JUST Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, February 18, 2003

0905

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

Ms. Joanne Cohen (Coordinator, Coalition of Canadian Liberal Rabbis)

0910

The Chair

Rev. William Oosterman (Westboro Baptist Church)

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP)

The Chair

0915

Rev. William Oosterman

0920

The Chair

Rev. William Oosterman

The Chair

Mr. Barry Bussey (General Counsel, Public Affairs, Seventh-Day Adventist Church)

0925

0930

The Chair

Mr. Nigel Flear (As Individual)

0935

0940

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance)

0945

The Chair

Ms. Joanne Cohen

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Ms. Joanne Cohen

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Barry Bussey

0950

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Rev. William Oosterman

Mr. Richard Marceau

Rev. William Oosterman

Ms. Joanne Cohen

0955

Mr. Richard Marceau

Rev. William Oosterman

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Barry Bussey

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

1000

Rev. William Oosterman

Mr. Svend Robinson

Rev. William Oosterman

Mr. Svend Robinson

Rev. William Oosterman

Mr. Svend Robinson

Rev. William Oosterman

Mr. Svend Robinson

Rev. William Oosterman

Mr. Svend Robinson

Rev. William Oosterman

Mr. Svend Robinson

Rev. William Oosterman

Mr. Svend Robinson

Rev. William Oosterman

Mr. Svend Robinson

Rev. William Oosterman

Mr. Svend Robinson

Rev. William Oosterman

Mr. Svend Robinson

Rev. William Oosterman

Mr. Svend Robinson

Rev. William Oosterman

Mr. Svend Robinson

Rev. William Oosterman

Mr. Svend Robinson

Rev. William Oosterman

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Barry Bussey

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Barry Bussey

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Barry Bussey

Mr. Svend Robinson

1005

Mr. Barry Bussey

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Barry Bussey

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Barry Bussey

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.)

Rabbi Steven Garten (Spiritual Leader, Temple Israel (Ottawa), Coalition of Canadian Liberal Rabbis)

1010

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Rev. William Oosterman

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

1015

The Chair

Ms. Joanne Cohen

The Chair

Rev. William Oosterman

The Chair

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

The Chair

Rev. William Oosterman

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

1020

Rev. William Oosterman

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Rev. William Oosterman

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

Rev. William Oosterman

Mr. Svend Robinson

Rev. William Oosterman

Mr. Svend Robinson

Rev. William Oosterman

Mr. Svend Robinson

Rabbi Steven Garten

1025

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Rabbi Steven Garten

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.)

Rabbi Steven Garten

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Mr. Nigel Flear

1030

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. Nigel Flear

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Joanne Cohen

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Ms. Joanne Cohen

The Chair

Rev. William Oosterman

The Chair

Mr. Barry Bussey

The Chair

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.)

1035

Rabbi Steven Garten

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

1040

Rev. William Oosterman

Mr. Richard Marceau

Rev. William Oosterman

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Joanne Cohen

The Chair

Mr. Barry Bussey

The Chair

1045

Mr. Barry Bussey

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

Rev. William Oosterman

Mr. Svend Robinson

Rev. William Oosterman

Mr. Svend Robinson

Rev. William Oosterman

Mr. Svend Robinson

Rev. William Oosterman

Mr. Svend Robinson

Rev. William Oosterman

Mr. Svend Robinson

1050

Rev. William Oosterman

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Mr. Barry Bussey

Mr. Pat O'Brien

1055

Mr. Nigel Flear

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

Rev. William Oosterman

Ms. Hedy Fry

Rev. William Oosterman

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

NUMBER 018

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 18, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): I'd like to call to order the 18th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are undertaking a study on marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions.

We have four groups of witnesses today: the Coalition of Canadian Liberal Rabbis, the Westboro Baptist Church, the Seventh-Day Adventist Church; and as individuals, Nigel Flear and Steve Rawlinson.

I assume you've been briefed on the way we are proceeding. Each group has ten minutes. If you intend to share your time, please consider the ten minutes as for the group. We've had some discussion about the tone of these deliberations, and I would urge you to be respectful. I would urge the same of all members.

With that, I'm going to go first to the Coalition of Canadian Liberal Rabbis, Rabbi Steven Garten and Joanne Cohen, coordinator.

Ms. Joanne Cohen (Coordinator, Coalition of Canadian Liberal Rabbis): Good morning. My name is Joanne Cohen. I serve as coordinator of the Coalition of Canadian Liberal Rabbis for same-sex marriage. I'm a social legal scholar. My previous academic background is the sociology and philosophy of law from the University of Toronto. I have served as a social legal researcher at the Addiction Research Foundation of Ontario and I am presently Canada's first openly gay appointee to the Canadian Jewish Congress.

As a legal scholar, I've taught at the law and society program at York University and I presently serve as coordinator of the coalition, which has asked me to speak on their behalf.

I have with me here today Rabbi Steven Garten, who is spiritual leader of Temple Israel Ottawa, to attest to the existence of a growing constituency of Liberal rabbis in Canadian and in international settings who are fully prepared to affirm the legitimacy, both religious and civil, of same-sex marriage.

This coalition represents a constituency who represent the views of those who believe in freedom of choice for same-sex marriages. We represent the reform, reconstructionist, and Jewish renewal movements within Judaism. We believe that same-sex couples should be able to choose to have a civil marriage and that religious groups should be able to choose whether or not they will hold a marriage ceremony for same-sex couples. We represent a significant and growing constituency in Jewish religious life in Canada in support of same-sex rights whose religious freedoms would be impeded by the continued prohibition of same-sex marriage.

A growing number of rabbis and congregants in Liberal Jewish congregations are making a strong commitment to remedy the past exclusion of gays and lesbians from Jewish religious life. We want to assist our gay and lesbian congregants and family members to hallow and celebrate their relationships and families in accordance with their wishes, and in ways consistent with the highest values of our tradition.

The Canadian Council for Reformed Judaism and representatives from reconstructionist and renewal movements have affirmed a commitment to greater inclusion of gays and lesbians in our religious and cultural life, and full support for civil equality for secular and non-Jewish gays and lesbians and oppressed minorities as a key priority for social action. We therefore submit the following.

We support the right of Jewish same-sex couples to celebrate Jewish same-sex marriage ceremonies duly recognized in Canadian law.

We support the right of interfaith and non-Jewish same-sex couples to obtain binding civil same-sex marriages duly recognized in Canadian law.

We support the right of rabbis and their congregations and other clergy to celebrate marriages between same-sex couples should they so choose, and we therefore dispute any alarmist claims of religious harms resulting from the recognition of same-sex marriage and law, noting that the provision of same-sex marriage would not compel those opposed to perform or recognize these in their religious practices and that same-sex marriage would not diminish the status of traditional secular or religious heterosexual marriage.

For example, the extension of recognition to Jewish marriages in Ontario's Marriage Act in 1857 did nothing to diminish the status of Anglican marriages at that time, so any discussion of the diminished status of marriage as a result of same-sex marriage is a zero sum game and, I believe members of our coalition would agree, a zero sum argument that is specious at this time.

We therefore submit that religious and cultural diversity and freedoms in Canada would not be threatened in any way by allowing same-sex marriage, religious or civil. In fact, the provision of same-sex marriage in religious or in civil context demonstrates the concerted commitment of members of the gay and lesbian community to form families and to contribute to the well-being and stability of their communities.

As a member of congress, I would also respectfully remind this committee that human rights inherently remain related to the protection of vulnerable minorities in our society. I advocate on behalf of the 15,000 to 20,000 gay and lesbian Jews in Canada who often suffer simultaneously from homophobia and anti-Semitism. Law has symbolic effects, and at long last, after 3,200 or more years of repudiation in our religious context and after 9/11, we're finally ready to come home.

¿ (0910)

I would ask this committee to remember that the political decision on allowing human rights protections in Canada is not a matter of political will or popularity polling, but was decided by the Parliament of Canada when it repatriated the Constitution in 1982.

I would finally ask this committee three questions. In Jewish tradition, it's traditional to answer a question with a question. The questions are as follows.

How long must we wait in order to be equal? I've been at this for 25 years, and every single time gay rights are debated in the public press we are subjected to vitriolic diatribes that bear little relation to any standard of academic or social respectful discourse. So I would like to know, how long must we continue to be subjected to this?

I would like to know how good we must be in order to be equal. An editorialist in Extra, Canada's gay newspaper, correctly observed that convicted violent criminals who happen to be heterosexual right now have the right to marry in Canada. Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka celebrated a fairy tale wedding, but I cannot. So I would like to know, what may I tell my community? How distinguished must we be? How law-abiding must we be? How devoted to our families and our communities must we be before we are allowed to be equal to other Canadians?

Finally, might I ask this committee, as we sit on the threshold of war, how does it wish history to remember it? Since September 11, I and many others in my community have been working night and day to make Canada a more inclusive and equitable democracy. I would respectfully ask this committee to consider doing so now on our behalf.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I now go to the Westboro Baptist Church, Reverend William Oosterman.

Rev. William Oosterman (Westboro Baptist Church): First of all, we are in no way connected with the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, of the same name.

The Bible makes it clear that God created woman from man and for man. They fit together nicely according to the Almighty's design and purpose. Most of you know this by personal experience. Virtually every present and past known society and civilization agrees that homosexual behaviour is not normal and even repugnant. Those few that came to tolerate it--I mean the societies--and allow it did not last long. God providentially and in judgment wiped those civilizations off the face of the earth. Remember those civilizations known for homosexual tolerance and practice--

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, at the start of these hearings you indicated that, as chair, you would be ensuring that there was a tone of respect in these hearings and the dialogue. This witness is getting into language that is clearly deeply offensive and unacceptable. In a respectful dialogue about gay marriage, talk about God wiping out homosexuals and so on, as kind of a genocidal approach, is just not acceptable. I would ask the chair to ensure that the tone be respectful.

The Chair: To all members and the committee itself, I would appeal to you to try to make your presentations in a language that is temperate.

To Mr. Robinson, I will make those judgments. It's a very difficult balance to find. I don't want to deny people the freedom to express themselves, but at the same time, I don't wish to see this committee have a discussion or a debate that is offensive.

I know people have written texts here, so when I make my interventions they have a tendency to go back to the text. To all members--and I don't want to isolate Mr. Oosterman here--as I've said before, please be temperate and respectful and aware of the sensitivities of others. I put this to all sides of this debate. I don't want to get into a public discourse about what words to use and not to use, so I depend on your judgment.

Please proceed.

¿ (0915)

Rev. William Oosterman: I'd like to quote three passages of scripture, two from the Old Testament:

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.

And from the New Testament:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites will inherit the kingdom of God.

In a ruling given recently in the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, they ruled that a man who placed the above references to Bible verses on homosexuality in a newspaper ad was guilty of inciting hatred. Justice Barclay said, “In my view, the Board was correct in concluding that the advertisement can objectively be seen as exposing homosexuals to hatred or ridicule.”

So before this committee I give the above quotes from the Bible knowing that I may be charged with hate crimes. The precedent for such a charge has been set.

The Bible condemns this behaviour as a sinful choice. Christians and every other religion and every other society agree. It is an aberration. To ask Canadians all across this great land to recognize this as marriage is asking way too much. Even the Greeks had more sense than that, and they fully accepted homosexuality along with pederasty. They had their man-boy relationships and man-to-man liaisons, but they were smart enough to know the difference between that and marriage. They never even attempted to call it marriage. That would have been too absurd for those Greeks, those logical sinners.

Webster's dictionary defines marriage as “the act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife”. Not in thousands of years of recorded history has that definition been challenged. Other pagan societies in the past have tolerated and even accepted homosexual behaviour and relationships. They never called it marriage. They had enough common sense to realize that marriage can only involve people of the opposite sex. Nor did the homosexual participants in times past ask that it be called marriage. They did not feel so insecure in their homosexual behaviour to ask that the courts and laws of the land recognize it as marriage.

Our position is that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman. Any homosexual relationship and activity is contrary to God's design, plan, and nature itself. The government should not allow or recognize in law any relationship between same-sex couples.

If the government does, and as it already has, we beg our government to make sure that a different terminology is used. Please, we and millions of plain, ordinary Canadians plead with you: do not allow the use of the historic and defined word “marriage” to be used to describe two men or two women living together. Call them whatever you like, such as partners or same-sex couples, but do not call them married. If you call homosexual couples married, you make this country and culture the laughingstock of present and future generations. Marriage is between a man and a woman, and we all know it. Two men do not get married.

The government may want to set up a registry for same-sex couples to give them the legal rights others have. To put it simply, homosexuals may then, with government sanctions, sue the pants off each other when they break up, so register them.

My other concern as a Canadian is this. The government spent and lost a billion bucks on a gun registry that failed. I fear that registering all the couples in Canada may just put this country over the brink into a state of perpetual bankruptcy. After the ineffective gun registry, can we afford to register all the married and same-sex couples in Canada? Will this cost a couple of billion dollars and then more and more? If the government cannot count and register all the guns in Canada, how are they expected to record the relationships between consenting men or women?

Our church will continue to make solemn wedding vows between heterosexual couples before God and man. Whether we do so as an agent of the state, with ordained ministers who have a licence to marry, or the government takes over the whole legal aspect and leaves us to our holy vows before God is not as important as maintaining the legal and historic definition of marriage. Naturally--and I use the term deliberately--we will only offer the marriage ceremony to heterosexual couples.

Martin Cauchon has said as part of this debate that recent charter challenges to the legal requirement that marriage should be between one man and one woman are now before the courts. The government hopes to benefit from the guidance of the appeal courts on the legal issues. I ask, who is making laws in Canada, the legislature or unelected judges? If Parliament is guided by the judges, who guides the judges? We the people? Wishful thinking.

¿ (0920)

Martin Cauchon also said, “People in Canada and their representatives must now decide whether marriage should remain an opposite-sex institution”. Does he actually believe that the people in Canada or their representatives will decide anything? To quote Trudeau, who gave us this Trojan horse of a charter, MPs are “nobodies”. Where does that leave us common folk?

I thank you for the opportunity to speak. I can only hope and pray that this government, and in particular the many backbench MPs, will have the courage to take back the making of laws from the judges, who should be applying, not making, laws.

The government discussion paper of November 2002, said:

Since the charter came into force, a series of court decisions has held that most benefits and obligations available to married couples should be extended equally to other couples in a conjugal or marriage-like relationship, including same-sex couples.

The charter is there to protect us from intrusive government, not to impose. It is now being used by the homosexual community to demand that we condone their sin as marriage. The charter, then, does not protect Christians or others of different religions. It demands that they accept and approve of men having sex as equal to a marriage between a committed woman and man. It demands that we approve their behaviour, which is unnatural.

Then, from the discussion paper of November 2002, I quote:

First, some gay and lesbian couples consider that there is a qualitative difference between common-law relationships and marriage. ... A legally sanctioned equivalent to marriage, even one that is closely akin to marriage, is not acceptable to gay and lesbian couples because they believe that it does not give full and equal recognition to their relationship.

Our response is this. It is not equal; it cannot be. Two men together can never be equal to the tremendous beauty of what God intended. The two, a man and woman, become one flesh. Two men will never and can never be married in terms of history or God's word.

Then, another quote from the discussion paper: “The current federal”--

The Chair: You have 30 seconds.

Rev. William Oosterman: Okay. I'll read my final paragraph, then, the response to the charter.

The charter is not my God or Canada's God, and judges must not be allowed to usurp the elected Parliament in shaping our future and policy as a country. If you say two men can be married, then why not include a loving brother and sister? The adoptive parents of Anne of Green Gables could have been married and saved a bundle on income tax. They were brother and sister and lived together in a loving and supportive relationship. Why not add a man and a couple of his sisters, or a man and his faithful friend, Fido Fidelius? Any and all now qualify. What will probably kill this idea of legalizing same-sex and other types of relationships is not our common sense or understanding of what is normal, but the government's realization that it could lose billions in tax revenue.

I have one final sentence. Then again, if registering guns costs only $1 billion or so more than expected, let's get started with the homosexuals who are eager and want to be registered. Just do not ever call them what they are not and can never be, and that is “married”.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Bussey, you have ten minutes. I'll give you an indication at nine minutes.

Mr. Barry Bussey (General Counsel, Public Affairs, Seventh-Day Adventist Church): Good morning. I'm general counsel, public affairs, and religious liberty director for the Seventh-Day Adventist Church in Canada.

The Seventh-Day Adventist Church is a Christian Protestant denomination, with approximately 12 million adult adherents worldwide. We have established work in 209 countries. In Canada, we have approximately 52,000 adult adherents in about 330 congregations throughout the country.

Throughout our history we've emphasized that Christian ideals are an intricate part of the whole individual. The church sees Christianity not merely as a belief but as a lifestyle. As a result, we have established a number of church institutions to facilitate the Christian lifestyle. We have 55 junior-senior high schools and elementary schools. We have an accredited university college in Alberta and a number of nursing homes and retirement homes as well, throughout the country.

The church is also concerned in humanitarian work. We run the Adventist Development and Relief Agency, working closely with CIDA in a number of development projects around the world. I should also point out that a number of our 330 congregations provide food bank and clothing distribution centres in our local communities.

Given the recent discussions in Canada on the issue of marriage, the church has felt it necessary to make its views known. We've read the discussion paper and have the following recommendation to Parliament.

It is our recommendation that marriage not be redefined to give same-sex couples the legal capacity to marry, for a number of reasons, which we will outline.

The Seventh-Day Adventist position on marriage stems from the Bible being the authority with respect to its teachings, and we see marriage as a divine institution established in Eden and affirmed by Christ to be monogamous and heterosexual and a lifelong union of loving companionship between a man and a woman. I will not bother the committee with the whole theology of this but will move on to our concerns.

Over the last number of years, Canadian society and, indeed, western civilization have been called upon to re-evaluate the institution of marriage. Remonstrations have been made to the courts and legislatures to remove the historical privileges and understandings of marriage. For millennia, our civilization has understood marriage as that taught by the Christian faith. However, we are asked to reject our previously accepted norms and step out to embrace a reconfiguration of society's basic unit to include any two persons.

A number of individuals have argued that churches and religious people have no say in this matter. I will quote from a Bertha Wilson lecture of 2002, held at the University of Toronto, wherein Dr. Robert Wintemute stated:

Religious doctrines must be deemed absolutely irrelevant in determining the content of secular laws and human rights. A separation between law and religion is a defining principle of every liberal democracy. Without such a principle, there can be no freedom of conscience and religion, for the beliefs of the religious majority will be imposed on how they execute the law.

The Seventh-Day Adventist Church has always maintained and recognized that the God-given right of religious liberty is best maintained when church and state are indeed separate. We view government as God's agency to protect individual rights and conduct civil affairs. However, it is also our view that the church and its members have every right, as does any other citizen, to express their views on matters of public policy. In the end, government must decide what public policy will be the basis of legislation. The church can only express its view. It has no means of compulsion, nor does it desire means, even when its view is diametrically opposed to that of government.

¿ (0925)

Some have suggested that laws are solely the domain of the secular, but we disagree. All law is an expression of society's morality of right and wrong. Discussions on morality without the views of religious groups would hardly be enlightened. For this reason, of course, this committee has recognized that and has offered the opportunity for such groups as ours to be able to state our case. However, when it comes to laws, we're really imposing one view of morality over another. Especially is this so when we talk about a controversial subject such as the one we're discussing here today. The question really becomes for the committee, and for society as a whole: whose morality do we enforce?

The issue of same-sex marriage before Parliament is not akin to a money bill or a public works legislation; rather, it is a revolution of social norms. What is being asked is not merely to redefine an institution set in place by law, but rather, an institution that goes back to the beginning of human civilization.

Obviously the Constitution Act of 1867 didn't create marriage, but it did indeed recognize its existence. Parliament did not create it. The Constitution did not create it. The judiciary did not create it. It simply is.

This has been recognized in a number of famous English cases of which I'm sure this committee is now made well aware. We think of the Hyde case in England and the Corbett case in England. Also here in the Supreme Court of Canada, Justice LaForest, in the Egan case, wrote the following:

[Suffice it to say] marriage has from time immemorial been firmly grounded in our legal tradition, one that is itself a reflection of long-standing philosophical and 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. In this sense, marriage is by nature heterosexual.

It must be recognized that marriage is not a creation of positive law, rather it comes from the intuitive understanding within our civilization of the natural or moral law, an institution that predates our Canadian society, predates even Christianity itself, one that is defined as one man, one woman to the exclusion of all others.

One of our major concerns as a church is that of religious freedom. The impact of this social revolution upon religious communities must be recognized. The members of our clergy will need protection due to their being unable and unwilling to solemnize marriage of same-sex partners. Given the recent challenges by the gay rights community against church-run institutions, we are not at all comforted by the statements that they will not subsequently challenge the rights of churches and individual members to practise their beliefs without further harassment.

Can it be honestly said that the following religious freedoms will not be left in a precarious position as a result of the redefining of “marriage”: to refrain from solemnizing redefined marriages; the ability to continue to speak, teach, and write against same-sex relationships; and to maintain separate school systems without fear of the state imposing a new curriculum, requiring students to be “sensitized” or “endorse” same-sex relationships.

Consider this following statement from law professor Bruce MacDougall in a recent law review article, wherein he wrote:

Even children being raised in a particular religious tradition should not be exposed to ideology that excludes and refuses to accommodate homosexuality in their education. The state has an interest in all education of the young and the state ideals should prevail.

Should Canada redefine “marriage”, there can be no doubting that the religious freedom of those who disagree with Canada's new morality will be compromised. Already those of us who hold views different from the homosexual community are labelled with such terms as “heterosexist” or “homophobe”. Such language does not engender a spirit of goodwill; rather, it attacks those who view heterosexuality as the norm, putting them into a category akin to racists.

In concluding, those who disagree with society's current trend on this matter will face increasing pressure in the coming days to conform. Christianity, as a religion, has faced similar situations where it was at odds with a secular society demanding conformity. History has shown a continuum of principles that have motivated the Christian conscience to stand firm despite the waves of intellectual and social criticism. Among those is the authority of the words of Christ concerning the institution of marriage: “What therefore that God has joined together, let not man put asunder”.

For the Christian, marriage is a fundamental institution of society. As noted in the above court decisions of yesteryear, there existed a common understanding throughout Christendom, at least, of what marriage meant. Over the last half century, our country has collectively moved away from that understanding. It is indeed a grand experiment, and only time will tell whether this social institution will be in our collective best interests.

In the end, the Seventh-Day Adventist Church will continue to seek the freedom of its membership and its institutions to maintain their faith on this and other issues of morality.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

¿ (0930)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I now go to Nigel Flear and Steve Rawlinson, for 10 minutes.

Mr. Nigel Flear (As Individual): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the committee for inviting me to speak before you today.

Let me start by providing a brief background about me and why I wanted to address the committee.

My name is Nigel Flear, and beside me is my partner, Steve Rawlinson. We currently live in Ottawa. We are both graduates from the University of Waterloo with degrees in computer science. Currently I am studying at the University of Ottawa to become a high school teacher and Steve works in the private sector as a software developer.

Steve and I met five years ago at a social gathering on campus at the University of Waterloo and we have been a couple for the last four years. Because of school, we have only recently been able to live together in the same house consecutively for ten months. I should point out that this means we fall outside the Canadian legal definition of common law. We are engaged to each other and plan to get married, legal or not. At some point after that, we intend to start a family, just like most Canadians our age. I'm currently 24, and Steve is 26.

I'm a strong proponent of fairness and equity. I am pleased to speak on my behalf and on Steve's behalf before the committee on why same-sex couples should have the option of marriage.

First, I would like to look at the issue from a purely logical or legalistic perspective and then I'll look at the issue from a teacher's perspective.

I thought the discussion paper was very well written and pointed out some of the very interesting legal and technical consequences of each of the options being considered by the committee. After considering each of the options and how it would affect all Canadians, I am left to conclude that allowing same-sex marriage is the simplest solution.

I like the solution because it solves the problem once and for all. There would be no more court cases and no more parliamentary debates. I also like the solution because it doesn't change any procedures for opposite-sex couples. They can still get married religiously or civilly, just as they always have.

In changing the laws to reflect this new inclusion of same-sex couples, there would be very little overhead. Some legal documents would need to be reworded, but that would be a one-time task.

More important, allowing same-sex marriage would handily conform to the charter guarantees to gays and lesbians, the issue the courts are currently in the process of reviewing.

When it comes down to it, opening marriage to all Canadians would have very little impact on the average Canadian, but it would provide an important option to same-sex couples. In contrast, the other two options in the discussion paper sound downright complicated.

The option to preserve marriage as an opposite-sex institution clearly would result in further legal action by Canadians who believe in equality. This would end in years and years of court battles, and there is very little evidence to show the government would be successful. If the notwithstanding clause were enacted for the first time by Parliament, it would guarantee that this issue would return every five years.

In addition, the financial cost of maintaining this anti-gay position in the court and in government would fall on Canadians, the majority of whom are in fact in favour of equality for same-sex couples. When I think of this option before government, all I can think about is wasted money, wasted time, and wasted energy on a losing battle.

The third option, to get out of the business of marriage, is a very interesting idea but not very practical. I do not support it, because it's hard for me to support an option whose consequences are so far-reaching and hard to foresee. First, it would create international confusion. Second, it would drastically affect the current marriage practice for opposite-sex couples because they would no longer get a marriage licence. Finally, it would diminish the status of religions because their marriage ceremonies would be legally meaningless.

What concerns me most is that all these headaches would be blamed on the gay community. In short, it would be very spiteful of the community to advocate this option, which seems to punish everyone.

The other matter that could be implemented in any of the three scenarios is the idea of a domestic registry as a free alternative to marriage. Such a registry has become a popular idea in many international and provincial jurisdictions, but let's not be fooled to believe that a registry will somehow solve the equality guarantees of the charter. Creating a domestic registry does not solve the marriage problem, it simply sidesteps the issue.

I am not against a domestic registry, but I would prefer it be implemented after the government solves these charter obligations. Perhaps at that time the government could do a full study on non-conjugal relationships as the basis for such a registry. At this time I feel the government would be rightly wary of creating a new registry after the recent problems with the gun registry.

In conclusion, considering all the options from a technical perspective, I would urge the committee to keep the solution simple. The principal issue at hand is charter equality. The second issue is keeping the most number of Canadians happy. In my opinion, the path of least resistance would be to open marriage to any two persons regardless of sexual orientation.

¿ (0935)

I'd now like to look at the issue from a teacher's perspective.

On my second day as a student teacher at Greenbank Middle School two weeks ago, I heard one grade 8 student call another student--and I'll spell this and not say it--f-a-g-g-o-t, across the lunchroom. Later that day during recess, another student was writing, “Jimmy is gay” in big letters on a library computer screen. I can provide many more examples of anti-gay statements from my experience as a student teacher, if the committee is interested.

The plain truth is that being called “gay” continues to be the worst insult that can be hurled at a male student. I do not mean to single out the particular school and its students, but rather, to point out that homophobia is in every school and very quickly reaches every student. Clearly, teachers, parents, and the media must take some responsibility to reduce homophobia. My question, though, is what role does government play in perpetrating and also reducing homophobia?

There's no question that the government is in charge of marriage. Children know what marriage is. They also know that two men and two women can't be married. There's a strong implicit message that there is something really bad about gay people, otherwise why would the government be so interested in preventing them in getting married. The real problem is the conflicting message our government currently sends. On one hand, it says through the charter that discrimination against gays and lesbians is wrong. On the other hand, it says that gays and lesbians are somehow not deserving of equality and shouldn't be allowed to be married.

As a teacher, all I can do is promote equality in the face of this paradox in logic. The school can only go so far to prevent homophobic incidences, because our government, as a role model, in some ways says that it's okay to be anti-gay.

What is very much needed is some government leadership on the matter of gay marriage. The government dictates whether or not gays and lesbians are deserving of formal equality through laws. This clearly would not solve the problems in schools and society about homophobia, but it would go a long way towards demonstrating as a role model the majority belief that gays and lesbians are truly deserving of formal and actual equality.

At the end of this meeting, I will be presenting EGALE Canada with the signatures of my teacher-classmates, the overwhelming majority of whom support my position that as teachers we are believers in equality. The undersigned call on the government to allow same-sex marriage. I would like to point out that these signatures are of a diverse group of adults of many ages and ethnicities, yet who are by and large heterosexual. Steve and I will be adding our names to the petition to make sure there are at least two gay people on this petition.

I would like to call on the committee to think about a few things when considering marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex couples. First, what solution is simplest technically? That is, how can the committee best solve its charter guarantees to gays and lesbians while at the same time affecting the average Canadian the least? Also, which option would be the least expensive to administer?

Second, what sort of message does the government want to send to young Canadians about equality? How important is equality to the Canadian government? Are we partners, as teachers and politicians, in making Canada a better place for all Canadians and all families?

I ask the committee to think of the charter and, when you write your report on gay marriage, send a powerful statement to young Canadians that discrimination is not the Canadian way.

¿ (0940)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We'll go now to Mr. Toews for seven minutes.

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

I appreciate the presentations made by each of the witnesses. I might just want to indicate that I have to leave early, so it's not as a result of my not being interested in what has been said here today. In fact, I think there has been a number of very interesting comments and observations.

I noted Mr. Bussey's comment on his concern about possible attacks on Christian institutions. We've seen that in the legal system. We've seen it in the Trinity Western case. We've seen it in the Camp Arnes case in Manitoba. We've seen in the Ontario Catholic School Board case, where there's even a constitutional guarantee for the separation of that religious faith in Ontario. We've seen in the Vriend case. So we've seen that it's a legitimate concern and something that this committee needs to address.

I also note Mr. Flear's comments that we have to look for the most simplistic answer to this problem. I think unfortunately the answer is not very simple. I go to the presentation that Dr. Cere of McGill University made to this committee. I want to read a portion of it. It takes it not from a particularly religious point of view but more from an anthropological point of view. He states as follows:

Anthropologists alert us to the fact that communal institutions like marriage are not just functional mechanisms to fulfil individual needs...

He goes on to say that marriage has been the complex cultural site for heterosexual bonding. His view is that it is a unique institution for heterosexual bonding. He goes on:

A rich history and a complex heritage of symbols, myths, theologies, traditions, poetry, and art have clustered around the marital bond. Changing core features of marriage must impact the self-identity of those whose lives are shaped by this institution.

He alerts us to many of the writers and researchers, including prominent gay researchers, who state that this will impact on the institution of marriage and those who are presently in it. So it's not simply a matter of equality. Indeed, Canadian law is perhaps the only one that views this thus far as some kind of a rights-based issue. No other court in the world has seen it in that context.

At paragraph 12 of his paper, he says--and this is very important for our observations and indeed very important for the observations of a court:

The inability of current academic theories to recognize significant differences between forms of homosexual and heterosexual bonding, differences that generate very disparate social ecologies, should raise serious questions about the conceptual binders of these theories. Our courts and legislatures should resist pressure to build law on views and theories that may be new and fashionable, but still awaiting the tests of time and rigorous academic debate.

He's basically saying that these theories have not yet been tested in the academic world. He goes on:

This is particularly so when these new theories and perspectives seem so oddly out of step with core features of marriage pervasive throughout history and across cultures.

So essentially what he's telling this committee is that here is a case for caution, that we have to be very careful when we interfere with this core institution that many see as a particular institution for heterosexual bonding, and that by changing it in this manner, we are fundamentally changing the institution, not just for homosexual or gay people but also for heterosexual people.

I'm just wondering if any of the witnesses have comments on those observations by Dr. Cere.

¿ (0945)

The Chair: We have exhausted four and a half minutes of a seven-minute round, so you get two and a half minutes to split with six people.

Go, Ms. Cohen.

Ms. Joanne Cohen: Thank you.

Respectfully, sir, the fact that another professor has an opinion that has to do with evolutionary anthropology that limits marriage to heterosexuality does not, I don't believe, bind this particular committee.

With due respect to your concerns and those of other witnesses with respect to current legal developments in Canada, I would respectfully refer you to the long history in Canada that increasingly recognizes that homosexuality is not a crime since 1969 and is not a mental illness since 1973. Gays and lesbians have been accorded civil rights in Canada, since 1986 in Ontario. In many other jurisdictions, you can follow the debates in the United States, the Netherlands, and Belgium, for example.

Mr. Vic Toews: [Inaudible—Editor]

Ms. Joanne Cohen: If I may finish, Mr. Chair--

Mr. Vic Toews: Just a minute, Mr. Chair--

The Chair: Mr. Toews, she's answering the question.

Go ahead.

Ms. Joanne Cohen: I'm answering his question.

I would also respectfully refer the committee member to the many case law decisions of our own Supreme Court of Canada, since R. v. Big M Drug Mart, that have explicitly put a limit on the right of the state to impose on the religious freedoms of Canadians. The court has repeatedly found, in the very cases the member has cited, that the freedom to hold religious beliefs in this country is broader than the freedom to impose them in the public sphere, and that, as a result, our government, which must uphold the values of the Constitution and its equality rights provisions, is therefore duly bound, however unpopular an issue it may be, to extend equality protections to all Canadians, religious or not, opposed or not to this issue.

The Chair: Mr. Toews... [Inaudible—Editor] ...directly to the panel.

Mr. Vic Toews: Perhaps, then, I could direct it specifically to Mr. Bussey.

The point is not whether our courts recognize the equality of homosexuals. The point Mr. Bussey was raising, which I tried to raise...and I think, unfortunately, I might not have been clear in my direction. I thought the point the witness was trying to make was that there had been an attack on certain Christian institutions, and that was his concern. That's particularly what I was interested in.

Perhaps Mr. Bussey could elaborate on that.

Mr. Barry Bussey: I think of the Marc Hall case, for instance, where you do have those constitutional protections. Nevertheless, at least at the injunction stage, you saw a court that was willing to override even the constitutional protections given to the separate school system. That's obviously something we're very much concerned about as we look at our own institutions throughout the country. That is a concern for us.

Should the Parliament redefine marriage, we would see a greater pressure upon institutions and faith communities like ours that would be forced to constantly keep affirming their rights.

¿ (0950)

The Chair: Monsieur Marceau, for seven minutes.

I would remind members and the witnesses that seven minutes is to include both the question and the answers. If anybody wants to do follow-up, please consider that in your opening remarks.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): But this does not include your own remarks.

[English]

The Chair: Not a bit.

[Translation]

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

I want to thank all the witnesses for their presentations. First of all, I should tell you right away that I am not a theologian and that I will ask my questions with the greatest respect for your various religious beliefs.

Mrs. Cohen, I will begin by answering your three questions. You have asked how long you had to wait before becoming equals. You do not have to wait. You also asked how good you must be before you are equal. You have to be no better or worse than anybody else. Finally, to the question as to how we want to be remembered by history, I would answer that we hope to be remembered as people who were tolerant, open, generous and willing to accept diversity.

That being said, I would like to begin with Mr. Oosterman. Your presentation was largely based on your interpretation of the Bible. Of course, you have sitting next to you representatives of another denomination that has a different interpretation of the word of God. We also heard from the United Church, which has yet a different interpretation, whose approach is very different.

Why should we, as members of this committee, try to impose your definition and your interpretation of marriage on those other churches who came here advocating a different interpretation? In other words, why should we accept your definition rather than that of Rabbi Garten and Mrs. Cohen, for example?

[English]

Rev. William Oosterman: Very simply, words have meaning and the words are there: “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” Now, that's not open to interpretation. Once you begin interpreting it, then you change the meaning.

In our church circles when somebody says, that's your interpretation, they usually mean I don't like what it says and I'm going to change what it says and come up with another meaning. Words have meaning. To us, this is very clear. Once you start playing with the words and changing the meaning of the words, then you can come up with a different view.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Unless I am mistaking, Exodus 35:2 says that anyone who works on the day of Sabbath shall be put to death. Do you agree with that? It is very clear and not open to interpretation.

[English]

Rev. William Oosterman: That's a very interesting point. The Old Testament and the New Testament to Baptists are completely separate. Baptists are the first people who fought for freedom of religion; 10,000 people died in one province in Holland fighting for freedom of religion and separation of church and state. That was in the 1500s.

We believe the New Testament is our guide and our rule, not the Old Testament. There's an old agreement and covenant and a new agreement and covenant. The new agreement and covenant is Matthew through Revelation, and that's what binds us. So we don't go by those scriptures. The view of homosexuality as being wrong is repeated in the New Testament, but not the death penalty.

[Translation]

Ms. Joanne Cohen: Excuse me, may I say something?

[English]

Since the Roman era, rabbinic Judaism has explicitly repudiated the notion of a fundamentalist or a literalist reading and interpretation of scripture. That's why we have the Talmud. That's why we have generations of legal scholars in the Jewish faith who regard revelation as continuing and who continue to reinterpret, in light of historical change, the tradition for today. Now, that's our perspective.

But we explicitly reject the death penalty. We explicitly rejected polygamy over 1,000 years ago. And we are coming to recognize that the survival of our religious tradition and the survival of our communities requires, in the words of modern orthodoxy, rigour in law as well as scientific and knowledge excellence. Therefore, that is causing members of the Jewish faith to re-evaluate these issues.

I would also note particularly that history shows over too long that complicity with injustice is injustice. We know only too well the suffering of Jews and gays together in the Holocaust. We know only too well the history of the Crusades. We know only too well the fact that those who would impose a tyrannical, fundamentalist view of the Bible on social life would inevitably become tyrannical to various vulnerable members in our society.

Therefore, we urge our government not to participate in a tyrannical imposition of a religious monopoly on marriage such as discussed by the justice minister. We would note that the registered domestic partnership option is not portable. It would not be recognized across jurisdictions and therefore would not protect the religious freedom needs of our rabbis or other clergy in support of same-sex marriage. We would urge the government to remember that the status quo of injustice and inequality right now is simply insupportable as a religious matter of religious freedom and equality rights.

Thank you.

¿ (0955)

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you.

Mr. Oosterman, you are obviously totally opposed to same sex-marriage. If ever—and it seems that courts are heading into that direction—the Supreme Court decided it is unconstitutional to prevent same-sex couples to marry, would you support using the notwithstanding clause in order to uphold the so-called traditional definition of marriage?

[English]

Rev. William Oosterman: I would hope so, and as I've said in this paper, I think the legislative powers in our country are being usurped right now by the judges and by means of the charter.

When I grew up in the 1960s, this was called the legislature. It made the laws. In the last 10 years the laws are being overturned and reshaped not by Parliament but by judges. That has to stop.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Bussey, would you support using the notwithstanding clause if the court decided that same-sex couples could get married?

[English]

Mr. Barry Bussey: To be quite frank here, the way we would look at this whole situation is that it's up to Parliament, as it were, to go with whatever public policy initiative or legislation it wants to do.

From our perspective, we present our view and ultimately it's up to government to decide what it's going to do. That's in the realm of the state, and as a church, I'm not interested in saying, okay, you follow one course or action or whatever. But on a matter of the public policy of same-sex marriage, we've stated our position, that we're recommending it not be redefined.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson, seven minutes.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank the witnesses.

I'm not sure where to start. I was very moved by the evidence of Ms. Cohen in particular, and Nigel and Steve who spoke from a very personal perspective of the importance of equality.

I was reminded, as I listened to the eloquent words of Ms. Cohen, of a group that I met with some years ago--I don't know if its still active--called Chutzpah, which is a group of gay and lesbians who are active within the Jewish faith. They invited me to speak at a conference, and it was a remarkable experience. They gave me a book called Twice Blessed, which I would recommend to all members of the committee. It's a remarkable book about some of the challenges that gay and lesbian people face.

It's great to see Ms. Cohen and Rabbi Garten here as well.

I just wanted, in terms of Mr. Oosterman's evidence.... Oosterman, is that a Dutch background? I wonder whether you think that the Netherlands has become a laughingstock. In your words, you said that Canada would become a laughingstock if we were to accept the notion of gay marriage. Would you say the Netherlands has become a laughingstock?

À (1000)

Rev. William Oosterman: Well, it depends what community you're speaking from, not in your community but certainly in others.

Mr. Svend Robinson: From your perspective it has?

Rev. William Oosterman: Yes.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Okay.

You referred to the New Testament. Perhaps you could help me. Can you direct me to any words that Christ spoke in the New Testament on the subject of homosexuality?

Someone once said that they had a book on the teachings of Christ on homosexuality, and it was probably the smallest book in recorded history. Can you help me with that? Did Christ have anything to say on homosexuality specifically?

Rev. William Oosterman: The apostles spoke as they were moved by the holy spirit of Christ. So the claim is made by the apostles, and you can accept it or not, that every word that they wrote and that we have came from God, and that would be from Christ. So whether Paul says it or Christ says it makes no difference.

To add to that, to me it's not an issue of Baptist faith or Christian faith; it's an issue of societies and cultures. For all of recorded history, including the Greek societies and cultures, which were not Christian--they didn't read the New Testament, they didn't care what Christ said--they did not marry to men; they married men and women, and that's the way it was. I quoted some scripture, but it goes far beyond the scriptures and Christian faith. It reaches into every culture and society.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I appreciate that, but certainly Christ himself really didn't have anything to say on homosexuality. Paul certainly had a number of statements on a number of issues, including some interesting statements about the role of women in the church, if I'm not mistaken. And Timothy talked about how women should be silent; he had some interesting comments on the role of people with disabilities as well. I'm not sure if that's your philosophy as well.

Rev. William Oosterman: Paul was a radical feminist. He said men and women were equal in Christ, and that made him at that time a radical feminist.

Mr. Svend Robinson: And he said women should be silent as they approach the pulpit.

Rev. William Oosterman: Well, we don't allow people to disturb our services either, and that's what he was talking about.

Mr. Svend Robinson: You don't want women to disturb your services.

Rev. William Oosterman: Or men.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I see.

You made reference to a Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal decision, but with respect, I think you've overlooked an important element of that. You said that there was a penalty because people made references to the Bible in Saskatchewan.

Rev. William Oosterman: A $1,500 fine had to be paid by the newspaper and the man who put the ad in.

Mr. Svend Robinson: For making references to the Bible. Well, Mr. Oosterman, it wasn't just making references to the Bible, and I know you wouldn't want to leave an inaccurate impression with the committee. There were references to the Bible, but there was also a symbol beside the references to the Bible. Do you recall that symbol?

You forgot about the symbol. Do you want to share with the committee--

Rev. William Oosterman: I only had ten minutes, so my time was limited.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'll give you the chance now. What was the symbol, Mr. Oosterman?

Rev. William Oosterman: The ad was very clear. It was saying that homosexuality is wrong.

Mr. Svend Robinson: And what was the symbol?

Rev. William Oosterman: The common signal for “don't go down that street”, which is a red circle and a line through it: don't go that way.

Mr. Svend Robinson: It was the symbol to ban something, wasn't it? It was a symbol of a figure of two same-sex people, two men--

Rev. William Oosterman: It was the same one you see when it says “don't turn” or “don't go down that road”.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Exactly. And it said to ban these people, right? So it wasn't just religious text, it was a symbol saying to ban these people. And the evidence before the tribunal was that, in fact, particularly young people would interpret that as saying that gay people don't have the right to exist. That was the evidence before the tribunal.

Rev. William Oosterman: The judge took issue with the scriptures and said that the Bible was considered hate literature.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I know that, and that was the issue. It wasn't a reference to biblical text, it was the--

Rev. William Oosterman: Well, the judge disagreed. He said it was the scriptures.

Mr. Svend Robinson: It was the scriptures and the--

Rev. William Oosterman: In his ruling.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Well I've read the ruling and I'd be glad to share it with members of the committee, Mr. Chairman.

The ruling specifically referred to the fact that, had it been text alone, there would have been no problem. But when you have a symbol that says that gay people should be wiped out, the evidence was that perhaps that might have an adverse impact, particularly on young people who already are struggling with their sense of self-esteem and self-worth.

Mr. Bussey, are women allowed to be ministers in the Seventh-Day Adventist Church?

Mr. Barry Bussey: There is an ordained ministry and an un-ordained ministry. So there are women--we call them “commissioned ministers”--who will do chaplaincy work and those kinds of things.

Mr. Svend Robinson: But are they allowed to have the full status of male ministers?

Mr. Barry Bussey: No.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Has that ever been challenged before any human rights tribunal or court, to the best of your knowledge?

Mr. Barry Bussey: Not to date, it hasn't.

Mr. Svend Robinson: No, of course not. So why do you have any reason to believe that, in fact, that which is clearly discriminatory against women under the human rights legislation...? Why do you believe it is any more likely that your policies, which would be respected in the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, with respect to not celebrating gay marriages would be challenged any more than the policies of your church, or the Catholic Church, or any other church that excludes women?

À (1005)

Mr. Barry Bussey: I think we'd have to look at what's been developing in the last couple of years, where we're seeing some very serious challenges. Look at Trinity Western, the Marc Hall case and so on. It seems very evident that there is an increasing momentum, as it were, towards that realm, and obviously we're--

Mr. Svend Robinson: In Trinity Western the courts actually ruled in your favour, from your perspective. So that wasn't a problem.

As for the Marc Hall case, my recollection is that the issue there was that the school was publicly funded. Were it not publicly funded--and certainly the courts were very clear on that--there would be certain standards if you wanted to take public money. Marc Hall wanted to bring his boyfriend to the prom, and the courts said, in this particular circumstance, because you're a publicly funded institution, you've got to meet certain basic standards.

Mr. Barry Bussey: Right. I think, though, if you would--

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Robinson. I just want to signal that your time is up.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Bussey was just going to respond.

The Chair: Okay, he can answer.

Mr. Barry Bussey: On the Marc Hall case, the court made it very clear that even private institutions who were not receiving government money would have to be subject to the Ministry of Education on this issue of equality. The court made that very clear and made reference to the Trinity Western case.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. O'Brien, seven minutes.

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I've got three or four questions so I'm going to ask the witnesses if they could be succinct. I'll try to be succinct with the questions.

I'd first like to offer a couple of answers. Ms. Cohen asked how the committee would like to be remembered. I can't speak for the committee; I can only speak for myself, and I wouldn't presume that history would remember me at all, frankly. But if it did, I hope it would be as someone who respectfully heard the debate, but then followed his conscience and spoke up to defend marriage as it's currently defined. I feel very strongly on that point.

On Mr. Marceau's question to Mr. Oosterman, I think you gave a good answer. I'd like to answer it as an elected member of Parliament. I think the courts have been far too activist in some areas. And should they see fit to overrule what I hope would be a decision of Parliament to uphold the current definition of marriage, I would certainly, as a parliamentarian, be one of many, I hope, calling for the override provision in the charter to correct a bad judgment by a court.

I haven't heard from Rabbi Garten and I'd like to hear from him perhaps. Dr. Cere, a previous witness to the committee, raised some very interesting points. Mr. Toews has referenced some. I would like to reference that document too. He cites a lesbian theorist, Ladelle McWhorter, who said that if gay people:

are allowed to participate as gay people in the communities and institutions they [heterosexuals] claim as theirs, our presence will change those institutions and practices enough to undermine their preferred version of heterosexuality and, in turn, they themselves will not be the same.

We've heard from Ms. Cohen, Mr. Flear, and other witnesses before this committee that, after all, this is just not a big deal; just be nice people, be a nice committee, give us something that's not going to in any way affect society or gay or heterosexual people and their practices. Frankly, other witnesses have said it's just much more serious than that, and I tend to side with those people. And as I said, lesbian theorist McWhorter puts that very honestly and clearly.

I'd be interested in your views.

Rabbi Steven Garten (Spiritual Leader, Temple Israel (Ottawa), Coalition of Canadian Liberal Rabbis): Thank you for asking. I want to respond to it in two ways.

One, from my own personal congregational experience here in Ottawa, the congregation has slowly and with great pain become a congregation that welcomes gays and lesbians to the community of faith.

I think in the beginning the participation of openly gay and lesbian people challenged the members of Temple Israel to really confront their own understanding of what faith meant. Both parties in the congregation have changed. The members of the community have come to realize that there is no monopoly on truth, as much as they sometimes think there is. The members of the gay and lesbian community have come to understand that they bring to the community their own perspective on relationships, but in choosing to become part of a community, like every other member they, by definition, have to cede some individuality, that no community survives as a community with individuals proclaiming that they hold a total truth.

So to some degree the individual is correct that communities do change, but our experience is that the community is changed for the better. We have found that being more inclusive is, in fact, an enriching experience without causing us to give up some of the fundamental beliefs that we hold, and more importantly, from a religious community's perspective, we have had to quickly, but with great pain, try to understand what our basic premises are as a religious community.

À (1010)

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you very much for that answer.

It's refreshing to hear a witness say that the individual is correct. I cited Ms. McWhorter--I'm not even sure if it is Mr. or Ms., frankly--that the institution would change. You suggest it would change for the better. That's possible. I would beg to differ and express concern that the jury would be out on that and the risk is not one that I would be prepared to support taking. However, I appreciate your answer, sir.

William Eskridge, a leading researcher in this area, notes the similarity between the gay marriage project and the Mormon marriage project, which was to have a polygamist marriage. Serious researchers have made this link. I've asked two other witnesses this question and I want to ask it now of Reverend Oosterman.

Eskridge notes the similarity between the gay marriage project and the Mormon marriage project, and he argues that the legal and political condemnation of the Mormon marriage project was an unjust and repressive form of Kulturkampf similar to current exclusionary laws against homosexual unions.

Serious experts in this field are linking the two, the push by a small minority for so-called same-sex marriage and the push in the past for polygamist marriage, specifically by the Mormons.

I wonder if Reverend Oosterman would share with us his thoughts. Do you see, if this committee and this Parliament were to recommend the redefinition of marriage, any concerns that it would lead to further erosion of marriage as we now know it?

Rev. William Oosterman: That would be inevitable. Once you change it from the historic, basic man and woman relationship, you're going to have other people coming before the courts and asking why they can't have a marriage ceremony and why they can't be married. And they're not necessarily going to be homosexuals. They could be like Anne of Green Gables, in the fictitious setting, adoptive parents, brother and sister, saying, “We have a child and we'd like to be married. What we do is our own business, but we need to have the same recognition because we have a valid relationship. It's loving, it's caring.”

That's one example. There are many more. There will be others who come and say, “I'm a man. I'm supporting three women, or five women, and they love me and I love them.” They'll challenge the courts and demand equality, and because marriage is no longer confined to man and woman, the courts must and will recognize them. It's inevitable.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. O'Brien. Your time is up.

Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

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

Some of the witnesses here expressed support for same-sex marriage and others came down with the opposite view. I would like to ask this of all members of the panel : if the Committee decided to go with recognition of same sex-marriage, would you be comfortable if we recommended adding a provision similar to section 367 of the Civil Code of Quebec which says that a minister can never be compelled to celebrate a ceremony that is contrary to the principles or the dogma of his institution, religion, church, synagogue or mosque?

À (1015)

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Cohen.

Ms. Joanne Cohen: Yes, I'd like to respond to both questions.

As mentioned earlier, the issue before the committee is same-sex marriage. The question is one of harm, and the question is one of the government's right to impose either religious monopolies or compulsions. There are plenty of examples in Canada of certain religious practices that are no longer countenanced by law, and one of them is, say, female genital mutilation. So the question before the committee is the question of harm. If the committee is seriously interested in researching the question of polygamy and its effects on people, then I'd suggest that it strike another committee and that it send a task force to Bountiful, B.C., and Utah and do the research there.

We do have sociological studies. I would refer the committee, respectfully, to my colleague Professor Bonnie Fox, Department of Sociology, University of Toronto, an expert in the sociology of the family, who can cite, chapter and verse, sociological studies and psychological studies showing no negative effects on the well-being of children, families or communities as a result of same-sex families.

So if the question is not a red herring but rather a serious one, I would suggest that, as in section 367 of the Quebec Civil Code, or as in the case law of Canada, there should be no reason for governments to compel religious communities opposed to same-sex marriage to do so, and there should be no reason for governments to effectively forbid willing communities to provide same-sex marriages.

Just as a Jewish note, the question of polygamy was outlawed 1,000 years ago, and the Talmudic principle is that the law of the land is valid law.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

You have 20 seconds. Do you want to give it to Mr. Oosterman, Mr. Marceau?

Mr. Oosterman.

Rev. William Oosterman: If there's no harm and they've done all these studies, then why do they need to get married? There's already no harm. One of the big claims is that it stigmatizes the children and it's a problem, but we've already proven there's no harm. Great. Then they don't need to get married.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Now I'm going to Ms. Jennings, for three minutes.

[Translation]

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

Mr. Oosterman, maybe you dealt with this while I was away. I am sorry, but I had a call from the minister and I had to go back to my office.

Your reasons for proposing same-sex marriage are partly based on passages of the Bible.

Does it mean that your church is opposed, for example, to gender equality, despite legislation that affirms gender equality, since there are passages in the Bible that say women should be submissive to men?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Oosterman.

Rev. William Oosterman: Thank you.

The Baptist Church has a position that we follow the New Testament, whatever it says, as closely as possible. Right now our denomination is struggling through the issue of women as pastors, and the decision hasn't yet been made, but that's outside the realm of this committee.

Our concern is that it's not just theological. The Bible does make it clear for us that it's to be a man and a woman, but as I said in my submission, every society and all kinds of different religions for thousands and thousands of years have come to the same conclusion: marriage is between a man and woman, not between two of the same sex. It goes beyond the theology of simply one religion or one domination.

[Translation]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings : But your theological argument is based on passages in the Bible that say marriage is the union of a man and a woman. For this reason, you are opposed on theological grounds to the recognition of unions between same-sex people.

Is your church also opposed on theological grounds to gender equality within marriage? I am not talking equality in law here but equality within a marriage since there are places in the Bible that say a married woman should be submissive to her husband and that a non-married woman should be submissive to her father or, if the father is dead, to her brother, to the head of the family. I am asking the question because if you want your theological argument to be valid, you must also oppose gender equality.

À (1020)

[English]

Rev. William Oosterman: Definitely. Ephesians says that a man is to love his wife “as Christ also loved the Church”, which is an incredible sacrificial love, and if he loves his wife that way, there's not going to be a problem when the same passage says to the woman, “submit” to your husband. It's the selfishness of the husbands that leads to problems sometimes in terms of the submission, but we agree with that entirely, and it stands the test of time: divorces today, 70%, and children living in poverty. That wasn't the case when that passage was preached and was understood in our society for the last hundreds of years.

[Translation]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings : Are you asking the government to change those laws that establish gender equality? Since you ask the government not to change laws dealing with the definition of...

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Jennings, your time is up.

We'll have an answer and then go to Mr. Robinson.

Rev. William Oosterman: We believe in the freedom of individuals to live as they please. We've never said to homosexuals, you can't live together and do what you want. But we also believe in our freedom to follow the Bible as we see it, and that includes the passage about wives submitting to their husbands, so we will follow that passage. We're not going to ask the government to impose that on the rest of the country. That's not the Baptist way.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson, three minutes.

Mr. Svend Robinson: So you're not asking the government to impose the Baptist way with respect to the role of women, but you are asking the government to impose the Baptist way with respect to marriage.

Rev. William Oosterman: No, the normal way. That's every society in thousands of years. It has nothing to do even with the scripture passages. Go through history.

Mr. Svend Robinson: But you do want that imposed in law.

Rev. William Oosterman: It already is--

Mr. Svend Robinson: Right.

Rev. William Oosterman: --and I want that maintained. If you want to have a legal relationship so that you can save on income taxes, more power to you. I'm all for saving on income taxes, but don't call it marriage.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Right.

I just wanted to ask Rabbi Garten, could you clarify what the position is within your faith community around the possibility of being able to recognize and affirm same-sex marriages if this committee were to recommend it, which is not likely, or if, as is more likely, the courts were ultimately to rule that in fact marriage should be open to gay and lesbian people? I wonder if you could just indicate whether within the Jewish faith you would be able to actually celebrate marriages at your synagogue.

As you know, within a number of faith communities there's vigorous debate even around recognition of unions. In the Anglican Church, for example, Bishop Ingham in the diocese of New Westminster has taken a very courageous stand of saying, yes, he wants to allow those churches that choose to do so to be able to celebrate those relationships, but even that has given rise to a storm of controversy.

What's the position within the Jewish faith?

Rabbi Steven Garten: Thank you for asking.

I think members of the committee are aware that the Jewish community, like the Christian community, has a spectrum of beliefs. There are members of the Jewish community who are identified as Orthodox and who are opposed to the marriage of gays and lesbians. They tend also to be opposed to allowing women to have the title of rabbi or to in any way be seen as having an equality in the religious worship experience. As some of you know, in some of those Orthodox communities women are placed behind large curtains so that they don't impose their presence upon men who are praying.

However, in the majority of liberal communities, both in the United States and in Canada, which now make up probably about 70% of the Jewish community in North America, all of the various organizations have debated the question of same-sex marriage and same-sex clergy. Except for the Orthodox community, every community has now affirmed the right of gays and lesbians to serve in the capacity of leader of the worship service, to claim the title of rabbi or the title of cantor, the musical leader of the service.

In the Reform community, which is the largest community in North America, the rabbis, in gathering together a number of years ago, affirmed the right of individual rabbis to find that if the religious qualifications for marriage, known as Kiddushin--namely, a sacred monogamous relationship--existed, rabbis would have the right, should they so see fit, to stand under the wedding canopy, the huppah, and offer blessings upon that union, but that rabbis who still felt the need not to perform should feel that they were not compelled to do so.

À (1025)

Mr. Svend Robinson: Are there rabbis in the Netherlands who--

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'd just like to ask about the Netherlands, very briefly.

The Chair: I understand what you're asking and--

Rabbi Steven Garten: There are rabbis in North America who stand under the huppah with gay and lesbian couples.

The Chair: Ms. Fry.

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

I have questions for two people. One is for Rabbi Garten and the other is for Mr. Flear.

For the rabbi, given as you have said on page 3 of your brief, in point (c), “the choice of those with duly recognized religious and civil authority to marry couples of the same sex”, do you believe, based on freedom of religious choice under the charter, that you have that authority in Canada, and that to prohibit you from using that authority to marry same-sex couples is a direct infringement on our right of freedom of conscience and religion as guaranteed in paragraph 2(a) of the charter? You are suggesting that if we were not to allow this marriage, then we would be infringing on your right of religious freedoms. I just want to know what you feel about groups who are suggesting that in fact theirs is the right truth and therefore should infringe on your religious freedoms.

Rabbi Steven Garten: It is one of the great unfortunate dynamics of religion that we all claim to know God's ways. We have fought with each other for centuries, claiming that some of us had the monopoly on God's word, and my congregants would probably say that I claim that today. Nonetheless, I think we have learned over the course of time that it's dangerous for a society to believe that one religious perspective does have a monopoly.

We learned that when we outlawed slavery. Clearly the Bible talks about slavery. There were both Christians and Jews who felt that government had no right to outlaw slavery, because the sacred texts permitted it. We learned that when we dealt with the issue of race, because the Bible does seem to imply that one race has more legitimacy than another. We were agreed as communities, both south of the border and here, that this kind of opinion of truth with a capital T was not in the best interests.

It's our position that if there are members of the Jewish community, both rabbis and communities, who believe that the sanctification of relationships is valid as they understand the notion of Jewish weddings and Jewish marriage, they should have the right to do that, and it is an infringement on our religious perspective to say that for religious purposes we would not be allowed to do that.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Thank you very much, Rabbi.

Now for my question to Mr. Flear. You were talking about the hate in school, the discrimination that occurs for young people who are gay. I would like you to just move this one step further, to a child who has a gay parent. We know that there are now many children who have gay parents. Do you think that child will face bullying and huge discrimination in school if their father is gay or their mother is a lesbian? What is the impact on that child, on his or her sense of self-esteem, and the feeling about their own family? Will that child suddenly feel that their family is not valid?

Do you believe, therefore, that if the government should allow for same-sex marriages this would in fact validate that family and give that child a sense of strength within the community and a sense of self-esteem about their own families? Because it won't do, of course, to have a child feel that they would like not to be part of their family because their family in itself is not valid and is vilified. Do you think it would?

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Fry.

Mr. Flear.

Mr. Nigel Flear: I have looked at many children's books on the matter. It's important to give every family legitimacy, I think, and creating same-sex marriage as a viable option not only would give the students themselves a way to say, look, I don't deserve this discrimination, but it also would give the teachers and the whole school community the ability to say the same thing.

I do appreciate that you can't get rid of homophobia, and yes, kids will be teased whether they're gay or not. I don't believe, actually, that a lot of the victims of homophobia are even gay. In the cases I spoke of, they weren't even gay, as far as I can tell, but they were being teased.

Homophobia is legitimized by the government through the marriage prohibitions. Allowing it won't get rid of homophobia, but it certainly will give valid tools to teachers, to parents, and to children themselves over--

À (1030)

Ms. Hedy Fry: The best interests of the child.

Mr. Nigel Flear: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Cadman.

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

I have just a brief question and I put this to the whole panel.

We've heard a number of witnesses express confidence that should the committee or the government recognize same-sex unions, the courts would not come down on the side against religious institutions that refuse to marry a couple. Now, just because the courts are probably not going to come down on that side, can you assure people that there won't be challenges? My concern and their concern would be that they would be forced to spend enormous amounts of money defending themselves all the way up to and including the Supreme Court. So just because it's quite possible the courts may not decide against them, is that going to preclude challenges?

Ms. Joanne Cohen: I would like to respond to this as a legal scholar. I had the benefit of a wonderful lecture by internationally renowned legal scholar Professor Rob Wintemute, who was cited earlier in today's hearing, at University of Toronto Law School last spring. In his lecture Professor Wintemute explicitly distinguished between the public and private spheres in relation to contemporary case law in Canada and in the U.K. on same-sex rights.

The point is that case law decisions in Canada have repeatedly shown that where there is no public interest in managing the affairs of a private religious community, there is a veil, so to speak, between church and state. As Mr. Robinson aptly pointed out, insofar as these institutions do not receive public funding, they are free to act as they will to administer their affairs with respect to women, with respect to religious minorities, and with respect to others.

So there is no basis, to my knowledge as a scholar, in law to suggest that there would be any constitutional challenge. I, as a Jew, am not going to sue an Orthodox synagogue for not being willing to marry me, because I understand that it is a private institution. The same is true for every gay activist I've spoken to, for every scholar in this area I've spoken to, and every shred of case law suggests that we're right. There will be no compulsion because there is no basis in law to compel.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I'm not disagreeing with you. What I'm saying is, does that mean there still won't be challenges brought and taken all the way to the Supreme Court?

Ms. Joanne Cohen: That's right. There won't be any basis to bring them forward and to have the courts hear them. They'll be thrown out. Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Oosterman wants to answer. You have some time left, Chuck. Is that okay?

Mr. Oosterman.

Rev. William Oosterman: Why does the school in the prairies that hired a homosexual without knowing he was a homosexual have to pay damages? That was not a publicly funded school; it was a Christian school. It made its position clearly known. It hired a man that it didn't know was a homosexual. It was the Vriend case--I believe that was the name of the gentleman--and it was forced to pay damages. The courts have already decided.

Now, the other thing is that in law churches can be sued because they receive tax breaks. We're a registered charity. Now, that can either be taken away or we can be held accountable because we are receiving public money by means of tax breaks. So we are liable, we are vulnerable, and it will happen, no doubt.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Bussey, but very quickly, please. We're well over.

Mr. Barry Bussey: Yes, just on the Vriend case, I am sorry to disagree with you, but in that case it was really more an issue of the inclusion in the equal protection act. But I think really the point that would suggest we're on the same page is on the issue of the Marc Hall case, where the court very specifically said that even though a private institution was not receiving government money, it would still be subject to imposition with respect to issues of equality from the Minister of Education.

The Chair: Thank you.

I now go to Mr. McKay for three minutes.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): I wanted to reference the paper submitted by Ms. Cohen on page 3, where she says:

We regard Jewish values that affirm the inherent dignity, integrity and equality of human beings as having primacy over historically conditioned attributes based on biblical, rabbinic and medieval texts that condemn homosexuality as an abomination.

I'm assuming that you're referencing there some of the passages quoted by Mr. Oosterman.

We start out in scripture with the notion that the practice of homosexuality is an abomination. Prior to that, we look at Genesis 1 and 2, in the Jewish, Muslim and Christian religions, where God created woman in God's image and joined them to create one flesh. Marriage is rooted in the way that men and women are created, which makes it universal.

So over time in theological circles, particularly more liberal versions of Muslim, Jewish, and Christian teachings, we seem to have moved from the practice of homosexuality as an abomination to now an argument that it's an equivalency in relationship.

So, Rabbi Garten, can you share with the committee the evolution of that thinking and help me with how these two concepts live in the same universe? They appear to be diametrically opposed and, on the face of it, at least, irreconcilable.

À (1035)

Rabbi Steven Garten: That's probably true. I think it's fair to say that liberal religious traditions--and I would include my colleagues from some of the liberal Christian traditions--see scripture as an attempt to identify that which exists in scripture as an eternal word of God and that which seems to reflect a particular time period. It is a struggle continuously.

Most liberal religious traditions believe that when the first book of the Bible says that all are created in God's image, that reflects an eternal word of God; and when it talks about the stoning of recalcitrant children--which we may all believe in some way, but nonetheless--we don't see the stoning of recalcitrant children or the stoning of adulterers of either sex as God's word. We see it as a reflection of a particular time period and as a reflection of the writers of the sacred scripture trying to grapple, as best they could, in their own particular time with what they felt was God's word.

The writers of the sacred scripture probably meant it when they wrote “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”. Later, interpreters believe that God's word was not inherent in that exact phraseology, but that God's word was inherent in some kind of equalization of loss and that there should be some notion of parity. That's how we would understand it--not a rejection, not a change, but that each generation truly grapples with how to hear both the eternal and that which is limited by time.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Marceau.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Chairman, the first words I pronounced on the first round were to say that I am not a theologian. I get a feeling that by the end of our hearings I will be close to becoming one.

I would like to return to the basis for arguing against same-sex marriage. I have nothing against you, Mr. Oosterman, I am just trying to understand. One of the reasons put forward, not necessarily by you but by various other witnesses, is that homosexuality, as such, goes against the common good or is criminal in nature. This has been settled in the late 1960s and it is no longer the case.

A second argument was that homosexuality or same-sex marriage is contrary to religion. But this is not true. First of all, there are religions which do not have a problem with it and secondly, there is no basis—as Mrs. Cohen has clearly shown—to compel a church, including yours, to marry a same-sex couple. Therefore this is not a valid argument.

Thirdly, it is being said that the essence of marriage is of religious nature. This is what some people have argued but the fact that civil marriage exists takes away any validity from this argument, in my opinion.

So it is not contrary to the public good, it is not contrary to religion and if marriage is not a religious institution but rather a civil institution sanctioned by the laws of the state, could you sum up in one sentence why we should be opposed to same-sex marriage?

À (1040)

[English]

Rev. William Oosterman: I think it demeans and changes the understanding of marriage that people have. In marriage, kids grow up; they know there's a mother and a father. They produce children in some cases, in other cases they don't. But that's considered normal. It has been for thousands of years. Put two men together and call that marriage, and you have changed the meaning of thousands of years of usage, and that covers all religions and all societies, without any exception.

The Greeks did not marry their homosexual couples because they saw that was not marriage. They had no prejudice whatsoever in the Greek society against it. They fully agreed with that kind of behaviour, but they would not call them married because that demeaned and changed the definition of marriage.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: This will be my last question for the time being. Do you believe that marriage is such a fragile institution, under such attack that allowing same-sex people to marry would destroy the institution?

[English]

Rev. William Oosterman: I think it's already been impacted by divorce and by common-law relationships. Someone can say common-law relationships do not impact marriage; they have. They've had a devastating impact on marriage. The divorce rate is high and children are living in poverty. All this is evolving as we speak. This is going to make it even worse. If they want to have tax breaks, call them partners, give them some other name. Do not call them married. That is what we are asking for.

The Chair: Mr. Macklin.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): Thank you.

I'd like to take a slightly different approach and look at this from the point of view of religious freedom. If marriages are viewed differently by different religions--and I direct this to the religious leaders before us--where do you believe the state should fit into the religious freedom puzzle? I'm looking specifically, for example, at consanguinity; in other words, who can, in the eyes of the state, marry each other. Where do you think that limitation ought to be by the state and where do you believe the religious institutions should have the freedom to make that choice?

The Chair: Ms. Cohen.

Ms. Joanne Cohen: Respectfully, we support the division between church and state, or synagogue and state, as the case may be. We expect that government has an interest, as it always has, in ensuring a universal, portable, and accessible access to marriage without undue impediments of law, as are faced right now by gays and lesbians in Canada, who have to get powers of attorney and other such protections to protect their relationships.

With respect to religious freedom, we expect the government to be no more involved than is absolutely necessary, as it is right now, to ensure that religious leaders of various denominations are empowered to provide legally binding marriages, civilly and religiously, in Canadian law. The only difference here would be the addition of the provision for same-sex marriages.

As we indicate in our submission, there is nothing at law in Canadian federal law to prevent same-sex marriage. Any two people may marry. If the government wishes to ensure that some of the specious arguments not be accounted for by prohibiting consanguinity, or a mother and her son, or various other prohibited relationships, or prohibiting polygamy, we have no objection to that. The only thing we're asking for is the opportunity to have due religious freedom to provide legally and religiously binding same-sex marriages without compelling those opposed.

Thank you.

The Chair: We'll put it to the panel. Mr. Oosterman.

Mr. Barry Bussey: I'd just like to say that the issue really comes down--

The Chair: Just to point out, the answer is coming from Mr. Bussey. I said Mr. Oosterman, but this is just for the record. Go ahead. I just wanted to make sure it was understood who it was.

À (1045)

Mr. Barry Bussey: Obviously, I do not envy your position. I think you have quite an onerous task in this whole matter.

However, the way I see it for government is in trying to balance all these various concerns. From our perspective, you look at the broad stream, the sociological and anthropological. Several references have been mentioned to Daniel Cere, who I think has made tremendous arguments in his paper. You look at all those items, and at the end of the day, government has to balance the various interests.

The question that always comes to my mind, at least, is where do you draw the line? Where's the line to be drawn? That's where I would suggest you look at all the evidence. We argue from a religious perspective. Our views are set. It's up to you as government to take into balance the religious, the sociological, the anthropological and just try to make a decision that best fits the needs of society at large.

We will always maintain our desire for religious freedom on this issue, as do the other members here, even though we are obviously on different sides of the table on the issue. It's not an easy matter and it's certainly something with which society is now struggling.

I'm sorry I can't be very helpful, but it's a matter of drawing the line and making it on the best possible evidence available.

The Chair: Thank you.

I'm going to go to Mr. Robinson. We have 12 minutes and we have two or three left. I'm sure everyone will have a chance to get in.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to follow up on what my colleague Ms. Jennings touched on: some of the issues with respect to the whole question of the imposition of traditional biblical teachings and actually translating them into law.

Mr. Oosterman, you've referred to the New Testament and to the apostles and, of course, Paul. Paul had some very interesting things to say about slavery as well. Are you familiar with them?

Rev. William Oosterman: [Inaudible—Editor].

Mr. Svend Robinson: And you presumably would argue that Christ's teachings, as reflected through Paul, should be translated into law, just as you're suggesting that the teachings with respect to homosexuality should be translated into law.

Rev. William Oosterman: Paul never taught that slavery was right. He taught that it was right to respect people who are in authority over you, whether that is your owner or your employer or the government. He did not at any point say that slavery is right. He did say to people in that state, be respectful. I think that in terms of our society we weaken our society when we weaken families and the family basis of our society.

Mr. Svend Robinson: So in terms of the definition of marriage, you talked about divorce as being one of the elements that have weakened marriage, I believe. I think--

Rev. William Oosterman: Easy divorce. Not just divorce, but easy divorce.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Easy divorce. Well, can you maybe help me, then, in terms of the position that the Baptist Church took with respect to the changes in the law that occurred, I think, in the latter part of the 1960s with respect to divorce? I assume you opposed those changes as well, did you?

Rev. William Oosterman: I was riding a bicycle back then. I--

Mr. Svend Robinson: Not you personally, but the Baptist Church.

Rev. William Oosterman: I'm not sure what they were doing at that time. I think if we look back we can probably find some resolutions.

I would say this. I read in the newspapers regularly about children living in poverty in Canada and how terrible that is, but at the same time it's acknowledged that this is a result of divorce. When there was not an easy one-year divorce--“I'm getting out of this”--the divorce rates were a fraction of what they are now. Nobody wants children to live in poverty, but nobody wants to go back and deal with the divorce issue either, and that's where it's coming from.

Mr. Svend Robinson: My last will be just a question, or comment. When you talk about the thousands of years of tradition of marriage, are you aware, and certainly here in the context of Canada, of the fact that within many first nations communities that is historically quite inaccurate and that in fact a number of first nations communities, such as the Ojibway and a number of others, did accept as full equals same-sex spouses within their communities? So your history is perhaps a bit inaccurate, at least when it comes to this particular part of the world.

À (1050)

Rev. William Oosterman: There are going to be exceptions to every rule. I think if you look at the broad-based history of the cultures around the world, that would be an exception to the rule.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Before I go to Mr. O'Brien, I know there are people who have to be somewhere else at 11, and while we still have quorum, this is just going to take a minute, I think. I beg the indulgence of the panel.

You will recall that we decided to travel on this subject. I'm sure that witnesses would want this to be an expansive exercise in debate, so I'm sure you'll understand why we would want to do that. As you'll recall, we agreed on 11 sites, but the original intention was that it would happen in January and February. For reasons beyond our control, that didn't happen in January and it isn't happening in February, so I would like to put a motion around travel that I can take to the Liaison Committee on Thursday. I'd like to do it today, if you don't mind. We have a quorum.

Here's the motion. If there's a debate, I'll put it tomorrow. If there's no debate, we'll have it done now. The motion is that 11 members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights be authorized to travel to Vancouver, Edmonton, Moose Jaw, Steinbach, Halifax, Sussex, Sudbury, Toronto, Iqaluit, Montreal and Rimouski.

These are all locations that we decided on before. The only difference is the timing.

Do I have a motion to that effect? Mr. Lee. Is there any requirement for debate? So moved by Mr. Lee. Do we have a consensus?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you. I'll take that to liaison on Thursday.

Next is Mr. O'Brien. I thank you very much for your--

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, there was just one other very brief procedural point. That's just to advise members of the committee that next Tuesday afternoon, I believe, the committee will be hearing evidence with respect to my private member's bill, Bill C-250, on the inclusion of sexual orientation in the hate propaganda law.

The Chair: I appreciate that, Mr. Robinson. I have a tendency to wish to make those announcements myself, but under the circumstances....

Mr. O'Brien, please, for three minutes.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I have no commercial announcements, Mr. Chairman. I just will say that I view these hearings as very important. We're looking at the advisability of changing the definition of marriage as we now know it, and in my view it would be incredibly irresponsible not to look at all the possible ramifications of such a decision, including the possible--and that's the only word I've ever used, “possible”--call for polygamous relationships to be considered as marriage. It would be incredibly irresponsible not to probe those possible ramifications. I intend to do so as an elected member of Parliament.

To do that, I'd like to ask a question of Mr. Bussey. Dr. Cere, in the conclusion of what I consider an excellent paper, says this:

Canadians should work together for a society that treats all persons, whatever their sexual orientation, with profound dignity and respect. However, upholding dignity and respect for gays and lesbians does not require assent to demands for the reconstruction of an institution fundamental to heterosexual bonding and critical to the social ecology of the human life.

Could you give me a brief reaction to that comment?

Mr. Barry Bussey: From our perspective, I see this whole marriage issue as an issue of definition. Marriage, by its very definition, is heterosexual.

I think we have to look at what's happening in Canada as far as a multicultural society, a pluralistic society, goes. Any time you have a definition that's going to bring about distinctions, it's going to bring about differences of how you interpret. The heterosexual community has had marriage as its focal point. There's no reason why the homosexual community could not have another institution as its focal point. My view would be that a multicultural or pluralistic view would have the understanding that you can have differences in the same society.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you very much.

My last question, Mr. Chairman, is to Mr. Flear. I too am a teacher, of almost 22 years. I just think it's very important to point out that the teachers now have not only the tools but the responsibility to deal with any form of bullying whatsoever. It's ironic, as you say, this teasing and calling people gay; I'm aware of that too, and it was to people who were certainly not gay. But it has to be dealt with. These teachers have that responsibility and those tools now.

Did I hear you correctly when you were saying that if this committee and this Parliament don't change the definition of marriage we're somehow legitimizing homophobia? I hope not, because I certainly don't agree with that. A previous witness indicated that she was concerned her children might be teased because they would be coming from a family with two mothers. Could you help me understand how changing the definition of marriage would change the reality for her children that they would be coming from a family with two mothers?

I want to hear from Mr. Flear, please, on that.

À (1055)

Mr. Nigel Flear: Certainly. There are going to be gay families. You can't really stop that. You can't stop a lot of things that happen in society. I think that government's role is really to take into account the wide variety of families in this case.

I do certainly agree that teachers have a very important role in dealing with homophobia and other forms of discrimination. It's in the law, in fact, and as teachers we are very well trained in our responsibilities in that matter. I have tried to deal with those issues in the most dignified and respectful way as they have come up with those students. A lot of the time, it's really out of ignorance.

I believe what I said--and you have repeated it--is correct. My concern is that it is a little bit of a double standard to say that gays and lesbians should have equality and yet deny them the equality of marriage, which I see as a very fundamental denial of the rights of that community and of individuals to do what they want to do.

As for bullying, I think I said that already. It's not going to stop bullying. I think it will only help the situation if gay couples have the option of marriage. I don't think that leaving it as it is will make the situation better for families that are gay and that have gay children at this point. Allowing gay marriage would improve the situation. It wouldn't make it worse.

The Chair: Ms. Fry, we have less than a minute.

Ms. Hedy Fry: I just wanted to go to the sense of family. I just wanted to quickly read something to you:

...the family provides a stable environment and is the best place in which to raise children and to educate future generations. Marriage ensures the psychological and emotional stability that is so essential for children.

Do you agree with that, Mr. Oosterman?

Rev. William Oosterman: Yes--

Ms. Hedy Fry: That was said by the Catholic Church as presented to us last week. Therefore, if we're to think of the best interests of the children and the stability of families, would it not make sense to allow the children of gay parents that sense that marriage therefore provides that stable environment and ensures psychological and emotional stability, as so well defined here by the Catholic Church?

Rev. William Oosterman: It won't ensure anything, because married couples, men and women, get divorced and the kids are left on the street. That's going to happen in the case of homosexual couples as well. The marriage will not change anything with respect to stability. That requires love and commitment, and that can be found in and outside of a marriage relationship.

Ms. Hedy Fry: So you--

The Chair: Ms. Fry, there's a group coming in at 11 a.m.

I want to thank members of the committee. I want to thank the panel for helping us out today.

The meeting is adjourned.