JUST Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 2, 2000

• 1538

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): I'd like to call the meeting to order.

Today we have two presenters: the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops; and the Christian Brethren, which is represented by Mr. Don Logan. If that's the case, then there is no problem. Mr. Logan, please come to the table. Our notice had referred to Mr. Logan as an individual, and of course we are hearing only from organizations. In this case he is representing the Christian Brethren.

Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Chairman, because there seems to be some confusion about Mr. Logan's status, I ask what position he occupies with the Christian Brethren and whether they have specifically authorized him to appear on their behalf.

Mr. Don Logan (Christian Brethren): Yes. I have appeared on their behalf many times.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I didn't ask that. I asked about what position you occupy with the Christian Brethren and whether they have specifically authorized you to appear on their behalf on this occasion.

Mr. Don Logan: Yes, they have. I should mention to you that we don't have a particularly formal type of organization, but I do have their full approval.

• 1540

Mr. Svend Robinson: What position do you occupy with the Christian Brethren?

Mr. Don Logan: I'm just a brother.

Mr. Svend Robinson: By whom were you authorized?

Mr. Don Logan: By the Brethren.

Mr. Svend Robinson: By whom?

Mr. Don Logan: It's a little difficult to explain in terms of most systems of organization, because we have our organization as under Christ. We don't have a formal organization here.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Again, not to belabour it, you said you were authorized to appear here by the Christian Brethren.

Mr. Don Logan: That's right.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Which individual within that organization authorized you to appear?

Mr. Don Logan: There would be many. But I take a prominent part there myself.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Could you name one?

Mr. Don Logan: Oh, sure. I'll mention Gord Noble in Winnipeg.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Is he one of the directors?

Mr. Don Logan: He happens to live in the city where I live. We're all over the western world.

The Chair: I'm advised by the staff, colleagues, that the Christian Brethren have appeared before. I'm not familiar with the organization. When the invitation was put, Mr. Logan responded. When he did so, there was some discussion about his appearing as an individual rather than on behalf of the Christian Brethren. I explained that would not be permissible because we had made a decision that wouldn't be the case.

As for the nature of the Christian Brethren, I cannot speak to that. I don't know. I can only rely on staff. They brought forward the list, which we looked at, and it was listed as an organization.

Does the clerk wish to comment?

The Clerk of the Committee: No.

The Chair: Unless there's an objection, he's representing the Christian Brethren. They have appeared as an organization before parliamentary committees in the past.

The two witnesses that are scheduled are the Christian Brethren, as I said, represented by Mr. Don Logan, and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, represented by Bishop Brendan O'Brien and Bishop Peter Schonenbach.

Without further ado, I would call on the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and advise that the process we're involved in here involves a ten-minute presentation on behalf of each organization, and then we'll have the opportunity for discussion with the members of the committee. Thank you.

His Excellency Bishop Brendan O'Brien (Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate this opportunity to come before the committee and to make this presentation.

My name is Brendan O'Brien. I'm the bishop of the Roman Catholic diocese of Pembroke in Ontario, and I am a member of the executive of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. With me is Bishop Peter Schonenbach, the general secretary of the conference. I would ask Bishop Schonenbach to begin our presentation.

[Translation]

His Excellency Bishop Peter Schonenbach (Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops): The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the CCCB, is the national association of Catholic bishops. It was founded more than 55 years ago and includes bishops of the 75 Catholic dioceses across the nation who are charged with the pastoral care of approximately 12.5 million Catholics.

During the last few years, the CCCB has participated in the debate on same sex benefits in various forums, including the Supreme Court of Canada, as part of a multifaith coalition in the Egan case where the definition of spouse was in issue and before the House of Commons Committee on Bill C-33 about amending the Canadian Human Rights Act. The CCCB has also written numerous letters to the Prime Minister, Cabinet ministers and the parliamentary committees in its own name or in collaboration with the Catholic Organization for Life and Family, of which the CCCB is a founding partner.

The various government initiatives and reactions to court judgements on this topic have illustrated how difficult it is becoming to have thoughtful and respectful conversations on sensitive social questions. Let us hope, in this year 2000, which Christians are celebrating as the Great Jubilee in the biblical tradition of renewal and reconciliation, that all people of good will can come together and be given the time to discuss this proposed legislation in a constructive manner.

• 1545

In all of its previous interventions, the CCCB has looked at proposed legislation and court developments through the lens of the following principles of Church teaching.

First, there is the dignity of the human person. Central to Catholic teaching is respect for the dignity of every human being because everyone, without exception, is unique and created in the image and likeness of God.

Secondly, there is the principle of marriage as a social institution and a sacrament. Yes, we believe that marriage is an exclusive, permanent union between a man and a woman, a loving partnership open to the possibility of new life. It is both a sacrament and a vital social institution. Marriage plays a pivotal role in the stability of the family and in its care and the nurturing of future generations. As Mr. Justice Gérard V. La Forest said in the Egan case and I quote:

Suffice it to say that marriage has from time immemorial been firmly grounded in our legal traditions, one that is itself a reflection of long standing philosophical ans religious traditions. But its ultimate raison d'être transcends all of these and is firmly anchored in the biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate, that most children are the product of these relationships and that they are generally cared for and nurtured by those who live in that relationship.

Every civilization on earth has had its own institution, tradition and rituals of marriage. The public commitment of a man and a woman is universal. For the Church, marriage is also a sacred reality:

The sacrament of Matrimony signifies the union of Christ and the Church. It gives spouses the grace to love each other with the love with which Christ has loved its Church; the grace of the sacrament thus perfects the human love of the spouses, strengthens their indissoluble unity and sanctifies them on the way to eternal life.

The Catholic Church has always taught that sexual relations are properly reserved for marriage between a man and a woman who are open to procreation. For this reason, we consider sexual relations outside of marriage, whether heterosexual or homosexual, to be morally unacceptable.

[English]

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: The following are our comments on Bill C-23. As bishops, it is not our role to examine in detail the changes Bill C-23 proposes to make to 68 separate pieces of legislation. We would, however, like to comment on the general objective enunciated by the government, which is to extend benefits and obligations to same-sex partners on the same basis as opposite-sex, common-law couples.

We have consistently asked the government to respond to the court challenges and social pressures to extend benefits in a way that protects the institution of marriage and the almost universal understanding of the term “spouse”. To the extent that Bill C-23 appears to have done this, we express our appreciation for having been heard, along with many others for whom marriage and the terms associated with it have a deep meaning and immense importance.

Married couples perform a role within society that is of service to all and distinct from other forms of human relationships, however loving, intense, or interdependent. A marriage between a man and a woman, while founded in their love for one another, contains an inherent likelihood of dependent children. A minority of couples, whether through infertility or personal decision, may not have children, but that does not alter the likelihood of dependent children arising from the biological givens of heterosexual marriage, givens that no shift in the realm of ideas or new technologies can change.

• 1550

We strongly support maintaining the distinction between marriage and other relationships because of its proven contribution to the stability of the family and the future of society. We hope that the government will find ways to affirm and recognize this essential role in substance as well as form. A good place to start might be in reaffirming in Bill C-23 the definition of “marriage” that was overwhelmingly supported in the House of Commons on June 8, 1999 in the following motion, by a vote of 216 to 55:

That in the opinion of this House, it is necessary, in light of public debate around recent court decisions, to state that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all necessary steps within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada.

The historical basis of benefits for heterosexual couples has been the reality that most children are born and nurtured in these family units. What was being supported was not the loving nature of the relationship or the sexual relationship per se, but the fact that these couples are likely to have children, upon whom the future of society rests.

Given that Bill C-23 does not extend benefits on the potential basis of there being children and so will erase this important distinction between opposite-sex couples and same-sex partners, there now appears to be no principled basis for not extending benefits to others who also live in equally long-term and mutually dependent relationships, such as siblings, friends, relatives, adult child and parent, etc.

In conclusion, our general position on this bill is as follows.

First, we are grateful that the government has responded to the strong and consistent voices that ask that the distinction between marriage—as well as terms associated with it, such as “spouse”—and other relationships be maintained.

Secondly, the government must find ways to strengthen and protect marriage, which is an institution fundamental to the building up of civilization.

Thirdly, having abandoned the historical rationale for providing benefits to those unions that have the inherent capacity to procreate and thus contribute to the country's future, the government has no alternative but to include other relationships that are as strong and interdependent as those that have a sexual aspect.

Fourthly, given the importance of every child for the future of our society, the government must ensure that irrespective of the status of the child's parents, the rights and needs of all children are advanced by appropriate government policies and programs that are based on the best interests of the child.

Fifthly, we assume that human rights law, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, will continue to protect freedom of religion and the preferential hiring rights of religious organizations and faith communities.

The issues in and around Bill C-23 have profound implications for our personal and social relationships, for our public and private institutions, and for our living together in a pluralistic society. We believe that our comments are a constructive contribution, which we hope will be taken into account as the debate continues.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Now we'll hear from Mr. Logan, on behalf of the Christian Brethren.

Mr. Don Logan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to thank the chairman and the members of this committee for affording me the opportunity to register my unhappiness with Bill C-23. It says something for the parliamentary process in this Canada of ours that contrary opinion is still given a hearing. I hope to make it worth your trouble.

As a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, I receive the Holy Bible as the inspired word of God, take it as my guide in every part of my life, and seek to go by its directions and precepts in every connection. I'm conscious that I fall far short of that ideal, but I do earnestly seek God's help to obey it implicitly.

Before getting into this brief presentation, I want to acknowledge emphatically the appreciation I have for the good government we have in Canada. Every day I thank God for it and set myself to be an obedient subject to it. At the same time, I feel an obligation to testify against the departure from first principles embodied in the proposed legislation we're considering today.

The trouble with Bill C-23 is that the very principle of it runs counter to the plain meaning of the Holy Scriptures in the main points it sets forward. There is no question here of persecuting a disadvantaged minority, nor of showing disrespect to the human rights of some of our fellow citizens, unless indeed someone has the temerity to accuse the Bible itself of having such a persecuting or disrespectful character. I don't think anybody has.

• 1555

I and millions of men and women in Canada and around the world receive the Holy Scriptures as God's word, graciously given for the blessing of humanity. It's proved itself to be that for centuries. The Scriptures reveal his love and his righteousness, his goodness and his severity. All the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge are to be found there.

The Bible is explicit in forbidding sex outside of marriage. Passage after passage could be quoted. The Scriptures clearly rule out fornication, 1 Corinthians 6:18; adultery, Romans 13:9; and homosexual acts, Romans 1:26-27. The whole thrust of Bill C-23 is to legitimize sex outside of marriage. Psalm 94:20 speaks about framing mischief by a law, and this is about as close as you can get to that, even if that's not what you're meaning to do.

It isn't hard, is it, to see why many of your constituents are revolted by legislation that clearly flies in the face of the plain teaching of the Bible? Many don't come here and say so, because the experience of recent years has led them to the conclusion they won't be listened to.

You could say I'm overlooking the fact that these things have been going on from time immemorial anyway, and sure enough they have, but without the sanction of legislation, at least until recent times, and never with the pervasive approval implicit in Bill C-23.

The published comments of persons who feel they'll benefit from this proposed legislation show its effects. What they say is “This gives us the respectability we want. This takes us into the mainstream. This demonstrates that our relationships are as good as others.” All these things have been in the press in the last few weeks. The substantial financial benefits get little mention. The preoccupation is with recognition and approval.

What I'm saying is the sting of legislation that moves away from the moral principles on which the nation has been formed is that it provides a strong pretext for people, especially young people, to depart from healthy moral standards of conduct, on the grounds that the law now allows and even encourages such departure. The real cost to the country is immeasurable, in unhappiness, abandoned families, divorce, disease, and crime. A world of sorrow ensues.

Referring to the obligation of marriage 150 years ago, a wise Christian teacher said, and I quote:

...it cannot be held too highly; instituted in paradise and confirmed by the Lord Himself its sanctity, I doubt not, is the providential bond of all moral order in the world.

That is, the respect for the sanctity of marriage is the providential bond of all moral order in the world. I believe it.

This old world has slid a long way since then, through disregard and abuse of the marriage bond. But Bill C-23 marks an unprecedented increase in the velocity of that slide.

Some people counter that the Supreme Court of Canada says Bill C-23 is how things have to be. Does that make it right? Parliament remains, at least in principle, the court of last resort. That's why we're here today. I urge you to arrest this downward trend in Canada's legislative framework.

The old saw says that where there's a will there's a way. My appeal to you is to find that way now, for us, and more important, for the generations yet to come.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Now we go to members of the committee, beginning with Mr. Lowther for seven minutes

Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses. I'd like to pose a couple of questions to the members from the Catholic Church, the bishop and the monsignor.

Reading your brief, I recognize that you hold that marriage is both a sacrament and a vital social institution. I want to focus on the vital social institution part. I also recognize that in your brief you say sexual relations outside marriage, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are morally unacceptable to the church, but then later on you say:

We strongly support maintaining the distinction between marriage and other relationships because of its proven contribution to the stability of the family.

• 1600

Further on down you say, I think in reference to the bill:

What was being supported was not the loving nature of the relationship or the sexual relationship per se but the fact that these couples are likely to have children upon whom the future of society rests.

We have a reality in Canada today that a lot of the benefits extended to married couples are also extended to common-law couples. I understand the church's position is that you'd rather see a stronger endorsement of marriage and not so much an endorsement of common-law, but in light of the reality of common-law being there.... You make an interesting point that some of the benefits that were given to marriage because of the procreative ability were extended to common-law, but now with this bill, there's a shifting to a new principle basis that has to do with something other than that.

Could you just drive that point home a little bit more? Because I think we have to deal with the fact that there's common-law, and now there's something different, defined as a common-law partner, that takes us into a different realm.

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: If I might begin, we can talk about marriage as the Catholic Church sees it and also as it exists as a legal entity in our country that has certain benefits and obligations attached to it. Over the years we have come to recognize common-law marriages between opposite-sex couples.

From the point of view of the Catholic Church, we do a lot of work in preparing people for marriage, for example. Studies have been done and we're aware that in terms of preparation for marriage, for people who live together in a common-law relationship or in a premarital relationship, despite the fact that you'd think it might help them in terms of the stability of their marriage, in fact statistics would give you the opposite conclusion. In fact marriages among people who have been living in a common-law relationship and whatnot are not that stable when marriage actually occurs.

So obviously we are promoting both the sacrament of marriage as far as Catholics are concerned and also the institution of marriage as far as the country is concerned.

In the common-law marriage involving opposite-sex couples, the basis for extending some of those benefits given in marriage was because of this inherent possibility that there would be children in such a relationship.

When you now say you can't just have common-law relationships between opposite-sex couples but you must also have them between same-sex couples, you can't base it on the inherent ability to procreate and nurture children. So you have to switch somewhat the basis and say it is because there is an interdependent relationship there, and it is of a sexual nature. So a major shift is taking place there in widening the grounds for eligibility for common-law benefits from simply opposite-sex couples to include same-sex couples.

Mr. Eric Lowther: So the principle basis for extending benefits has shifted, I would suggest.

One of the comments you heard earlier today was that the defining criterion really is a concept called “conjugality”. There's been a lot of talk on this, as to whether or not having a conjugal relationship implies a sexual relationship. Some are saying no, some are saying maybe, and some are saying definitely yes. Can you give us your perspectives on that?

• 1605

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: The term “conjugal” depends on how you define it, really. I don't know on what basis people were saying it would include a sexual relationship or it wouldn't. For example, obviously a relationship between a brother and a sister or a parent and a child could not be called a conjugal relationship. So there is that distinction from that kind of a relationship.

What were you suggesting would be a conjugal relationship that would not have a sexual component?

Mr. Eric Lowther: Do you think it's normative when people hear of a “conjugal relationship” that they would intuitively assume that this means it's consummated in some sort of sexual activity being at least one of the key parts, if not the critical part of it?

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: In terms of our understanding of marriage in the Roman Catholic Church, the person has a “right” to conjugal relations if they are married, and the other partner must be able to extend that right to them; otherwise there's no basis for a marriage.

Mr. Eric Lowther: And when you use that in the Catholic Church, that right to a conjugal relationship means physical intimacies, could bring forward children, that kind of thing?

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: Yes, that's right.

Mr. Eric Lowther: So that would be your understanding. Thank you.

The Chair: That's seven minutes.

[Translation]

Monsieur Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): With no desire to be disrespectful ans with all the deference due those who believe in freedom of expression, I cannot help but point out to you that I think there are three characteristics permeating your presentation: a certain excess, a good number of prejudices and, certainly a lack of rigour. And I'd like to explain myself on that.

There is excess because, of course, I can't go along with the idea—and this will come as a question—or affirmations like those made by Mr. Logan when one reads, on page 3, that the bill will create a world of pain. Of course, there is excessive language which, I believe can't be supported in any legal sense.

You came before us when the federal government amended the Canadian Human Rights Act and you said just about the same things. To my knowledge, the fact that sexual orientation was included in the Canadian Human Rights Act, as the courts requested us to do, did not create a world of pain.

There are also a certain number of prejudices. I don't see how you can maintain that I, a homosexual, who likes men and is regularly engaged in a homosexual relationship, that my relationships are less authentic and gratifying and that I contribute less to Canadian society than heterosexuals. That is a lack of rigour and it's a bit of a disappointment because you're before us here ringing the alarm bells. You're telling us that if we change the definition of marriage, then that's an affront to marriage. Let's be clear: you cannot agree with the purpose of the bill but, contrary to what Mr. Logan states, we do listen to all the witnesses whether they're for or against the matter and we do engage in dialogue with you. If you were being rigorous, you could not write in your brief that this will have any impact at all on marriage, at least not as far as the legal definition goes, because we're not changing the definition of marriage.

This leads me to two questions. First, when you come before a parliamentary committee, what is your consultation mechanism? For example, in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, in Montreal's east-end, there are about a dozen parishes. There's a very vibrant Christian community without which my neighbourhood wouldn't be what it is—and God knows that I work closely with them—and I don't think that the pastors, those in charge of this Christian community in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, would actually see themselves in what you have been saying. That's my first question.

I have a second and final one. When Mr. Logan says that the population doesn't support this bill, I believe, with the utmost respect, that he is in error, that he his "way out in the left field". According to the most recent information we have, 75% of Quebeckers—and I don't pretend to speak for the rest of Canada—agree that an end should be put to discrimination and wish the governments to legislate.

• 1610

So I'd like Mr. Logan to tell us, quite rigorously, on what he bases his claim that Canadians or Quebeckers don't support this bill. What is your consultation mechanism? Do you believe that there is discrimination against homosexuals in our society and are you comfortable with that? Those were my three questions.

[English]

Mr. Don Logan: Would you repeat the first one?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: There were three questions. When you say that Canadians or Quebeckers don't support the bill or the measures aimed at putting an end to discrimination and recognizing same sex spouses, I think that is a totally unwarranted affirmation, a complete misreading of the situation and that you are in error. Repeated polling has shown us exactly the contrary.

Secondly, your process of representation leads me to think that you do not speak on behalf of the bishops or the pastors who are responsible for the Christian community in my riding of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, which would certainly not recognize itself in the views you express. So I would like to know what your consultation mechanism was for the brief you have presented to us today.

Thirdly, I'd like to know whether you believe that there is discrimination in Canadian society against homosexual couples.

[English]

Mr. Don Logan: Let's take the last one first.

I don't doubt there is discrimination against homosexual couples. I don't think I could be properly accused of it, although you may think I could. But there's no doubt there is discrimination. I would be against it—for example, the mistreatment of homosexuals. I am four-square against it.

Does that help for that question?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: That doesn't answer the question, but it's a good beginning. If you think that there is discrimination, do you recognize that it is the legislators' duty to put an end to it? Do you accept, as a Christian value, the continued existence of such discrimination in Canadian society?

[English]

Mr. Don Logan: The key question is, of course, what constitutes discrimination. It's a very large question. I certainly say there ought to be no violence.

About your first question, I can assure you that in my community there would be no one who would disagree with what I say here. It's a small community. I can't speak for the communities the bishops represent. They may want to answer for themselves on that one. But I know my own community.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: That isn't what you said. You said that Canadians did not support the bill. You mentioned the fact that Canadians are not coming to speak to the committee because they are afraid they will not be listened to. Speaking on behalf of your own community is one thing, but claiming that the population does not support the bill is something else. I don't have any difficulty with your being authorized to speak for your community. It is possible that your community does not support the bill, but there may be a world of difference between your community, Canadians and Quebeckers.

[English]

Mr. Don Logan: There are many different opinions. I'm well aware of that. But you notice, I say “many of your constituents”; I didn't say all Canadians. Many of your constituents are alarmed.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: What does "many of our constituents" mean? When 75% of Quebeckers support the ending of discrimination and the recognition of same-sex spouses, that covers a wide range of the population. There can't be that many who don't agree, maybe 20% or 25%.

In any case, let's turn to your colleagues, if you don't mind. I'd like to know how their representation is determined.

Bishop Peter Schonenbach: I must say that this is the first time in my life that I met Mr. Logan. There is no link between his presentation and ours.

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops does of course have a long tradition of consultation. Everything we are presenting here was clearly seen by all our bishops. The bishops, of course, are always in consultation with those they represent.

What we are saying here is based on the great tradition we represent. We were present when the previous bills were debated and what we are saying is a continuation of what we said earlier.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Let me conclude on that point—

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

[English]

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

• 1615

I want to thank the witnesses for appearing. I was one of those who had the pleasure of questioning the representatives of the Conference of Catholic Bishops during the hearings on Bill C-33. I remember it vividly. The appearance at that time, of course, was to oppose provisions in the Canadian Human Rights Act that would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation—in other words, prevent people from being thrown out of their homes or being fired from their jobs on the basis of sexual orientation. The bishops were opposing that at that time.

I was looking through some of my files. I have a very interesting article here from The Montreal Gazette from 1984: “Catholic Church will never concede point on condemning sex for pleasure”. The general secretary of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, Reverend André Vallée—perhaps you know him—has said that the Roman Catholic Church condemns sexual relations for pleasure even within marriage and will never concede on this point.

Just as a matter of interest, has the church conceded on that point in the intervening years, or is that still the position of the church?

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: Are you talking about inside marriage?

Mr. Svend Robinson: That's what he talked about. Inside marriage, yes.

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: Well, I think sexual relations inside marriage can be pleasurable, but there can be a lot of other things associated with them as well.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Well, it's good to see that there is an evolution on these things, because certainly at that point that wasn't conceded at all. Perhaps in 15 years we'll see some other—

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: I'm rather surprised. If you look at the documents of Vatican II, where it discusses marriage—

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'd be glad to make a copy of the article available. It's the general secretary speaking.

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: I don't always believe what I read in the newspaper.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Well, you might want to talk to Reverend Vallée about that.

Bishop Peter Schonenbach: It may be also that general secretaries talk out of the sides of their mouths sometimes. I'm trying not to.

Mr. Svend Robinson: One never knows.

I also have another document, which perhaps you are familiar with, and that's the catechism of the Catholic Church. That document, among other things, refers to homosexual acts as “acts of grave depravity”, “intrinsically disordered”, “contrary to natural law”, and they “do not proceed from a genuine affective sexual complementarity”. It also states that “Homosexual persons are called to chastity”. In other words, gay and lesbian people should never, ever have sexual relations, period. That is the position of the Catholic Church, is it?

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: The position of the Catholic Church on this would be that the only sexual activity that would be considered moral, be it for heterosexuals or homosexuals, would be within marriage.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Right. You also say marriage should not be open to gay or lesbian people.

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: Exactly.

Mr. Svend Robinson: So what you're saying is that any sexual activity by gay and lesbian people with other gay and lesbian people is immoral and unacceptable and sinful.

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: That's right.

Mr. Svend Robinson: It's no surprise that when you come before this committee on a bill that would recognize and affirm homosexual relationships.... If you're saying that you don't even concede the moral possibility of homosexual relations, it's not surprising that you'd say you don't want to recognize relationships of gay and lesbian people. It's not surprising at all that you would want ultimately me and Mr. Ménard and other gay and lesbian people to live a life without any sexual relations.

I suppose the life of a priest.... We know there are many homosexual priests within the Catholic Church and we know that, tragically, too many of them have died of AIDS. Clearly that wasn't an injunction they followed, and that's a tragedy, that's a human tragedy.

We also know that within the Catholic Church, as we speak of moral values, there have been enormous challenges with respect to the issue of the abuse of children. I hope the church is as vigorous and as active in seeking out the evil of the abuse—widespread abuse, I might add—within your institution by priests of children as you are in pursuing sin among homosexuals.

I want to just ask you a question with respect to the issue of benefits. This bill would extend benefits to same-sex partners on the same basis as common-law heterosexual partners. You've indicated that because common-law heterosexual partners have at least the potential of raising children, that's a different kettle of fish in a sense and that benefits for them should be dealt with separately.

I have two questions on that. First of all, I take it that if the criterion is raising children, you would support the extension of benefits to families in which children are being raised by lesbian parents or gay male parents. Would you? That's question number one, if you're concerned about children.

• 1620

Secondly, what about benefits that have nothing at all to do with the raising of children? Survivors' pensions, for example, and a whole range of other benefits. Frankly, most of the benefits in Bill C-23 have nothing at all to do with the raising of children. Do you recognize that if we are in fact treating equally common-law heterosexual relationships and same-sex relationships, if they don't deal with children and the raising of children, that particular argument you've made really doesn't have any foundation?

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: With respect to the first question, about raising children, in the gay and lesbian thing I think we mentioned in our brief something to the effect that the best for the child.... I believe it is number 4.

Given the importance of every child for the future of our society, the Government must assure that irrespective of the status of the child's parents, the rights and needs of all children are advanced by appropriate Government policies and programs that are based on the best interests of the child.

For example, in a case where a lesbian had a child in a marriage and then got into a lesbian relationship, it is my understanding that the child would automatically go with the new relationship, if she were awarded custody of the child.

Mr. Svend Robinson: So you recognize those as families that should be nurtured as well?

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: I think the law would give.... The child belongs to that person, so I think it would be similar to a situation where somebody is a widower or something. The normal situation would be that they would be raising a child in a—

Mr. Svend Robinson: I just want to understand. You recognize that those families should also be nurtured and should have the same benefits?

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: Yes, yes.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Good.

With respect to the second issue, of other benefits—

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: There are two ways of looking at this. What we're saying is that once you change the benefits from attaching them to a relationship that at least inherently has the possibility to raise and nurture children and you attach it really to a title of interdependence and, for some reason, adding the sexual relationship dimension, why do you stop there? Why can we not just extend it out to all sorts of interdependent relationships?

The Chair: Short question, Mr. Robinson, please.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Okay, I'll try to be short.

Don't you see that there's a pretty fundamental distinction? For example, the relationship of myself and my partner isn't just a sexual relationship. It's a relationship that involves a profound level of commitment and love. Don't you see the difference between that relationship and the relationship of, for example, two priests who live together and who, at least theoretically, don't have a sexual relationship? Don't you see the distinction?

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: There is a distinction, but whether it should be recognized by making it a separate category, I'm not so sure.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Maloney or Mr. McKay?

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): I'll defer to my friend as a courtesy, because of my position.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): You're such a generous member.

Mr. John Maloney: I do have a few comments, though.

Mr. John McKay: This question is directed to the panel. I suppose it's a very simple question. What's so special about marriage that it deserves legal protection? What's so unique about it?

Secondly, do you think that if the institution of marriage were protected in law, that in fact would discriminate against other relationships or is that a distinction from other relationships?

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: I believe the first question was—

Mr. John McKay: What's so special about marriage? I'm actually asking in a very pithy and provocative way, but I want to see you on the record.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Can I quote you on that, John?

Mr. John McKay: Pithy and provocative?

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: When we look at society, we realize that we depend a tremendous amount on marriage for the benefit of our society, certainly for the procreation of the children we need for our society. In some parts of our society, we're not even replacing ourselves today. Also we depend very much on a stable family background for the nurturing of children so that they are able to attain their potential as members of our society.

• 1625

I think the best way to do that is for people to make a commitment, not just some sort of a private agreement between themselves, but to make a public commitment before the state, and before the church if they're religious people, which helps then to sustain that kind of commitment, because as we know, life is not always a bowl of cherries, if we might say that, throughout a whole married life. So I think having that legal bond or that religious bond is an extra help to give stability to the marriage, which has that important role in society.

Mr. John McKay: What is it in a marriage that is unique, as distinct from other relationships, that affects the well-being of society one way or another? Again, what's so special? Why is it that two people getting married, and two people in another form of relationship, be they same sex or opposite sex...? What's so special about that as far as the church is concerned, and as far as society is concerned?

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: What I mentioned, though, is it seems to me it is the institution in society on which the family is based. Other institutions or other relationships do not hold that. And in counter-distinction to common-law marriage, I would say there is that element of public witness that is given if you make vows before a justice of the peace, or a minister, or whatever. As a result of that, then, there's a public commitment that's made that if that ends, there has to be some kind of a public divorce or something.

Mr. John McKay: What would you say to those who just think it's an historical, philosophical anachronism?

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: Well, that's an opinion they have. I know there are a lot of people who hold that view, but I think when we look at society, most societies have found that you need to have stable marriage and family in order to have a healthy society.

Mr. John McKay: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney: I wish to thank the Catholic bishops for their carefully crafted brief. But as I read it, there's nothing that really jumps out and bites me and says you oppose Bill C-23. You do say that perhaps we should strengthen and protect marriage, and you quote the motion that was passed here in Parliament in June. You also suggest that a benefit should be extended to relationships. Is my assessment of your presentation that?

Bishop Peter Schonenbach: I think we're here really as an organized body of society to help you as the lawmakers make something that we understand you are practically in a box to have to do. The Supreme Court has made a decision, and you are now trying to grapple with this.

So we're saying, first of all, we appreciate the work you're doing. We appreciate that you have made that particular point of keeping marriage a little bit on one side. We think that's great. Now we're saying keep in mind that in that extension, as Bishop O'Brien mentioned, you're moving into something new, a new area. You're moving from a principled approach to benefits to something new. If you're moving into that something new, we're saying in that case, be logical: extend it to other types of relationships.

But we understand that the law is there. I think we're not going back. We respect what the Supreme Court has said.

Mr. John Maloney: Thank you.

Mr. Logan, if any of my five children came home and announced to me that they were gay, would I love them any less, and would I want them discriminated against in any way?

Mr. Don Logan: I can't conceive that you would love them any less.

Mr. John Maloney: I wouldn't. I would love them the same.

What about discrimination, in any form?

• 1630

Mr. Don Logan: It's such a difficult word to define. I would not myself be able to have the same relations with the son who took it up as with one who didn't, nor with one who took up a common-law relationship as with one who didn't.

Mr. John Maloney: Would you want them to be treated any differently by third parties?

Mr. Don Logan: Oh, no.

Mr. John Maloney: Perhaps there's another area I've been wrestling with.

Your God is a loving—

The Chair: I bring to your attention that this was for the whole round, and we're coming to the end. We will come back to you, so save the thought.

Mr. John Maloney: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.

To the bishop, I note that Bill C-23 actually changes the definition of family—“family” and “related persons”, in fact. Two clauses of the bill used to define family and related persons as those who are related through marriage, blood, or adoption. Common-law was sort of brought together in that as heterosexual union.

When I look at the catechism of the Catholic Church, it pretty much lines up with that, with the exception, perhaps, of a common-law marriage, where it was heterosexual, but it's pretty much the same.

The new definition that Bill C-23 brings in now says that two men living together for a year who have something called a “conjugal” relationship—which is still a debatable point, I'd suggest, as to what that is, and we're going to let the courts decide—are now qualified for “family”. Would you see two men living together for a year as being a family?

I ask that not wanting to put you on the spot, but you do speak for a very large contingent of people from across the country who carry a certain set of values and would like to see those values reflected in the administration of government.

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: No, I would not see that as a family. There are a lot of people who want to extend the concept of family in kind of an analogous way to any grouping of people who want to be together for a certain period of time. But I think that's the problem. By giving social recognition in this way, I think we are clouding the issues.

We talk about the importance of marriage, but we also know the fragility of marriage today in our society, that marriage is not that healthy and we need all the encouragement we can to be clear as to what is a marriage and what is a family. I would suggest that by widening these concepts, we're not really helping the matter.

Mr. Eric Lowther: I appreciate that answer. I appreciate your answers today. I'm not a Catholic, but the more you answer these questions, I'm thinking of becoming one.

Let me put you on the spot a little bit, if I can. You said in your brief that you're glad to see that this bill protects the institution of marriage as a vital social institution. I wonder to what extent you see Bill C-23 actually having done this, protecting the institution of marriage. How far has this bill really protected it?

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: What we have suggested, I think in the first part, where we say this bill has avoided the equating of these relationships with marriage, or has avoided using terms like “spouse” and has used terms like “same-sex partner”, I believe at least there is an attempt in the terminology to keep some kind of a distinction between what is marriage and what are these other kinds of relationships. But we are suggesting that is not enough. Really, we are saying we're not happy if in fact this bill gives greater social recognition to same-sex relationships.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Maloney, we'll go back to you to complete your thought.

Mr. John Maloney: Thank you.

Mr. Logan, if I can get back to where I was coming from, you have quoted various sections of the Bible as forbidding sex outside of marriage, and you indicate that the Scripture clearly rules out fornication.

Fornication happens in today's society. Adultery happens too, and homosexuality as well. But in today's society we don't stone these people or punish them in any way, shape, or form.

• 1635

I've been wrestling with this in my own mind. If your God is a fair God, a just God, an equitable God, and a tolerant God, I'm wondering how he might vote on this legislation if he were sitting in my seat today.

Mr. Don Logan: I think I know how he'd vote, but you probably wouldn't accept my authority on that subject. I go by His word. I take it as the word of God. I accept it, and I don't raise doubts about it in my own mind. I accept it at face value.

Mr. John Maloney: Thank you.

The Chair: Monsieur Ménard, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I am willing to go some distance with you in examining the Christian explanation of the world. As I see it, religion is an explanation of the world. There may be different explanations, as there are different religions. But I was never able to understand the link established between the de facto existence of homosexuality—it would be interesting to know how you explain the origin of homosexuality, but let's say that that is a very personal question—and the threat it represents for the institution of marriage.

Let me give you the example of my family again. There are five children in the family, we were all raised the same way and I have an identical twin brother, homozygote. My twin brother is very heterosexual and I am very homosexual. Yet I do not see how the fact that I am homosexual—he is married and a believer, but nonetheless does not have any children—can threaten the free choice of people who wish to marry and who are heterosexual.

On the different occasions I heard you—I have heard testimony from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops three or four times now—you have seemed to me to be talking about homosexuality as if it were one of the choices on a menu, a sort of opting out: people can choose to be or not to be, but if they are, then it's a threat to the others. That is what oozes from your brief when you say in your concluding paragraph: "The government must find ways to strengthen and protect marriage." In the logic of this presentation, that means that you believe the recognition of relationships that are not within marriage constitutes a threat. I have trouble understanding that and I would like you to explain it to me. My question is not an invidious one, it is completely without malice and is a true attempt to understand.

[English]

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: I think if we extend the term “marriage” to cover more than a heterosexual relationship, you are changing the nature of marriage, because normally there is not the possibility within a homosexual relationship for the procreating of children and the nurturing of children one has procreated. So it seems to me, then, that you're going to have to come up with a different definition of marriage so that it will include the other possibilities. This then I think has an effect on the way in which we see marriage.

The Chair: This will be your last question.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: But what do you say about couples like that of my twin brother, heterosexual, who is very much attracted by women, although faithful—I stress this because I don't want to create any misunderstanding—and his wife, who don't have any children? Do you think that he sullies the institution of marriage? I don't agree that marriage can only serve the purpose of procreation.

In the West, Quebec and Canada are among the societies with the lowest birth rates. A society is supposed to have a birth rate of 2.2% in order to perpetuate itself, but we are at 2.1%. Some provinces have a 1.9% birth rate. Do you wish to preserve marriage only for those wishing to have children?

My colleague Pierrette Venne, who will be voting against this bill unless I can convince her otherwise, is 41 years old. She has been with the same man for more than 10 years and doesn't have any children. Do you think she has dishonoured the institution of marriage?

• 1640

[English]

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: I don't think everybody who's married has to have children or else they're not somehow living up to marriage. There are many reasons you couldn't have children within marriage. But I would like to see that definition of marriage always include that inherent connection with procreation and the nurturing of children.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Grose.

Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What I'm about to say probably goes without saying, but that never stopped me from saying anything before. I'm here, I feel, to protect your rights, your beliefs, and your philosophy. I'm also here to protect my fellow citizens from you imposing—or the government on your behalf—your rights, beliefs, or philosophy on them. If I thought this bill would in any way endanger any of those rights, beliefs, or philosophies of yours—many of which I share, incidentally, one of them being marriage and the family, although I find it very difficult at times to carry it on, but one perseveres.... In any case, that's my belief. You mentioned that it was fragile. Yes, marriages can be fragile. But if your idea of marriage and family were so fragile that this bill would endanger it, I think you and I are in big trouble.

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: I really feel, though, that as you widen the concept of what you can include in marriage, it becomes less and less clear what marriage is in society. I think everyone realizes that even though the bill has to do with benefits, it is giving greater social recognition to homosexual relationships. It's giving them a status they didn't have before. I think there could be a view that says there are three roads now, because there are marriage, common-law opposite-sex relations, and common-law same-sex relations, and they're all the same, more or less.

Mr. Ivan Grose: But do you really believe someone could be lured from a heterosexual marriage to the homosexual lifestyle simply because homosexuals have more benefits than they did previously?

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: No. I never suggested that.

Bishop Peter Schonenbach: The very fact that you are spending so much time on a law makes me realize that you also know that laws are normative. Laws help shape society. Laws are not just there as rules—

Mr. Ivan Grose: If they're good laws.

Bishop Peter Schonenbach: —but they are also shapers of society. It's in that sense we feel that if your law is not very clear on certain things we feel are very valuable.... We feel that a permanent union between a man and a woman, a loving partnership open to the possibility of new life, is a tremendous value. We feel that the law also has to be normative in helping society live this out.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Would it answer your problem if we were to define marriage in this bill?

Bishop Peter Schonenbach: I think if you had in there the definition you voted on in the House of Commons, that certainly would help strengthen the bill. But I think at the same time the problem Bishop O'Brien mentioned about the new principle on the giving of benefits that are coming in has to be looked at too. And I think the logic, as I mentioned before, is to extend it to all types of relationships.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Just to be clear, sexual relations between a man and a woman who are using birth control are also immoral according to you, are they?

Bishop Peter Schonenbach: They're immoral. But you might say that the institution is there, and the way people live that institution.... Of course we're all sinning people, and we all are trying to attain an ideal. We're not saying that the world should be filled with saints.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I just want to be clear. That is your position.

Bishop Peter Schonenbach: Yes.

• 1645

Mr. Svend Robinson: That's along with no homosexual activity ever in one's life.

I have three brief questions. First, with regard to benefits that are extended to common-law heterosexual couples and that have nothing to do with children, do you believe those benefits should be extended to those who are not married? That's question one.

The second question follows up on Mr. Maloney's question, because I think it's an important one. I still don't know where you stand on this bill. You've acknowledged that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled in M. v. H. and that the government has an obligation to respond to that instead of going case after case, wasting taxpayers' money. Do you support this bill or not? Would you vote yes or no? I direct this to the bishops.

My third and final question is with regard to the catechism, which says homosexual acts are “acts of grave depravity” and “intrinsically disordered”. But the catechism also says—and I assume, as bishops, you can explain this to me—that “They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity”. Explain that to me. What does that mean?

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: I'll start with that one. What they're saying there in terms of “affective” complementarity is the heterosexual complementarity between a man and a women. So they lack that character, that quality.

Mr. Svend Robinson: It says “They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.”

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: Yes. Those are adjectives all describing the one thing, “complementarity”, which is the complementarity between male and female. So they don't have a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.

Mr. Svend Robinson: In other words, they're not heterosexual.

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: Yes.

Mr. Svend Robinson: That's what that means. Okay.

And the other two questions?

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: Do we support the bill?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Would you vote yes or no?

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: As it is now, we're suggesting that there need to be these changes we have suggested. First of all, we feel that a way of dealing with this issue you have of extending these benefits would be to extend them to all interdependent relationships rather than focusing on simply an interdependent relationship where there is this sexual relationship.

Mr. Svend Robinson: But would you vote yes or no to the bill now?

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: We wouldn't support the bill as it is now, else why would we be here? We came here to suggest these changes. If we were happy with it, I personally wouldn't be driving all the way down here just to tell you I liked it.

Mr. Svend Robinson: The final question I asked was with regard to common-law heterosexual benefits. If you believe those relationships are simply immoral, why would we extend benefits to them, that have nothing to do with children?

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: Well, we aren't being asked to claw back common-law....

Mr. Svend Robinson: Should those benefits be extended?

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: It depends. There are issues, perhaps, of....

Let me put it this way. We feel that in any of these interdependent relationships, be it common-law, opposite-sex, or some type of a relationship of interdependence, as we mentioned, between say a parent and an adult child, there may be inequalities or things that need to be righted. Inasmuch as these can be righted, we would be open to that.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Thank you, Mr. Chair—

The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr. Lowther. It's Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: My apologies.

I was thinking that Mr. Robinson should have spent some more time in catechism class, but being Protestant, I also have trouble understanding all of this stuff.

Going to the other question on the bill itself, your first two points in your conclusion are that you're looking for ways in which the government can strengthen and protect marriage, and you're grateful that the government has maintained the distinction between marriage and other forms of relationships. Would you be more comforted by this bill if in fact it contained a definition of marriage?

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: I think we've stated that.

• 1650

Mr. John McKay: What would be other ways in which you feel the government could strengthen and protect marriage?

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: I think we also mentioned somewhere along there the question of certain government programs that would assist families and would enable marriages to feel comfortable that they can bring children into the world.

Mr. John McKay: Would those government programs, as you call them, be limited to marriage?

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: I think you're probably caught in whatever legislation already exists in terms of what you can extend only to legally married couples and what you can extend to common-law situations. I'm not familiar with all the distinctions, but I would presume that today many of the benefits that go to people who are legally married also go to people who are in a common-law relationship.

Mr. John McKay: So there's some limitation, really, on what a government can do to strengthen and protect marriage, aside from definition.

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: Definition, yes, and as I say, perhaps looking at some of the economic questions concerning marriage and the family and doing whatever it can do to strengthen stability in marriage.

I think one of our problems in society today is that, for whatever reasons, there is a great breakdown in marriage, and that has a great social cost and human cost, especially when it comes to children.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McKay.

Mr. Lowther, do you have a question?

Mr. Eric Lowther: Thank you.

I don't get the sense from the witnesses that you're particularly against anybody. You have a problem with some behaviour some people choose to participate in, but I don't get the sense you're against anyone.

I'm reading here from the Charter of Rights of the Family, as presented by the Holy See. It states:

Society, and in a particular manner the State and International Organizations, must protect the family through measures of a political, economic, social and juridical character, which aim at consolidating the unity and stability of the family so that it can exercise its specific function;

Paraphrasing, then, you're looking for government to implement policies that protect, stabilize, and strengthen family.

Looking further down, it says:

The institutional value of marriage should be upheld by the public authorities; the situation of non-married couples must not be placed on the same level as marriage duly contracted.

We heard earlier about some studies even the federal government did showing that, statistically, common-law relationships don't provide the same stability for children. I think you mentioned that in your brief. So here you're saying that to put those non-married couples on the same level as marriage is something that you can't really support, and for some good, empirical reasons, I'd suggest.

When you look at this bill, is part of the reason you have trouble or difficulty supporting it that this bill equates marriage with heterosexual common-law, straight across to same-sex, unions? I mean, there's no difference in any of those three criteria in Bill C-23, and yet the Holy See is saying there is a need to provide policy that strengthens marriage.

Is that the fundamental crux of your difficulty in supporting it?

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: On the first part, the distinction between marriage and common-law opposite-sex couples, I guess for many years that has been growing closer and closer in terms of the kinds of benefits you get if you're married legally or if you're in a common-law situation.

Whether that affects heterosexual people from not getting married, I don't know. I suspect it's just that for a lot of people, today, the idea of making a commitment is difficult for various reasons. In terms of that first part, then, I think it already exists in our society, and that is a problem.

• 1655

As I suggested, when people do make a commitment to get married and if their previous experience has been in living in a common-law situation, it does not seem, whatever the dynamics are, that it is a good way to prepare for marriage. So that's one thing. But as I say, our opposition here to extending that then to same-sex common-law partners is that I think you confuse more and more what we're talking about when we say what it means to be married.

The Chair: Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther: I have one more short question, if we can.

The Chair: Go ahead. Keep it short.

Mr. Eric Lowther: In your conclusion, Bishop, one of the items I was surprised to see there was the fifth item. It says that we assume that human rights law, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, will continue to protect freedom of religion and the preferential hiring rights of religious organizations and faith communities. This almost suggests you have a concern here of something down the line coming.

I'd like you to try to articulate that a little bit more. I'm wondering, for example, if the Catholic Church theoretically decided not to hire somebody because they were in a same-sex or homosexual union that the state had sanctioned, is this what you're concerned about here, that you might be obliged to hire them even though they've chosen the lifestyle that's inconsistent with the teaching of the church?

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: What we would like to be able to see here is that people who hold these views sincerely as religious views would not be asked to act against their religiously held views, nor would they be compelled to do things that conflict with those.

At the present time in most cases in our institutions because we have these values we can insist that people live up to these values, or try to live up to these values, and not be in objective situations that are in conflict with those values. We're always in an evolving situation here in this country. Who's to say that those will not be attacked at some point?

Mr. Svend Robinson: I have a brief supplementary.

I agree with the bishop. In fact—through the chair to Mr. Lowther—it's pretty clear that it's not just sexual orientation. The Catholic Church doesn't allow women to be priests. There's a clear discrimination based on gender there. Nobody is suggesting that this is being challenged before the Human Rights Commission. Certainly there are women who are challenging it. I think in fairness they would agree there are a number of these hiring policies that on the face of it discriminate, and yet in recognition of freedom of religion they're accepted.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Before we close, I would like to follow up on a line of questioning that happened earlier.

I'm quite respectful of the fact that it would be difficult to be engaged in the public policy debate around subjects that the institution you represent at a spiritual level does not endorse. I accept the fact that you are participating in a public policy debate around many things that in and of themselves are not things your institution accepts. I accept that.

When you explained the acquiescence, if that's the right word, on common-law opposite-sex couples having to do with children, and therefore benefits should accrue on the basis of the possibility of children, that was where you found yourself able to support those benefits flowing to that otherwise not acceptable union. I think I heard that.

In the event that there were a family, a unit, that was two lesbian partners and children from an earlier marriage, or otherwise, does the same logic not apply? What's the distinction between those two if in fact you do not see either of them as being correct by the values of the church? The only thing that allows you to support the first instance is the child, and in the second case there's also a child. What's the difference?

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: As you say, either of those common-law situations are not acceptable.

The Chair: I understand.

• 1700

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: But in the case of the common-law opposite-sex couple there is that potential there in the union to have a child and the responsibility to nurture that child. Therefore, even though we don't particularly approve, or we don't approve period, of the common-law relationship, we still see the need to look after that child.

The Chair: But in the case where there are children—

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: Yes.

The Chair: In the case where there is a same-sex couple and there are children in that group—and I'm thinking of real people I know, so that's what caused me to think of this—and if something were to happen to one of them, there would be survivor benefits and those benefits would flow to the surviving partner and the children who are a part of that family now. What's the difference?

Bishop Brendan O'Brien: Our position would be that we would not necessarily exclude that situation, but we would rather have the title that these benefits be extended to all people who are in an interdependent relationship and not focus simply on a relationship in which there has to be this sexual relationship.

The Chair: I understand that position. It's been expressed by many. I understand also your position on the first case. Thank you very much. I appreciate it; it's been very helpful. And I repeat that I recognize that it's sometimes difficult to engage in the public policy debate when we understand that the position of the church on some of these items in and of themselves makes that difficult.

Thank you very much, members and witnesses.

The meeting is adjourned.