JUST Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, March 20, 2003

¿

0910

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

Mr. W. André Lafrance (As Individual)

¿

0915

¿

0920

The Chair

Mr. Jeremy Dias (As Individual)

¿

0925

¿

0930

The Chair

Mr. Peter Wadeck (As Individual)

¿

0935

¿

0940

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance)

¿

0945

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. W. André Lafrance

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. W. André Lafrance

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Jeremy Dias

¿

0950

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Jeremy Dias

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Jeremy Dias

The Chair

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

Mr. W. André Lafrance

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. W. André Lafrance

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. W. André Lafrance

¿

0955

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. W. André Lafrance

The Chair

Mr. W. André Lafrance

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. W. André Lafrance

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. W. André Lafrance

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. W. André Lafrance

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. W. André Lafrance

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. W. André Lafrance

À

1000

The Chair

Mr. W. André Lafrance

The Chair

Mr. W. André Lafrance

The Chair

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

Mr. Jeremy Dias

Mr. Pat O'Brien

À

1005

Mr. Jeremy Dias

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Mr. Jeremy Dias

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Mr. Jeremy Dias

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Mr. W. André Lafrance

The Chair

Mr. Jeremy Dias

À

1010

Mr. Jeremy Dias

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Jeremy Dias

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Jeremy Dias

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Jeremy Dias

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Jeremy Dias

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.)

À

1015

Mr. Peter Wadeck

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Peter Wadeck

The Chair

Mr. Peter Wadeck

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

À

1020

Mr. Peter Wadeck

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Peter Wadeck

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Peter Wadeck

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.)

À

1025

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Jeremy Dias

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance)

À

1030

Mr. Jeremy Dias

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Mr. Jeremy Dias

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Mr. Jeremy Dias

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Mr. Peter Wadeck

À

1035

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Jeremy Dias

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Jeremy Dias

À

1040

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Jeremy Dias

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Jeremy Dias

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

À

1045

Mr. Jeremy Dias

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Jeremy Dias

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Jeremy Dias

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Jeremy Dias

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Jeremy Dias

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Jeremy Dias

The Chair

Mr. Jeremy Dias

Mr. Pat O'Brien

À

1050

Mr. Peter Wadeck

The Chair

Mr. Jeremy Dias

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Mr. Jeremy Dias

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Mr. Jeremy Dias

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Mr. Jeremy Dias

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Mr. Jeremy Dias

À

1055

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Mr. Jeremy Dias

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Mr. Jeremy Dias

The Chair

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

Mr. Jeremy Dias

The Chair

Á

1100

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

The Clerk of Committee (Mr. Patrice Martin)

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

---

NUMBER 026

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, March 20, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿  (0910)  

[English]

    The Chair (Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): I'd like to call to order the 26th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we're undertaking a study on marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions.

    We had scheduled three witnesses for today, but I would assume that the weather has had an effect on one of them. We haven't heard that Mr. Wadeck isn't coming.

    But we do have the pleasure of the company of Monsieur André Lafrance and Jeremy Dias as witnesses. I suspect that most members would recognize both as having been seated in the gallery throughout most of these hearings.

    Without further ado, I'm going to go first to Monsieur Lafrance for 10 minutes.

    Mr. W. André Lafrance (As Individual): Good morning.

    I would first like to express to the members of this committee my sincere thanks for having been allowed to share with you my views on an issue that I consider to be of vital importance for the well-being of my fellow citizens.

    As much as I would have liked to provide you with one, I have no brief to submit to you, for the simple reason that I was informed of the date on which I would be making my presentation exactly one week ago, a fact that obviously didn't leave me enough time to come up with a properly researched and written brief.

    I have with me copies of various texts, which I will be referring to in the course of my presentation. This material will be available at the end of this session to anyone who might be interested in it. There are three bundles. One deals with the notion of right and wrong and is in fact an attempt to answer the question, what's moral? This question was directed to one intervener by Mr. Nystrom during a previous session. This bundle also contains a list of recommended reading on the topic of sexuality. Another bundle deals with the adverse health effects of homosexual behaviour, and the third is a collection of columns by various journalists on topics relating to the matter under consideration by your committee.

    I will now present myself. My name is André Lafrance. I'm a medical doctor, more specifically a dermatologist, with certification as a fellow from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and as a diplomat of the American Board of Dermatology. I've been married to the same wonderful woman for 42 years. We have five grown children and four grandchildren, who are our greatest source of joy. For those of you who would like to know more about my personal background, there is more detailed information in the first of the previously mentioned bundles.

    As an introduction to my presentation, I've chosen to submit for your consideration some propositions of a general nature, which hopefully we can all agree on. The first is that a rational and useful debate on any issue demands that there be a clear understanding of the meaning of the words used in the debate and whether the reality is conveyed by these words.

    The second is that happiness is the most profound aspiration of human beings and that it consists of a state of optimal physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being.

    The third is that anything that contributes to the well-being of human beings can be considered as desirable and therefore good, and, conversely, that things that affect adversely the well-being of human beings must be viewed as undesirable and therefore bad.

    The fourth is that in the conduct of public affairs the government must always promote and strive to achieve what is good and desirable and oppose what is bad and undesirable for the people who elect them. This is undoubtedly what Thomas Jefferson, a founding father of the United States of America, had in mind when he said “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.”

    The fifth is that if democracy is really what it is claimed to be, namely, government of the people, for the people, and by the people, decisions about the sorts of issues your committee is presently studying must be made by the people, either directly by referendum or at the very least indirectly by the persons Canadians elect to represent them, but certainly not in any case by unelected and unaccountable judges.

    The question that your committee has been mandated to study is the following: should same-sex relationships be granted the legal status of marriage? To this question Justice Pitfield of the British Columbia Supreme Court in October 2000 answered no. Two other courts, one in Ontario in August of last year and the other in Quebec the following month, answered yes, with the result that all three rulings have been appealed to the Supreme Court.

    In support of his ruling Justice Pitfield stated that the present federal law indeed discriminates against same-sex couples. But then he wrote “The gain to society from the preservation of the deep-rooted and fundamental legal institution of opposite-sex marriage outweighs the detrimental effect of the law on the petitioners.” In other words, Justice Pitfield ruled that marital discrimination against same-sex couples is reasonable and justified, and therefore by virtue of section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not infringe upon the equality rights of the petitioners.

¿  (0915)  

    Justice Pitfield also made two most important points. First, and these are his words, “Same-sex and opposite-sex relationships are, at their core, demonstrably different.” The other point was that major changes to the marriage rule are a matter to be settled by politicians, not judges. He actually wrote this:

The fact that marriage and divorce are specific matters assigned to Parliament by the Constitution Act, 1867 attests to the importance of marriage in our society and suggests that a change to accommodate gay and lesbian relationships should be made by the Parliament or provincial legislatures, if a change is to be made at all.

A change of the nature proposed would create new issues of social and community concern.

    I submit to you that Justice Pitfield's ruling constitutes the correct answer to the question your committee is studying. My reason for saying so is that what homosexual individuals and groups view as discriminatory is in certain cases not only justified but made necessary for the sake of the public good.

    Let me explain, and now I'll go into ad lib. You all know about blood transfusions. You also know, I presume, that the Canadian Blood Services, the successor to the Red Cross, does not accept homosexuals, and this they resent. Every fall for many years on all Canadian campuses, students would wage a campaign for homosexuals to be allowed to give blood.

    Now, if the Canadian Blood Services knows one thing, they know in what sort of trouble the Red Cross ended with the scandal of tainted blood. They know that the giving of blood by homosexuals would be a major threat to public health, and that is why they've refused and still refuse blood from men who have sex with men, as they call them. They refuse homosexuals and they refuse anyone who may in the near or distant future have anything to do with homosexuals because they know--and that brings me to the main point of my presentation--that homosexual behaviour is unnatural, unhealthy--and this is the point I will insist on--and immoral.

    The other point I will make after that is that no such behaviour must be validated in any way, shape, or form. Granting the legal status of marriage to same-sex unions would be the ultimate validation of homosexual behaviour and lifestyle, and therefore same-sex unions must not be granted the legal status of marriage.

    If time permits, I will explain why the push for same-sex marriage has really nothing to do with the notions of equality or discrimination but everything to do with finally achieving what has been from the very beginning the goal of the homosexual movement. That is the acceptance of homosexual acts as a normal variant of human behaviour and of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle.

    Now I'll go straight to what I consider the most important point. You can ask me questions during the question period about what I don't have time to cover. What I basically want to say is, go back to the three points: homosexual behaviour is unnatural, unhealthy, and immoral.

    Unnatural. That is so obvious to me that I won't even take time to deal with it. If you have questions, I will make a demonstration based on physiological and anatomical considerations to convince you of that.

    It is unhealthy. I don't have much time, and again, I hope someone will question me on that and give me the opportunity to prove it.

    And it is immoral. Again, I'm willing to debate that. You will say that morality is a question of personal choice. I don't agree with that, and that's why I took the trouble to write a fairly long monograph in answer to Mr. Nystrom, who asked, what's moral? I have a very definite view on what “moral” means, and one of the things in the bundle I have here is on the notions of right and wrong. This is fundamental. An issue such as the one you are considering must not be considered from a strictly legalistic perspective. What is important in life--and that goes for everything--is whether a thing should be done. It's whether it's right or wrong, and I end on that.

    Thank you.

¿  (0920)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much. You have perfect timing.

    Mr. Dias, you have ten minutes.

    Mr. Jeremy Dias (As Individual): Thank you, Mr. Scott.

    I am a student at Ottawa University, and I'm taking honours psychology and a concentration in political science. Most of you already know me.

    I've created a brief called “A Youth's Argument”, and basically it takes into account the youth perspective.

    Je m'excuse. It wasn't translated in time, so there are no copies of the brief, but it will be available for you after.

    I'm just going to read the quotes on the cover because that's important. They're by Dr. Shelly Rabinovitch from Ottawa University:

A person does not love another's eyes, or nose, or small feet. A person does not love another's hair colour or texture. A person loves all of a person--wrinkles and freckles, body and soul. How dare we legislate that a heterosexual soul has privilege while a homosexual soul does not.

[Translation]

Love is like a very precious jewel. A jewel has many faces and people have many faces as well: heterosexual faces and homosexual faces. But a jewel is complete only when all the facets are united.

[English]

    I conducted a study at Ottawa University that examined the youth perspective, based on what you are doing here today. The essence of my study was to find out what youth thought and what youth would do if they were in your shoes. Which of the four options would they pick?

    An overwhelming number, 74.3%, of Canadian youth supported same-sex marriage. Only 8.9% of them were in favour of not allowing same-sex marriage, 12.9% of them wanted a second institution for same-sex couples, and 4% of them wanted civil marriage eliminated to allow for religious marriage.

    I think it's important to note that of those studied in the survey, 95.3% were heterosexuals and only 4.7% were not heterosexuals. A breakdown is still available in the study. This information is important because it recognizes growing trends throughout our culture.

    I'm going to deal with the topic of the unnaturalness of homosexuality because that's really irking me. It's also in the argument. If the argument is that homosexuality is unnatural because it does not lead to procreation, then acts that do not lead to procreation are unnatural, such as oral sex, masturbation, people who don't have sex, people who have sex after menopause, and people who don't have sex after menopause. This argument, although valid, is still unsound, making it an illogical argument.

    Other arguments that have been presented before this committee include polyamory, which is an important argument to consider. If we allow same-sex marriage, there is the possibility that polyamory will be brought into the public spectrum. However, it is important to consider that polyamory and same-sex marriage do not stand on the same weighting.

    Although previously considered immoral, criminal, and a psychiatric disorder, homosexuality is now considered to be a genetic sexual orientation, by the American Psychiatric Institute and most reputable psychologists and professionals within the medical community here in North America and in Europe.

    It's important to note that polygamy, on the other hand, is still considered taboo, immoral, and criminal in North American thinking, and therefore has not enough similarity to be judged and weighted in regard to this. Furthermore, there are no advocates for polygamy in Canada, and this shows there is no serious desire for Canadians to change their arguments.

    I'm going to get to that in a second. I know what you're thinking.

    Based on Netherlands research and sociological perspectives, there is no evidence that after permitting same-sex marriage anyone will advocate for polyamory. On that note, it is important to recognize that about five years ago there was a three-way marriage on Parliament Hill. However, I have researched that and it was done purely as a farce. It was not done to make a political statement at all, and that should be noted before this committee.

    I would also like to present a couple of other arguments that youth find important. One of these arguments is religion. Although the argument is “My religion says that same-sex couples should not marry”, that would be a valid argument for anybody, because when saying that, one often implies that this majority of people say this is unacceptable by that group of people.

    This argument is sound and valid only if that group of people believe it to be so. It is impossible for anyone to gauge what a congregation or group of people who worship decide, feel, or believe, based on what a religious or spiritual authority says. To find out that information to make a valid argument, it's better to look at polls and research data.

    Furthermore, an argument was brought up by several students asking, “What about religions that want to marry same-sex couples? Do they not deserve the right to do so under the charter?” I haven't researched that, but I bring that question to you now.

    Probably my strongest argument is the matter of love. In the survey, one of the questions that was asked of youth was, “If you could describe marriage in any way, or if you could find a reason to marry, please write it on the survey”. The single most common answer was love. Whether you're heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transgender, or other, you believe in love.

¿  (0925)  

    People no longer define marriage in terms of sex or procreation in marriage. The youth of today are recognizing that marriage is accompanied with, and only with, love. Other words that came up that were relatively common were “union”, “forever”, and “companionship”. It definitely shows a youth trend and a trend that tends to be sweeping the nation.

    I'd like to take this opportunity now to also go to an anthropological perspective. I'm not quite sure if you all know, but in the Ojibway community and other first nations groups, as well as tribes in India, they have performed same-sex marriages for centuries. So based on that data, it is important to recognize that marriage is not an opposite-sex only institution. This is important, because when you're deciding today, you have to realize that you're not redefining marriage. You're not bending or shaping what marriage is. You're only adding some legal extras to what it truly is and recognizing it fully for what it is.

    I'd also like to recognize some sociological research and psychological research. I'm not quite sure how many of you are familiar with in and out groups, but on this basis, when there's a group of people who can get married and a group of people who can't, you have in and out groups--people who are within the group who can get married and people who are outside of the group who can't. This has created strong discrimination within Canada. People recognize that those people are discriminated against by the government and are in the out group and therefore it is acceptable to discriminate against them. This discrimination has caused low self-esteem and higher suicide rates in, and violence toward, the gay and lesbian community.

    When you're considering same-sex marriages, it is important to recognize what will happen if you don't legislate in favour of same-sex marriage and also what legislation against same-sex marriage has allowed to happen over time.

    Also, I'd like to bring to the attention of the committee that almost a decade ago the government decided whether or not they should decriminalize homosexuality, and whether removing homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder was a dangerous thing to do, because the incorporation of homosexuals into the community would negatively and adversely affect the youth, which was me at the time. I'm part of that generation, and ten years later I'm here.

    The youth of Canada are fine, we're stronger, and we have a different opinion. We would like to present this opinion to you and we'd like you to hear our voice. It is important to recognize youth, as we are in higher numbers in the present adult population of today and within a few generations we'll be taking over--for lack of better words--Canada. We'd like to present this brief to you, and I'd like to present this brief to you, on behalf of the majority of youth and the Canadian youth argument.

    On a final note, I want you all to know that I'm not here just because I feel that this is a crazy and important issue and I have to say my piece. On the contrary, I'm here because I'd like to present a different opinion that has yet to be heard before the committee, and I'd appreciate it if you'd ask me any questions to help you understand a more youthful perspective, as the youth of Canada should be heard in this debate.

    Thank you very much.

¿  (0930)  

    The Chair: Mr. Wadeck, you have 10 minutes.

    Mr. Peter Wadeck (As Individual): Ten minutes?

    The Chair: You don't have to stand up.

    Mr. Peter Wadeck: In rebuttal to the survey argument, I'd like to say that the survey results depend on the knowledge that a person has to make the decision. If they're not given complete information on the repercussions of a question, then they're obviously not going to make the best possible decision.

    My perspective is a sociological perspective. I presume everyone has a copy of my brief.

    Basically I'd like to look at the procreative function of the family and how changing this legislation will affect Canadian society. One of the primary functions of marriage is to create a family that produces offspring, which ensures a society's survival into the future. The effect on the reproductive ability of a society is the focus of my presentation.

    People can understand quite easily in ecological terms that if, say, the Beluga whales in the St. Lawrence decreased by 20% every generation, sooner or later there are not going to be any Beluga whales. So from a sociological and ecological point of view, people understand that if you're diminishing as a group, sooner or later you won't exist. And it's the function of the family to create offspring that ensures a society's survival.

    So to begin with, we should look at what is the present state of the Canadian family's reproductive ability in Canada. At present, for every 2,000 adults there are only 1,639...depending on which year you look at, but basically in Canada, for the indigenous population, there's a 20% decline per generation. That explains why we have such a high immigration rate, because we are as a people not reproducing ourselves and we are in effect going extinct. That's why we need immigration to replace the people who are here now.

    I have a couple of charts in my presentation that will show what is actually happening in Canada, and they're based on Statistics Canada data. This is not a one-shot phenomenon. This has been consistent for over 30 years, so it's a trend that's not going away and will not go away. As a matter of fact, it's only getting worse. The most recent survey showed that in Canada, the fertility rate is 1.5, which means that every generation is declining by 25%. You need 2.1 to replace yourself; 1.5 is 75% of that, so you're short by 25%. That's the state of the Canadian family's ability to reproduce itself.

    What does that have to do with gay marriages? If one analyses the data over time and looks at what caused the shift in society from a society that can reproduce and sustain itself to one that is now in decline and needs large numbers of immigrants every year to replace itself, according to my analysis, if you look at what occurred in Canada shortly before the fertility rate turned negative in the early seventies, you see the divorce laws and the increase in abortion turning the fertility rate from positive to negative. After those changes, the Canadian society was not able to reproduce itself.

¿  (0935)  

    From a sociological point of view, this is a bit abstract, but these people have clusters of attitudes. If you are a member of a political party, you know that there are a series of legislations and beliefs that you all have in common. The Liberals have their set of beliefs, the Conservatives have their set of beliefs, and the NDP have their set of beliefs.

    No-fault divorce, abortion, and gay rights are usually found together in one cluster of attitudes, and it makes sense because it's a consistent point of view.

    Abortion reduces the need for sex in marriage, and in traditional family marriages people can have sex without repercussions.

    No-fault divorce is also consistent with a society that accepts gay marriages because there is more diversity in a second marriage. If society had, as it was traditionally say, a 10% divorce rate--90% of people stayed together for all time from marriage until death--then it wold be inconceivable that people would argue in a society like that for gay marriages because it would be so different from regular society.

    So now in our society, with no-fault divorce and abortion, you have gay rights coming to the fore and people asking for it. It's a social evolution and it's a consistent set--I like to call it cluster--or cluster of ideas that are consistent among themselves.

    Basically, considering all of these facts and considering that in order for Canadian society to restore the health of its families, its reproductive health, back to a sustainable level, you have to increase the fertility rate to 2.1, and in order to do that you have to reverse some of the changes that have happened in society, and if you go forward with gay marriages, you will be going in the wrong direction, you will be going away from achieving a sustainable society towards one where traditional family values are not valued.... So if we keep the status quo, or go further towards redefining the family, the prognosis for Canadian society is--you can see in chart 1, figure 2--that in 21 generations the existing population of Canada will be all but extinct.

    Now at 30 years a generation, that's hundreds of years, but some societies have longevity, such as China, India, Greece, whatever. That's probably why there's not much interest in the future. People have a hard time planning their budget five years from now, let alone thinking of hundreds of years and what will happen to society.

    This issue is almost never seen in the local press. You do see some articles about changing demographics, but you never see the underlying causes, and that's why this is probably quite new and maybe a bit of a shock to you. But these are all based on Statistics Canada data and you can check them out thoroughly. In the future, if we continue with this family organization that we have now, before moving towards gay rights, in the future there will be no anglophones or francophones in Canada.

¿  (0940)  

    So considering that the role of society is to protect the people, I would argue against allowing gay marriages at this time. You already have gay unions, and the redefinition of the family is not necessary. It has been noted that the Netherlands allows them, but they're declining at a much faster rate. I would suggest that if we follow the Netherlands as they go extinct, we would know whether or not it's a good idea.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    I'm going to go to Mr. Toews for seven minutes.

    Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much for each of your presentations. I wanted to make a few comments on Mr. Dias' presentation. I appreciate the work you've done in doing this survey. I'm wondering if you've looked at some of the academic literature. One of the academics who we had come before us was Katherine Young, and she presented quite a paper called Responding to Dubious Reasons for Legalizing Gay Marriage. Specifically in respect to some of the comments you made, you might want to look at that for your own benefit and perhaps discuss that with your professor in the context of your research.

    In response to the proposition that gay marriage has had historical and anthropological precedence, she says:

Actually, it has no precedent as the norm of any society. Some societies have allowed exceptions to the norm, yes. And some powerful chiefs or kings have defied all norms. But the marital norm for every society has always been heterosexual.

    Then she goes on to say:

The precedents usually cited are taken out of context. It is true, for instance, that some Amerindian societies have allowed a few men to become the wives of other men. But these societies made sure that their husbands had already married women and produced children or that the community's demographic survival was not endangered. As for Nero, the Roman emperor, he did marry a man. But he did so in a moral context that few today would find edifying. Why should we take moral instruction from Nero?

    I would suggest that maybe you look at some of the research that has been done by another witness we had here, Doctor Daniel Cere, and that of Katherine Young. They may give a different perspective on this issue.

    I'll let you respond to that later, but I want to hear from Doctor Lafrance first. He had indicated that he wanted to say something but he felt he was short of time. Basically you had indicated that this push by the homosexual community had nothing to do with equality but with another agenda. I want to give you the opportunity to put that on the record.

¿  (0945)  

    The Chair: So we have a question for both Mr. Lafrance and--

    Mr. Vic Toews: I think I'll come back to Mr. Dias if there is time, and then I will ask Mr. Dias another question in another round.

    The Chair: Mr. Lafrance.

    Mr. W. André Lafrance: I think the answer to that is best found in an article that was written by Lysiane Gagnon. As you probably know, Lysiane Gagnon is one of the star columnists of La Presse in Montreal, the largest French language daily newspaper. She said, essentially, that homosexuals want marriage for its symbolic significance, because marriage is so highly regarded in society by everyone. As you say, it has been the norm all over the world, all through the ages. Marriage is really something that is universally perceived as good. So if they were allowed to join in, as Reverend Hawkes and Mr. Douglas Elliott told you....

    They told us that's all they wanted, to join in. There's a good reason why they told you that. The only reason they want to join in is to get the acceptance they're craving. Of course, being allowed to join in would be the ultimate stamp of approval on their behaviour. They know that, and I think any lucid observer of the political scene, as Lysiane Gagnon is, would know that.

    It's because of its symbolism, and symbolism has a significance. The young American soldiers who have gone--probably some of them will be killed--will be walking behind their flag. The flag means something for them.

    Words do matter. There's a magic in the word “marriage”, and homosexuals know that, know that to be allowed to join in that institution would be the ultimate stamp of approval on their behaviour. That's why they want to join in.

    Reverend Hawkes didn't tell you why he wanted to join. He just stated that he wanted to join in. I'm telling you why I think he wants to join in.

    Mr. Vic Toews: That was Reverend Hawkes from the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto?

    Mr. W. André Lafrance: That's right, and Douglas Elliott is the lawyer for an organization--I've forgotten the name.

    Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you.

    If there's more time, Mr. Dias can respond.

    Mr. Jeremy Dias: That was a totally great point, and I'm glad you brought that up. That was amazing. I didn't even think anyone would notice.

¿  (0950)  

    Mr. Vic Toews: We're here to notice.

    Mr. Jeremy Dias: But what is important to notice is that I'm not arguing that same-sex marriage is the norm anywhere in the world. In fact, it's not. What I am trying to recognize for this committee is that same-sex marriage is part of the marriage institution. It's not a norm.

    Same-sex marriage is already part of the marriage institution because it has been performed in previous history.

    They're from McGill, right, the two doctors? Yes, they're from McGill University. I went over their research. They gave me a copy of their brief.

    She missed some evidence from India. She missed some evidence from Europe. That is available in my brief, and if you want, you can get more information from that.

    Also, it's important to recognize--some research she forgot--that some people in those communities were considered two-spirited. What that means is they contain the gender qualities of both male and female. The reason why these people were married--which is something she doesn't explore in her brief--is because they were two-spirited. Two-spirited means you have gender qualities of both male and female, and therefore marrying two people of the same sex--sorry, I'm taking the longest way to get here--isn't actually marrying, like the absence of male and female. In fact, you're getting both gender qualities, which is important, and in the majority of those cultures, that's what they're trying to get across.

    Mr. Vic Toews: So basically, just to summarize very quickly, I get from your evidence that anyone who believes in a union forever and is in love with one another can get married.

    Mr. Jeremy Dias: Yes.

    The Chair: Mr. Marceau, for seven minutes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I would like to thank all three of you for your presentations.

    Mr. Lafrance, I was somewhat surprised by your presentation, especially when you drew an analogy with blood. I recently organized a blood donor drive, as I do each year, and they were refusing blood donations from people who had lived in Europe over x number of months, as well as from men or women who had had multiple sexual partners, even if they were heterosexual. Should we prevent these individuals from getting married?

    Mr. W. André Lafrance: This has nothing to do with marriage. You're mixing apples and oranges, Mr. Marceau.

    The reason why we refuse blood from these potential donors is because of something called mad cow disease prevalent in Europe. It is a viral disease caused by an organism called a prion and there is no test which can detect its presence. The only way to eliminate the possibility of transmission is to exclude these potential donors. That has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage. That's another issue entirely.

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Exactly. That's what I wanted to hear you say. You have just said that the fact that certain people cannot donate blood for one reason or another has nothing to do with marriage. I agree, and that is the point that I wanted you to make.

    There is a second issue that I would like to raise. You have just told my colleague Vic Toews that all they want is to be accepted. Answer me this. Why would it be so awful for someone to be accepted in a society if they are different? What harm is there in that?

    You stated in your presentation, in English, that happiness was the most important thing. You also said things that negatively affected people's happiness were bad. And I'm translating what you said.

    Mr. W. André Lafrance: Yes, that's basically what I said.

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Let's look at the example of Mr. Dias. If happiness to him is being married to a same-sex partner, based on your own definition, if we prevent him from having a relationship that is recognized by society with the person he loves, this adversely affects his happiness and is therefore fundamentally wrong.

    Mr. W. André Lafrance: On the issue of marriage, love is perhaps the least important element. Despite what the gentleman has said and despite prevailing opinion, the three principles and essential ingredients to marriage are the following. First of all, there is the biological subset, in other words the ability of a man and a woman or of two individuals to create other human beings. That is at the very heart of the role of marriage. Secondly, there is what we call in English commitment. It is important and it is perhaps one of the most essential elements. The third and highly desirable element, I grant you, is love. Currently, the problem with marriage is that people have reversed the order of things. Perhaps they listened to the Beatles song All You Need is Love once too often. It is true, but it's not enough. It does help, however, I will grant you that.

[English]

    I repeat, it's highly desirable, but it's far from being the most important. That's why marriage is in bad shape, because these three things have been inverted.

¿  (0955)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Yes, but...

[English]

    Mr. W. André Lafrance: Let me finish. You interrupted me.

    The Chair: We're going to have to go through the chair here, because it's clear that--

    Mr. W. André Lafrance: But he interrupted me at one point.

    The Chair: I'll decide that.

    Mr. Marceau will put a question and you will answer.

    Go ahead.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: I don't want to appear adversarial. I do apologize...

    Mr. W. André Lafrance: No, no. I understand Mr. Marceau.

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Well seven minutes is not a great deal of time.

    Let's come back to the issue of procreation. I have seen you here before and you no doubt see my next question coming. And what of infertile couples or a post-menopausal woman who can no longer have children? Based on your own words, the object of marriage is procreation and in order to marry, it is essential to be able to reproduce. If that is at the heart of it, then what are we to do with heterosexuals who are unable to procreate?

    Mr. W. André Lafrance: I said that the potential had to exist. Given their age, these individuals are no longer able to procreate, but at one time in their life, they did have this potential. When they married, it did exist.

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Not necessarily.

    Mr. W. André Lafrance: No, but even if they cannot achieve this potential, the biological sub-element is present.

    Mr. Richard Marceau: A 60-year-old woman can no longer procreate.

    Mr. W. André Lafrance: No, but I did not say that this was the sole purpose of marriage. I did stress the commitment aspect. That is very important and, when all is said and done, it may be the most important element of all. However, in order for this commitment to be achieved, there has to be a biological subtext. Substrate is a word we use in biology. It refers to a foundation, something very essential without which another element cannot exist.

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Let's take another look at your three components, namely the ability to procreate, commitment and love. You said yourself that two people of the same sex could love each other. We've just discussed procreation and stated that there are people who cannot procreate, but there are also people who may not want to procreate. I have friends who are married and who don't want to have children.

    The third component is commitment. As you have seen, there are people who made presentations before us and who told us that they wanted to commit to each other. They want to commit. And you did use the word commitment. Therefore, they love each other and they have a desire to commit. As to procreation, certain heterosexuals can procreate and others can't. I know that I'll never convince you, but I'd like you to try and convince me because I like to think of myself as an open-minded individual. I don't see how the three components that you use to define the essence of marriage would prevent Mr. Dias or other individuals of the same sex from marrying.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Marceau. Mr. Lafrance.

    Mr. W. André Lafrance: As to your concept of love, you must be aware that there are two concepts of love. There is good love and deviant love. A person who engages in pedophilia may love the one boy. The person who engages in bestiality may well love his poodle. The person who gorges himself on food may love food. But, to varying degrees, these are not forms of love that society would use as a model. And that's all I'll say on the subject. Love is not the only critical component. One has to define the type of love involved.

    Secondly, as to commitment, I read something a while ago in a newspaper and I'll read it to you in English.

À  (1000)  

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Lafrance, how long is this? We're way over seven minutes.

[Translation]

    Mr. W. André Lafrance: The article said homosexuals can make a commitment. However , I would say that their idea of commitment is not the same as that of heterosexuals. I think it's important to draw that distinction.

[English]

    The Chair: Okay.

    I just was asking how long your reading will be.

    Mr. W. André Lafrance: Ce n'est pas très long; un paragraphe seulment.

    The Journal of Sexual Research noted fairly recently in 1997 that,

...Australian researchers asked more than 2,500 homosexually active men how many sex partners they had over their lifetime. The most popular answer category among older men was “101 to 500.” But “501 to 1,000” and “more than 1,000” each accounted for more than 10% of responses.

    I would say this is not my idea of commitment.

    The Chair: Thank you very much. I look forward to the three-minute round. We are going to have to move on.

    For everyone's clarification, I'm going to explain to everybody that we are engaged in seven-minute rounds, and we'll go to three-minute rounds. The seven minutes is supposed to include both questions and answers.

    The members really have the right to direct their questions to whomever they choose, because this is essentially what this exercise is about, to inquire about your presentations. I will recognize members who wish to respond to another response. If we have time, it will be accommodated, but if we don't have time, I cannot accommodate it.

    Now we're going to Mr. O'Brien, for seven minutes.

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

    I want to thank all three witnesses for their presentations. I have several questions.

    First of all, maybe for Mr. Dias, I think we saw some of the word games that are being played. You said, and I wrote the exact quote, that we're “not redefining marriage”, and then you attempted to explain why. And I think Mr. Toews put some strong evidence on record that the norm for society has always been heterosexual marriage. I don't want to get into your evidence and that of other witnesses. Suffice it to say in Canada, since Confederation, marriage has been the union of one man and one woman. This committee is engaged in hearings as to whether we ought to change that. I, frankly, don't think we should.

    We've had some witnesses saying they want us to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions. You seem to be saying it's not a redefinition of marriage.

    Mr. Chairman, since we have a youth spokesperson here, maybe it's appropriate to quote a famous piece of literature aimed at youth, a classic, Alice in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll. The quote is this:

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

    Mr. Chairman, I would submit to you that's exactly what we're being asked to do by some witnesses. We're being asked to stretch the definition of marriage or to change the definition of marriage to make it so inclusive that it will really mean nothing to most Canadians with the values that I believe most Canadians have.

    So I want to ask, Mr. Dias, you seem to be speaking or attempting to speak for youth. You finished your presentation by saying you were speaking for the majority of Canadian youth. What do you base that on? Is this a gut feeling you have? How do you purport to be speaking for the majority of Canadian youth?

    Mr. Jeremy Dias: Thank you. That's a good question.

    I can speak on behalf of Canadian youth, first because I'm part of that demographic, and second because I've conducted an extensive survey on what people feel on youth issues. Most of the arguments brought forth in my brief are arguments that are brought forward by youth.

    Of course, I can't present more than one argument, because that would be illogical; therefore, I must present the argument that represents the dominance in that demographic. So that's what I'm presenting to you.

    Mr. Pat O'Brien: I appreciate that clarification and I think it's important that you offer that clarification. That's why I gave you the opportunity. I think it's very important.

À  (1005)  

    Mr. Jeremy Dias: I apologize. I'm really nervous.

    Mr. Pat O'Brien: I think it's just very important that you have a chance to clarify, as you have, that you're not a spokesperson for Canadian youth. You're one young Canadian who's done a survey of some people and you've presented some findings. I think that's fine.

    I would submit to you, without much difficulty, that we could go not very far from this room and get a whole lot of Canadian youth who, I know personally, have strong views opposite to Mr. Dias', but probably we will hear from some of them.

    Mr. Jeremy Dias: I'm sorry, Mr.--

    Mr. Pat O'Brien: Excuse me. The chairman has explained to you that we can't interrupt each other.

    So I would submit to you that we'll probably have some of those witnesses in the future.

    The argument was made by Mr. Dias that no one is advocating for polygamy. Well the reality is...I'm not sure if you're aware of the evidence that's been put on the record. A body no less than the Law Commission of Canada has addressed itself to the question and has signalled that you're not going to be able to necessarily restrict marriage if you open it up to just two persons.

    Are you aware of that evidence?

    Mr. Jeremy Dias: Yes, I am.

    Mr. Pat O'Brien: Okay.

    Then I would submit to you that whether anybody is advocating for it or not, there is a very real possibility that if you start to tinker with the definition of marriage, you may know where you start when you deconstruct it, but you won't necessarily know where it will end up. And that's of great concern to many Canadians.

    I want to reference something that my colleague Mr. Marceau said, and I want to hear from Mr. Lafrance on this. It's the issue of procreativity and whether that's the sole criteria for marriage, or just what place that has in this whole issue.

    I want to quote a previous witness, Dr. Cere, who said:

Human cultures and religions have always consistently vigorously affirmed the intrinsic procreative nature of marriage, while, at the same time, extending the marriage to infertile and post-fertile heterosexuals.

    There's a fundamental difference between the infertility of some heterosexual couples and the impossibility of all same-sex couples to procreate through same-sex bonding.

    I think that addresses the point we've heard over and over again, which I suspect we will continue to hear over and over again, that because some people choose not to have children or can't have children, you have to allow same-sex couples to marry. To me that's just simply specious logic at best.

    But I'd like to hear from Mr. Lafrance on that.

    Mr. W. André Lafrance: Well, I basically said the same thing in other words, that the substrate has to be there. It doesn't have to be actualized, but the substrate has to be there, while in same-sex unions this possibility is removed. In this sense, it would be contra-natural or against the way nature has ordained things. I believe strongly in the concept of natural order; if it were not there, the world would be chaos. There is an order, and it must be respected, and this is the main thing of the modern ecology movement, that you must not go contrary to what nature does.

    Mr. Wadeck alluded to the concept of what I call critical mass. In any population you need a certain critical mass, and if it falls below that you have problems. We know this from the fishing industry, where they were imprudent enough to allow overfishing, and we're paying the price. The cod has disappeared, and now we're being warned that shrimps and scallops are going the same way. It seems that humans just don't learn.

    The Chair: We're going to go to Mr. Dias to respond to some of the comments made when I asked you not to interrupt. I'll never be able to get people not to interrupt if I don't give them the chance to answer eventually.

    Go ahead.

    Mr. Jeremy Dias: In regard to the multiple sexual partners of homosexuals, I think that information might be a little biased considering where it comes from. If we look at Canadian research, this might be a little bit different. Nevertheless, the sexual practices of someone are pretty much bedroom stuff or personal stuff that does not represent commitment.

    I remember a famous opera that was turned into a musical called Moulin Rouge. It was about this prostitute who went all over town and had thousands of sexual partners, but when she found the right person, she was willing to settle down and to commit and live happily ever after. I don't know why homosexuals should be denied this right.

    Furthermore, I'm not trying to play word games with this committee, but in fact I'm trying to present youth's opinion based on a survey that has recognized a lot of opinions. Although I do believe you could go out on the street and find different opinions, the survey I conducted was according to principles based in David G. Myers' text, Psychology, and the book, A Textbook of Social Psychology, by Dr. John Alcock, and according to procedures that would accept accurate demographics.

    An hon. member: How many respondents were in your survey?

À  (1010)  

    Mr. Jeremy Dias: There were 404 respondents, due only to the time limit. The survey will continue until I get a better--

    The Chair: It's a legitimate question, and we'll put it....

    So we've got Moulin Rouge, Alice in Wonderland, and the Beatles, and we haven't even started to travel.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: It's a very metaphorical committee.

    Mr. Sorenson.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Yes, thank you.

    Thank you to all who have come. Jeremy, thank you for your presentation. We appreciate it, because we've noticed you watching and listening here at the committee before. So we do know that you are interested in the subject and have researched it.

    However, this past week we came off a two-week break. In the break, I was able to attend a number of high schools in my constituency, where they asked me what the role of the member of Parliament was. I told them a little bit about what I do, representing my constituents and people in my riding, and I told them about building law. They asked me, “Do you ever get into anything really controversial?”

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: I told them about coming off the non-medical use of drugs committee, where part of the questions we were studying was whether we should allow safe shoot-up sites and heroin maintenance clinics, which are controversial issues that we have to discuss.

    I went from that committee to the justice committee, where we're studying same-sex marriage. The complete classroom said, “Why are you wasting your time on something like same-sex marriage? Marriage has to remain the union of a man and a woman.” These are high school students who talk about the importance of preserving tradition, values, and many of these things. I almost played the devil's advocate, because although I'm on record as believing that marriage is the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, I began to think and to ask, “If there were a homosexual in the grade 12 class, should we deny them the ability to marry?” The answer that came back was not so much that we should deny them the ability to be who they are, but that marriage was specific to one man and one woman. These are high school students.

    When Mr. Toews asked you whether people should be allowed to marry as long as they believe in union forever and are in love with one another, you answered yes. Is this correct?

    Mr. Jeremy Dias: Yes.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: You answered yes.

    But in this society, the homosexual population is so small, should we consider the number or the percentage of the minority? Do you believe that the small percentage should be a consideration in whether or not we allow this right or this privilege to be given?

    Mr. Jeremy Dias: Well, I think it's important to recognize that the homosexual community isn't just a small minority. The homosexual community consists of not just gay, lesbian, transgendered, queer, and this entire list of people, but also of heterosexuals. I think it's important to recognize that there are heterosexuals who consider themselves to be part of the gay and lesbian community, because it's not just LGBTQ and straight people. It's gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, queer people who are questioning allied, alliance, straight, transgendered, transsexual, drag queens....

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: It shouldn't matter how small the minority or homosexual community is, but should it still be a right given to someone who believes in union together and is in love?

    Mr. Jeremy Dias: I'm saying that the homosexual community isn't a minority. I think when you consider it in context--

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: You're saying it isn't a minority?

    Mr. Jeremy Dias: No, it's not, because the gay community isn't just limited to gay people.

    The Chair: Save your thoughts there, gentlemen.

    We're going now to Mr. Macklin.

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

    I'd like to go to Mr. Lafrance and to Mr. Wadeck to talk about one of the concerns we have, which is obviously a significant concern that the courts have addressed to date with differing perspectives. This concern is that of looking at the question of a social fabric and social building blocks within our society as we look at marriage.

    Mr. Wadeck, I'm interested in your statistics relating to population decline, which is obviously something we ought to be concerned about. However, in the entire perspective we're developing here with respect to the issue, I'm wondering about these relationships that exist within our society, or are at least being advanced, and that there are conjugal loving relationships in our homosexual community that would like to seek marriage--to use the gold standard expression for their relationship. Even though it already exists, do you think moving this up one step will have any significant effect on the statistics you presented today, as we look to the future in terms of society?

À  (1015)  

    Mr. Peter Wadeck: The responsibility of any government is to protect its society, and for a society to exist it has to reproduce itself. If you go ahead with this change, it will be that much harder to correct the illness in society.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: I guess my point is that if it already exists and we're simply changing the recognition level, do you as a sociologist have any evidence to suggest to us that this will have an adverse effect on marriage as an institution and, accordingly, the procreativity that results from that relationship?

    Mr. Peter Wadeck: No, I don't have any evidence. I guess we are an experiment in itself, and you could also say that the Netherlands is an experiment.

    I suggest to you, what's the hurry? We've been around for a couple of hundred years, which is historically short.

    I would suggest that you follow what happens in the Netherlands. They're in a constant state of decline, and they will be replaced by immigration within a couple of decades. I read one article that said the children of immigrants will be the majority in a couple of decades. So we should perhaps watch that experiment run its course, to see if it's going to be a good thing for Canada.

    Regarding your point about how it will change things, it will be harder to reverse. Once you have redefined marriage, it's going to be harder to put into place the social values or mechanisms that will make society healthier. For instance, now we tax single couples more than we do married couples, which is one example of a societal mechanism that is counter to traditional families. There are many of these. To correct the illness now existing in society, going further away from a healthy family structure is not going to help. If you want, it's like giving a drug addict more drugs, or a person with cirrhosis of the liver more alcohol. It's only going to go in the wrong direction.

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

    For the record, Mr. Macklin said, “as a sociologist”. Are you also a sociologist, Mr. Wadeck?

    Mr. Peter Wadeck: No, I'm actually a theology student.

    The Chair: Okay, thanks.

    Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

    First off, let me just say to Mr. O'Brien that the Law Commission never said that marriage should be opened up to polygamy. That is important to note at this juncture.

    Secondly, Mr. O'Brien read a text in which a distinction is drawn between “some” and “many”; all heterosexuals may have children and no homosexual can. I would submit that all post-menopausal women cannot bear children. Based on Mr. O'Brien's logic, we could say that since post-menopausal women cannot have children—and that is the truth—no post-menopausal woman should be allowed to marry. That is where Mr. O'Brien's logic leads. All I'm doing is rephrasing what he said.

    This being said, Mr. Wadeck, do you have any evidence at all which would suggest that if marriage was opened to same-sex couples, heterosexual couples who today want to have children would stop having them?

À  (1020)  

[English]

    Mr. Peter Wadeck: The short answer is no.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Based on your evidence, if same-sex couples could marry, would that result in fewer heterosexual marriages?

[English]

    Mr. Peter Wadeck: I think the answer you're looking for is that it would provide acceptance for a situation that is now a dysfunctional family unit. The family unit we have now is dysfunctional; it cannot reproduce itself.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: But is that only because of homosexuals?

[English]

    Mr. Peter Wadeck: If you allow same-sex marriages, you are allowing a value in society that solidifies the situation. It makes it much harder to change.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: If I understand you correctly, you state that allowing same-sex marriage would not lead to a drop in the birth rate, and that is the premise of your brief. Therefore, allowing same-sex marriage would not increase the birth rate to 2.1 per cent either. That's the first point I wanted to make.

    Secondly you have just said that to allow same-sex marriage will not mean that there will be less heterosexual couples who would marry. That is what you said, and I quite agree with you.

    You spoke of the Netherlands. Based on what our researchers have told us, the enabling of legislation allowing same-sex marriage in the Netherlands does not seem to have had an impact on the marriage rate of heterosexuals. Now those are not feelings or ideas. Those are important statistics which we have to take into account.

[English]

    The Chair: Excuse me, Monsieur Marceau, you're way over time. I'm sorry, but we've got a lot of people in line.

    Also, you can still answer, but I want to say first how delighted I am as a sociologist that you didn't need to distance yourself from the profession, as most lawyers do.

    Mr. McKay.

    Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): This is to Mr. Dias. The essential argument of the homosexual community is that marriage is about love. Same-sex people can love each other, ergo, crack open the institution of marriage and make it available to homosexual couples. That will improve their self-esteem and that will lower the suicide rates.

    I wonder about the premise of that proposition. Particularly, I wonder about the premise because your sine qua non of marriage was that people love each other. That's really it, love and companionship; if you have love and companionship, essentially there's no reason why you can't get married.

    I come from a multicultural riding, and it's really quite fascinating. One of the people who used to work for me is Hindu. While she was working for me, she was engaged in the process of getting her daughter married, and we would hear the stories about her and her daughter going out to check out the prospects every weekend.

    It was really quite interesting, and what was most interesting to me as a white Anglo-Saxon male Protestant was that love had little or nothing to do with it. The Hindu concept of marriage is far more complicated than merely being about love. It's a kind of happy by-product if in fact people actually like each other.

    Similarly, I have an Afghan Muslim who works for me. When you talk about love in the way western people talk about love, we're talking very different concepts.

    So it seems to me that the proposition or the premise of your entire question is flawed. It's flawed because you shouldn't unpack all the complicated reasons a man and a woman enter into a relationship and select one to the exclusion of all others. It is almost simple-minded to say that marriage is about love. Even in this country brides used to get shipped over from Europe in order to breed with the male stock that was here. They had never even seen what they were going to get, and I'm sure that led to a number of very strange relationships.

    So I put it to you that you've asked the wrong question.

À  (1025)  

    Mr. Vic Toews: Some of the products of which are probably sitting here today.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. John McKay: I don't want to get into the complete strangeness of that, Mr. Toews.

    The Chair: Would you please put the question?

    Mr. John McKay: I put it to you, Mr. Dias, that love has little to do with it in many societies and in many instances. Indeed, it's almost misleading to ask about that.

    Mr. Jeremy Dias: I think that's a really good point, and if I were Muslim or Hindu, I'd probably agree with you. Unfortunately, I'm a Canadian youth who lives in Canada, who has grown up in Canada, and who was taught by our educational system that love and marriage go together. One of my first grade 3 lessons was about marriage. In grade 10 I had a sociology class and we did a mock wedding, where our government taught us that love was the most important thing that had to do with marriage. Our teacher quoted from Ministry of Education briefs saying things such as, the growing trend looks as if homosexuals will eventually get marriage. I think it's an important point to bring up.

    Yes, that type of stuff exists in Canada, but according to my research, if we bring it into the context of the majority of Canadians, and especially Canadian youth, they believe that love and marriage go together. Given that, if same-sex people can have love, they should be therefore allowed to get married. It's a very simple argument.

    Admittedly, though, marriage is a discriminatory institution. People who are of the same family cannot get married. People who are maybe of different religions in some cases cannot get married, but at the same time--oh, I'm sorry. People with different religions can get married.

    Anyway, that's my point. It has evolved and it has changed. Marriage is not a weak institution; it's evolvable.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Cadman, you have three minutes.

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

    I'd just like to follow up on what you said, Mr. Dias, and follow up on Mr. O'Brien's line of questioning.

    You said that marriage is discriminatory: people who are related or in the same family can't get married. Why do we say that? We say that because it's in the criminal law. Well, would you not agree that the criminal law can be changed anytime? We do it here quite often; we amend it.

    My point is that if we're dealing with those kinds of issues and if polygamy has come into it, well, a lot of other things have come up. But they're all based on the criminal law, which can be changed at any time in the future, and that's what we have to be concerned with. We now say that marriage is defined as something that's exclusionist. What if we open the door now and say that it's not exclusionist any more? What will come through that door? Will not somebody be sitting at this committee or sitting on the Supreme Court some day advocating for something we...? Probably, 20 years ago people would not have thought we'd be having this discussion today.

    That's my question to you. Would you not agree that in the future we could be looking at all kinds of ramifications flowing from what we decide here today?

À  (1030)  

    Mr. Jeremy Dias: Absolutely, and 20 years before you had interracial marriage, they hadn't even considered it. Twenty years before people of colour were freed, they hadn't ever considered it. I think that's part of marriage; it's an evolving process.

    Furthermore, as to equating marriage with polygamy or anything of that nature, you have to recognize that Canadian statistics show that the majority of Canadians are in favour of extending marriage to same-sex couples. It is not the same when it comes to polygamy. There's not a community of people who have grouped themselves, advocated for themselves, and presented themselves for polygamy. You don't have an overwhelming majority.

    Mr. Chuck Cadman: You may want to come to the Kootenays in British Columbia and talk to a few people there. You'll find some--

    Mr. Jeremy Dias: What I'm saying, though, Mr. Cadman, is that those are a minority. What I'm advocating is something a majority of Canadians favour, as shown through research the Liberal Party of Canada has done and from the Polara study, the Environics study, and the Léger study; it's in the Égale Canada brief too. Those studies present Canadians' opinions.

    When you're considering this argument, yes, it's important to consider polygamy and the other dangerous ramifications of marriage, but at the same time it's important to recognize that those are not equatable. It's important to consider them, but they're not on the same footing at all because they're from different advocating groups. There are different reasons. They're morally different and they're accepted differently within the Canadian community and the Canadian context.

    Mr. Chuck Cadman: So then what you're suggesting is the legitimacy of somebody's claim is based on the number of advocates there are for it.

    Mr. Jeremy Dias: I don't think the legitimacy of someone's claim is based on the number of advocates for it; it's based on the strength of their argument. I think Canadians are happily recognizing this argument is a strong argument and are in favour of it.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cadman and Mr. Dias.

    Mr. O'Brien, you have three minutes.

    Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

    It's about this procreativity debate that just doesn't seem to stop. I guess Monsieur Marceau and I will never agree.

    The point I want to make, Mr. Chairman, is this. As Dr. Cere says, “Procreativity is an inherent, though variable, feature of the heterosexual conjugal experience”. Some heterosexual couples cannot have children. We know that, we accept that, but that's an inherent feature of heterosexual couples' experience as we know it. Non-procreativity is an inherent, non-variable feature of the same-sex experience. No same-sex couples are ever going to have children without employing a third party to do it. That's my point, Mr. Chairman. I think it's pretty straightforward, yet we'll have some disagreement on that, no doubt.

    I want to ask a question of Mr. Wadeck, and I want to quote the Law Commission of Canada and its report called Beyond Conjugality. It's already hinting that their new legal category of close personal relationship, as they call it, should not be limited “to two people”. The report insists that flexibility on this question is necessary because “The values and principles of autonomy and state neutrality require that people be free to choose the form and nature of their close personal adult relationships.”

    Those are direct quotes, Mr. Chairman, from something called Beyond Conjugality, a report of the Law Commission of Canada. If that doesn't open up the possibility, as Mr. Cadman said, of there being a subsequent push for polygamous relationships to be included in marriage à la Alice in Wonderland, which I quoted from earlier, then I don't know what does.

    I'd like to have Mr. Wadeck's response to this group of legal experts putting this on the table. Whether Mr. Dias, Mr. Marceau, I, or anybody else likes it, it's on the table. I'd like to hear from Mr. Wadeck on the possible ramifications of opening up marriage so it loses all meaning for our society.

    Mr. Peter Wadeck: Perhaps my argument is that you have to think in terms of groups instead of individuals. Mr. Marceau was talking about individual heterosexuals in society not being able to reproduce, whereas what I focus on is on groups and clusters of ideas.

    I can't really add too much more to that, other than to say we're in a situation now--it sounds as if I'm flogging a dead horse--where a Canadian family cannot reproduce. There is something I consider seriously wrong with that. Any ecologist would say there was something seriously wrong with any species on this planet that had the same fertility rite. Eventually there is only one of them.

    I would also say, just as any ecologist would, that society has to make the changes, to find out what the problem is and reverse it. I could have perhaps done a study, giving you great details on why gay marriage is associated with no-fault divorce and abortion.

    I did one quote there that shows how a group of three media leaders all have opinions together. Society functions in groups and ideas come in groups.

    Mr. Marceau said the fertility rate hasn't changed in the Netherlands. Well, it never went positive. In my opinion, it will never go positive in the situation they are in now.

À  (1035)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Marceau, you have three minutes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

    Firstly, I would like to quote a report written by the Law Commission of Canada entitled Beyond Conjugality, where this type of relationship is discussed. It would be interesting to hear from Ms. Des Rosiers again. We were talking about the relationship between brothers sharing a home, between sisters sharing a home, between a father and a mother. At the very beginning of these hearings, Mr. Toews discussed the fact that this type of relationship would also have to be recognized. Within the context of the Beyond Conjugality report, this is the type of relationship that she was talking about. The report does not refer to polygamy, but rather to other types of non-conjugal unions. That's worth noting. Perhaps we could hear back from representatives of the Law Reform Commission at another time.

    Therefore, it is important to place things in context, but I have no desire to engage in a debate with Pat.

    Mr. Dias, I'd like to have your opinion on the following point. Mr. McKay said that not that long ago, women were sent from Europe to breed with the male population here. Basically, those were his words. Knowing Mr. McKay, I realize that he wouldn't believe even for a moment that such a thing would be deemed acceptable today. It would not be acceptable to herd a group of women onto a boat and to send them across an ocean for the purpose of procreating, just as we would not accept women being unequal partners in marriage, as they were until about 40 years ago. Back then, a woman had to submit to male authority under the Civil Code.

    Do these two examples not demonstrate that the nature of marriage has changed over time, and that what was acceptable 200 or even 50 years ago is no longer acceptable today? Is that not the best possible indication that the model of marriage in vogue 50 years ago is no longer the model in vogue today?

[English]

    Mr. Jeremy Dias: Absolutely. I agree with that.

    What you're saying is that marriage is an evolving institution, something people who have presented before this committee have denied irrefutably. The fact is that marriage evolves. Marriage changes, and people's views on marriage change. Although the majority's opinion shouldn't necessarily be a factor, it's still a factor that can't be ignored.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: You state that we should take into account the scientific poll carried out by Léger Marketing in 2001 which stated that 76.5% of Quebecers were in favour of same-sex marriage. Essentially, it's a matter of equality, but you state that the law must reflect society's values, including the acceptance of different points of view and of different lifestyles.

[English]

    Mr. Jeremy Dias: Absolutely. I think it's important to recognize that the survey demographics should be taken into consideration as one of the factors, not as the only factor, and that this survey representation shows a changing trend in marriage.

À  (1040)  

    The Chair: John McKay.

    Mr. John McKay: Mr. Marceau should spend a few days in my office trying to get visas for people coming over to marry. It's an interesting exercise. I dare say, it's very similar to what was happening a hundred years ago.

    To go back to this argument again, the gay argument is, “What's all the fuss about? It's a small group, and if you include the homosexual community in the institution of marriage, nothing is going to happen.” Really, how can you prove it? You look at, say, the Netherlands, and it's inconclusive, because it's such a short period of time, and whatever research is there is virtually useless.

    But I wonder, have you given this much thought, Mr. Dias, and also Mr. Lafrance? A lot of men already think marriage is too risky. Already there's a denigration and a certain component of the male culture that says, “I just don't want to be hooked up; I don't want this commitment”. That is an ethos that permeates, I would suggest, a significant component of your generation--as well as mine, but maybe your generation even more. That is starting to make marriage somewhat problematic for quite a number of people, and that has an impact.

    Have you thought about what the impact will be? Not only have we said marriage is a somewhat difficult institution at the best of times, but we're also saying, why not open it up and let people who just love each other get married?

    I would be interested in both your answers, to look a little bit further down and say, what's going to happen to marriage once you open it up again?

    Mr. Jeremy Dias: I don't think it's a matter of opening up marriage. I think marriage is evolving, and I think this is part of its evolution.

    You said, what's all the fuss about? I think anyone who says that is not stating it properly. That's a play on words, because marriage is a big deal, which is why so many people are advocating for it. I think if you look at the social climate right now--and I think I spoke to one of the members of Parliament--there are more important issues. There's war, death, famine, cancer, and AIDS. But at the same time, it's important to recognize that people still believe in rights. People still believe in equality. People value marriage, obviously, just as much, if not more, than some of these other problems that are plaguing society. So if they value it so much and want to be part of it so badly, then obviously it's a big deal to them.

    You said it's a risky institution. Absolutely. It's a dangerous institution, with a 50% divorce rate. Men don't want to commit. Women do, so we should also take into consideration the fact that a lot of lesbians do want to get married. Sociological research shows that women are more committing than men. We should not discriminate against them based on that fact, and that's important to note.

    But what are the impacts of opening marriage? There's no way to tell. One can only estimate and guess. Based on current research, there's no evidence to say there'll be any dangerous or detrimental societal effects, and anyone who argues that is arguing a slippery-slope argument.

    Mr. John McKay: But the reverse argument is not?

    Mr. Jeremy Dias: Well, it goes in both directions.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Toews.

    Mr. Vic Toews: Mr. Chair, I'm troubled by Mr. Dias' argument that same-sex marriages should be allowed because homosexuals are not a minority in our society and that indeed many heterosexuals are in fact homosexuals. Talk about Alice in Wonderland. I think I'm looking into that looking glass in terms of trying to figure out what's going on here. He dismisses the argument for polygamy because they are such an insignificant group in our society. With respect, the basis of rights in our society is not numbers.

    His evidence leads to the interesting concept relating to these two-spirited individuals; namely, should two-spirited individuals be allowed to marry themselves as single persons? Two-spirited people should have equality with persons who wish to marry others because of the so-called big deal of marriage or the symbolic importance of marriage. Why shouldn't two-spirited individuals be able to walk down the aisle of a church or participate in a civil ceremony by themselves and say, I'd like to get married to myself in order to demonstrate the importance of marriage? Since they are in fact the majority of people in our society, should they not be allowed to marry themselves?

À  (1045)  

    Mr. Jeremy Dias: I don't believe I ever said that heterosexuals are too scared or that there's a majority of two-spirited people in society.

    Mr. Vic Toews: I think it's clear you said that homosexuals are not a minority in this society.

    Mr. Jeremy Dias: I said the homosexual community is not a minority. Anyone who supports the gay and lesbian community is part of the gay and lesbian community. You don't have to be gay to be part of the gay and lesbian community. There are bisexuals--

    Mr. Vic Toews: So you can be a homosexual as long as you support gay marriages. Is that what you're saying?

    Mr. Jeremy Dias: No, I'm not saying you're homosexual at all. I'm saying that the gay and lesbian community consists of straight people, gay people, bisexuals, transgendered, queers, and questioning people. It's not an isolated community that can be totally divided--

    Mr. Vic Toews: So homosexuals are a minority in this society.

    Mr. Jeremy Dias: Yes.

    Mr. Vic Toews: Because they're a minority in this society, do we then dismiss their argument for same-sex marriages? Polygamists, who are advocating multi-partner relationships, also want to be married. But you say that because they're a minority, we shouldn't accept them.

    Mr. Jeremy Dias: I think I might have misphrased that. What I'm trying to say with regard to polygamy is that there are no advocates for polygamy. There are no moral arguments and logical statements for polygamy. Furthermore, polygamy--

    Mr. Vic Toews: That statement is absurd. When you look at the Muslims in many countries throughout the world, there is a moral basis for polygamy. It's not a moral basis that we accept here in Canada. There are indeed polygamists here in Canada. They may live under different arrangements. Why shouldn't they be married?

    Mr. Jeremy Dias: I don't think that's something I'm arguing. I'm arguing for same-sex marriage. I'm not arguing against polygamist marriage. I'm recognizing that there's a difference between same-sex marriage and polygamist marriage. I'm creating that distinction so that the committee recognizes that the argument of polygamy is not a valid argument against legislating same-sex marriage.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Toews.

    We'll now go to Mr. O'Brien for three minutes.

    Mr. Jeremy Dias: That is better explained in my brief, and I apologize that I couldn't display it clearly because of the time.

    Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to pursue a couple of those themes. I want to put this on the record. I don't know if Mr. Dias is familiar with it. I mention this woman's sexuality because of the argument she makes. The lesbian theorist Ladelle McWhorter 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.

    The argument that this is not going to threaten marriage as an institution as we know it is simply wrong. Candid experts like Ms. McWhorter and Professor Eskridge from Harvard University admit that is simply not the case.

    On the issue of polygamy, Professor Eskridge notes the similarity between the gay marriage project, as he calls it, and the Mormon marriage project. He argues that the legal and political condemnation of the Mormon marriage project was an unjust and repressive form of what he calls culture camp, which is similar to the current exclusionary laws against homosexual unions.

    Serious experts, Mr. Chairman, who are themselves practising gay and lesbian people, put issues like polygamy on the table as something that could flow from changing the definition of marriage. It's incumbent on this committee to recognize that, as Mr. Cadman and many of us have pointed out from time to time.

    I'd like to hear from Mr. Wadeck and, if there's time, from Mr. Dias. Are they aware of these experts' opinions, and has it influenced their thoughts in any way?

À  (1050)  

    Mr. Peter Wadeck: I know an individual who came from Africa, and she met her husband there. She was a lawyer and stayed there for a couple of years doing work for the government. She met a Muslim man, and the practice in that country was that Christians could have one wife and Muslims could have four wives. So it's recognized in that country that there's a moral basis for polygamy.

    I haven't really looked very much at polygamy, so I'm just sort of shooting from the cuff here. From what I've come across, polygamous marriages have positive fertility rates. So from my perspective, polygamous marriages would be more desirable than gay marriages.

    The Chair: Mr. Dias.

    Mr. Jeremy Dias: I think you brought up a good point. Those studies are really important to recognize. I did get to skim through some of them because I've been at this committee and I've seen a lot of the research.

    Those are very good points, but you have to consider that some of them are extremist views. You're going to have people on all sides of the spectrum saying all sorts of things--

    Mr. Pat O'Brien: That reminds me, it was a homosexual I was quoting.

    Mr. Jeremy Dias: I'm aware of that. You will have lesbians and homosexuals who are opposed to gay marriage, just like you're going to have heterosexuals who demand gay marriage and insist that they're a part of the gay community and they want an extremist view.

    Mr. Pat O'Brien: With all due respect, they're not against gay marriage. It's a distortion of what I said. They're for gay marriage, but they're honest enough to admit that if they're successful, it's going to undermine marriage as it has been known in this country. That's my point.

    Mr. Jeremy Dias: Okay, but I don't think it's undermining marriage. I think it's demanding to be recognized in an institution that's highly recognized and valued. I don't see how allowing people to be part of one group will essentially reduce discrimination between the two groups. Furthermore, it is important to recognize that when you bring groups together, you're not destroying it; you're not taking away. Just because I get to have black hair and you want it doesn't mean if you dye your hair black my black hair is going to be of any less value.

    The Chair: We understand the metaphor.

    We're going to Mr. Cadman.

    The chair would appreciate it if you stayed away from hairstyle.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Chuck Cadman: I have some for sale if you'd like some.

    A thought occurred to me that we've been hearing about marriage “evolving”. But I suggest that the definition of marriage, as we see it, has never actually evolved; it's always been there. We're being asked to do something that will actually kick it off on an evolution, because the definition has always been there, as a union between a heterosexual couple.

    If we go back to the references made that at one point women were subservient to their husbands, which I would argue, after 34 years of marriage, has gone 180 degrees now--that aside, the evolution is in the roles of the individuals in the marriage. I don't think marriage itself evolves, as opposed to the roles of the individuals within that marriage and the parts they play.

    I'd just ask for some comments on that.

    Mr. Jeremy Dias: I think that's a good point, but I disagree with that. I think the roles have changed. May I present an example, please? Thank you.

    Mr. Chuck Cadman: I'm not suggesting the roles have changed, but the definition of marriage has never evolved. We're being asked to kick it off on that evolution.

    Mr. Jeremy Dias: I don't think you're changing the definition of marriage. According to my research, people define marriage as love. Can I continue with this, please?

    Before you make up your mind, I think it's important to recognize that when marriage was limited to say one Caucasian person marrying another Caucasian person and they decided to legalize interracial marriage, they thought it was going to be a big deal; it was changing the definition of marriage. When you allowed intercultural marriages and interreligious marriages, they considered the exact same points.

    It's important to reconsider those points when considering same-sex marriage, but at the same time I'd disagree that it's a valid argument to deny same-sex marriage.

À  (1055)  

    Mr. Chuck Cadman: Would you suggest that the definition of marriage has evolved?

    Mr. Jeremy Dias: Absolutely.

    Mr. Chuck Cadman: What was it before it is now then?

    Mr. Jeremy Dias: Well, way back with the Greeks, you'd marry a whole bunch of people and have some kids, and some of them would get put into jars and left on the streets because they were women. Now it's a man and woman who go to a church, a synagogue, or a mosque. They jump over a broom or they break a glass and they celebrate something that's love, as opposed to putting their children in jars.

    I think you have to look culturally through time. I think in the last 100 years humanity has evolved greatly, especially in philosophical, moral, psychological, and scientific thought. Two hundred or five hundred years ago we weren't flying around in planes, and before that we didn't have boats that could take us across the world. Communication technology has evolved to where we can understand each others' ideas and appreciate each other for our differences.

    The Chair: I'm going to Mr. Lee, and then the last question goes to Mr. Sorenson.

    Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): I'd like to address a comment and a question to Mr. Dias as well.

    I did want to open by saying I think we should try not to give the Law Commission of Canada a bad rap. Mr. O'Brien quoted quite accurately something from the Law Commission, but in the Law Commission report, of course, they were talking about all kinds of relationships in Canadian society--conjugal, non-conjugal, brothers and sisters living together with parents, friends. As we design federal and provincial legislation, we have to keep all of those different types of relationships in mind and be sensitive to them. They really weren't plugging changes in marriage, but the connection is there if you wish to make it.

    On the question of evolution of marriage, I reject the analogy drawn to racial intermarriage. All that happened when racial intermarriage became acceptable was that we changed the skin colour of the man and the woman. People might have thought it was a big deal at one time, but it's just a change of skin colour of a man and a woman.

    Evolving marriage into something it just isn't by basic definition is quite a leap.

    I respect the views of those who want to do that, but wouldn't you agree--and perhaps you don't--that kind of evolution, fundamentally altering what it is, i.e., a man and a woman, to something else is way more than evolution? It is simply a change.

    Why don't we just let the institution of marriage evolve like the cart and horse? Let it be. If we need something new relationship-wise for other types of relationships--conjugal relationships, including gays and lesbians--why don't we do that?

    Mr. Jeremy Dias: I think that's a good point. I think it's important to recognize that marriage is a highly respected institution, with tradition, values, rights, and privileges. Why not create a second institution with the same rights and privileges? That is a very good question.

    There are two reasons. One is the anthropological evidence that marriage has not been solely an opposite-sex institution. Second, to go back to your racial and sex differences, the difference between my genetic makeup and hers, for example, is a matter of genes; it's one chromosome. The genetic difference between my skin colour and yours is a 10% genetic makeup. To be totally honest, the difference between the two...they are not that far apart. The genetic difference is about 10% in either case.

    So going from your perspective, I don't agree that it's a leap or a serious change.

    I'm just drawing from science class, but I hope that's an acceptable argument, or at least one you'll take into consideration.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    I want to bring to the attention of the committee a couple of things. We don't have quorum, so we make no decisions here, but please think about it. You know that we've had referred to us the question of--what's the language?--solicitation. It was motion 192 from Libby Davies. What I'm thinking we may wish to do--and you might consider this--is establish a subcommittee, given that we're quite busy with this and we have a couple of members who have an interest and have expressed a desire to take the lead on this. So please consider that, and the next time we have sufficient numbers of people, we'll make that decision, one way or the other.

    Finally, there was discussion at our last meeting about the fact that we had an American who wanted to appear before the committee in Montreal. If I can recap for those who weren't here, the discussion went in the direction of, if we're bringing in someone to speak of the experience in the United States, the same way we would bring in someone to speak of the experience in the Netherlands, or Belgium, or France, then that would be something we would wish to do. Otherwise we didn't feel any need to seek a witness from the United States. Is that a fair...?

    In this case, this person has communicated to us that she is an expert on marriage, the author of several books, and she lists some, but does not claim to be an expert in the experience of this issue in the United States. I think that's a fair way to describe this piece of correspondence.

    So I will respond to her by saying that we'll keep this letter here, in case we want to explore it further, but for the time being, we don't feel the need. Okay?

    John.

Á  (1100)  

    Mr. John McKay: Just on that point, is our witness list filled up? I had understood this person was going to be in Montreal.

    The Chair: She is.

    Mr. John McKay: She is there at the time the committee is there.

    Is our witness list complete?

    The Clerk of Committee (Mr. Patrice Martin): No. We still have a few slots for the second day in Montreal.

    Mr. John McKay: Well, then, is there any reason, other than her citizenship, why we would not treat her in the same manner as anyone else would be treated?

    The Chair: No. I have no opinion. I'm just recapping what was said at the last meeting.

    I'll call her as a witness if she's in Montreal. I have no difficulty at all.

    Mr. John McKay: I don't know what the objection would be. She's an author. She has written about marriage.

    The Chair: Any objection, anyone?

    Some hon. members: No.

    The Chair: Let's put it this way. If in fact we have a run on witnesses and we have more people in Montreal who want to appear than we have time for, those people who are Canadian--

    Mr. John McKay: We won't discriminate on the basis of citizenship.

    The Chair: No, you don't understand my point. I don't want to deny somebody living in Montreal who wants to appear, because we filled the spot. Okay?

    An hon. member: Agreed.

    The Chair: I thank the witnesses very much for their appearance here today and the tone of the discussion.

    The meeting is adjourned.