of bestiality is absurd. Appeals to authority.... If Einstein said the sky was green, and a little child corrected that the colour is blue or grey, I would side with the child. A subversive person's opinion is not automatically false. The ex-gay movement has been thoroughly and scientifically debunked despite the credentials of its proponents. Appeals to tradition. By law the sun was said to revolve around the earth. It doesn't. Straw man and red herrings. We are here to discuss gay marriage and an attempt to change the topic to polygamy or no-fault divorce or federal funding of churches is off limits. Errors in causality. No-fault divorce does not lead to anything else that happens to occur at the same time. Homosexuality does not automatically lead to promiscuity. The needs of the many does not necessarily supplant the needs of the few. Otherwise, I would not be wearing this translator device.

The ancient Greeks did not live in vain. Embrace good government.

Merci beaucoup.

The Chair: Rhonda Lothammer.

Ms. Rhonda Lothammer (As Individual): Good afternoon.

The Chair: I know it's two minutes, but relax and we'll go slowly. The interpreters have had a long day and they are having a hard time keeping up with our enthusiasm.

Ms. Rhonda Lothammer: I'd first like to thank you for your time and attention today and for the work you're doing going across the country.

My name is Rhonda Lothammer. I just have some very brief comments. It's been a long day already. I'm here to put a face to the same-sex marriage issue. Even though those who oppose same-sex rights often try to demonize lesbians and gays, the fact is that we are real people. I'm a real person. I ask you to remember that, as you go through your deliberations across the country. This is about real people and the impact this decision is going to have on real people.

We are your neighbours, your friends, your family, and your workmates. We may even sit next to you in church every Sunday. We live and work and contribute to our community just like you do. So I ask, why would you want to keep the joy of experiencing a loving committed relationship from any human being?

I have been in a committed relationship with my partner Lyra for the past four years, and I have yet to see how our relationship harms anyone else's. We are not asking for special rights. We do not wish to have a special category created for us through registered partnerships. We are asking for the same rights as opposite-sex couples who are married. We want to strengthen the sanctity of the institution by committing to this lifelong union ourselves.

I will just end by saying I encourage you to recommend that the federal government pass legislation to remove the opposite-sex restriction on legal marriage and extend the freedom to marry to same-sex couples. No other recommendation provides equality.

Thank you.

¹ (1555)

The Chair: Thank you.

And Julie Lloyd.

Ms. Julie Lloyd (As Individual): Yes, good afternoon. My name is Julie Lloyd. I'm a lawyer in Edmonton and I'm a sessional lecturer in human rights at the law school here at the university.

I'll just be very brief. This has been a long day, and you've had a lot of submissions. As I've sat the whole day and listened to the submissions, there are a couple of things I would just like to mention at the conclusion of the day.

First, as much as we've heard about marriage and the possible destructive elements of the inclusion of same-sex couples, I would invite the panel to remember why we're here. We're here because Canadian society is a society that has committed itself to tolerance, to equality, that has identified the evil of discrimination as something that needs to be redressed in Canadian society. We have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We need to think about what discrimination is. Discrimination is harm that's visited because of hurtful and harmful stereotypes that are untrue and are visited to harm the individuals, and that we recognize as a society creates harm to the larger society. That very harm to the individuals that arises harms the larger society.

We've seen examples of it here today. I've seen it, sadly, from the panel. I've seen it from the witnesses. I've seen the assumptions of promiscuity, disease--I've written some of them down--immorality. Self-centred is a big one. There's a sense that we're a Trojan horse looking to destroy civilization as we know it; vigilantes who are the leaders of this gay culture; predatory; the relationships are inferior; the relationships are dangerous; the relationships are going to contaminate in some manner heterosexual relationships. These are the attitudes that lesbian and gay people struggle under every day.

I'd like to leave you with my observation about the distinction and a comment between partnership recognition and same-sex marriage. Why isn't partnership recognition enough? It's precisely because of the stereotypes that exist and are visited on our community today.

Think about two fountains at city hall. They're exactly the same. Everybody gets water. Everybody gets the same water. It's the same temperature. There are two fountains. One of them says “whites only”. What's the message that is sent ringingly from that reality?

Is the appropriate question, does everybody get to drink? Does everyone get the same to drink? Or is the question, why do we need two? What is so fundamentally dangerous about the little black girl having a drink of water at the whites-only fountain?

I would submit that the very substantive equality of lesbian and gay people and straight people lays bare the discrimination that is screamed by this kind of separate but equal proposal. And that is the message of contagion, the message of danger, the message of our destructive participation in Canadian society, which frankly is utterly antithetical to the fundamental values we all live in.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

I'll thank those who have stayed with us today. I want to thank the panellists, in absentia in the most part, I guess. I want to thank the good people of Edmonton and Alberta for being here today. You have informed our deliberations.

The meeting is adjourned.