JUST Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Friday, April 11, 2003

0835

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

Ms. Deborah Eaton-Kent (As Individual)

0840

Mr. Matthew Eaton-Kent (As Individual)

The Chair

Ms. Cynthia Petersen (Lawyer, Sack, Goldblatt, Mitchell, As Individual)

0845

The Chair

Bishop John Boissonneau (Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops)

0850

Dr. Sylvia Santin (Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops)

0855

Mgr John Boissonneau

The Chair

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

0900

Mme Cynthia Petersen

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mme Cynthia Petersen

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Cynthia Petersen

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mme Cynthia Petersen

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

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

Ms. Cynthia Petersen

Mr. Derek Lee

Ms. Cynthia Petersen

Mr. Derek Lee

Ms. Cynthia Petersen

0905

Mr. Derek Lee

Ms. Cynthia Petersen

Mr. Derek Lee

Mgr John Boissonneau

Mr. Derek Lee

Mgr John Boissonneau

Mr. Derek Lee

Ms. Cynthia Petersen

0910

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Ms. Cynthia Petersen

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Matthew Eaton-Kent

0915

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mgr John Boissonneau

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mgr John Boissonneau

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.)

Mgr John Boissonneau

The Chair

Ms. Cynthia Petersen

0920

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Cynthia Petersen

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mme Cynthia Petersen

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mgr John Boissonneau

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.)

0925

Ms. Cynthia Petersen

Mr. John Maloney

Dr. Sylvia Santin

Mr. John Maloney

Dr. Sylvia Santin

Mr. John Maloney

Dr. Sylvia Santin

The Chair

Ms. Deborah Eaton-Kent

0930

Mr. Matthew Eaton-Kent

The Chair

Mr. Rob Clements (Member, Study Commission on Doctrine, Free Methodist Church in Canada)

0940

0945

The Chair

Ms. Natalie Hudson (Executive Director, Right to Life Association of Toronto and Area)

0950

The Chair

Ms. Alexandra Raffé (As Individual)

0955

1000

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Natalie Hudson

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Natalie Hudson

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Natalie Hudson

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Natalie Hudson

Mr. Richard Marceau

1005

Ms. Natalie Hudson

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Natalie Hudson

The Chair

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.)

1010

Mr. Rob Clements

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Ms. Siobhan Devine (As Individual)

1015

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Rob Clements

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Rob Clements

1020

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Rob Clements

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Rob Clements

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Rob Clements

1025

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney

Ms. Natalie Hudson

The Chair

Ms. Siobhan Devine

The Chair

Ms. Natalie Hudson

1030

The Chair

Ms. Natalie Hudson

The Chair

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Shabbir Ally (Coordinator, Islamic Council of Imams-Canada)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Shabbir Ally

1040

1045

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Gerald Vandezande (As Individual)

1050

1055

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Gerald Vandezande

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Tatum Wilson (Representative, Community Advisory Committee on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Issues)

Ms. Amelia Golden (Advisor, Community Advisory Committee on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Issues)

1100

Mr. Tatum Wilson

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Gerald Vandezande

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Gerald Vandezande

1105

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Shabbir Ally

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Gerald Vandezande

1110

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Gerald Vandezande

1115

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Amelia Golden

1120

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Gerald Vandezande

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Tatum Wilson

1125

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. John Maloney

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Shabbir Ally

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Ms. Amelia Golden

1130

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Shabbir Ally

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Robert Cooper (As Individual)

1140

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. David Hazzard (Assistant Superintendent, The Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada)

1145

The Reverend Ted Seres (National Coordinator, Specialized Ministries, The Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada)

1150

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

The Reverend Mel Finlay (Pastor, The Church at the Centre, Fallingbrook Heights Baptist Church)

1155

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Richard Marceau

1200

Mr. David Hazzard

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. David Hazzard

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. David Hazzard

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. David Hazzard

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

1205

Mr. Derek Lee

Rev. Ted Seres

Mr. Derek Lee

1210

Rev. Ted Seres

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Richard Marceau

Rev. Ted Seres

Mr. Richard Marceau

1215

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Rev. Ted Seres

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Rev. Mel Finlay

1220

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Richard Marceau

Rev. Ted Seres

Mr. Richard Marceau

Rev. Ted Seres

Mr. Richard Marceau

Rev. Ted Seres

Mr. Richard Marceau

Rev. Ted Seres

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Derek Lee

1225

Rev. Mel Finlay

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Ms. Joan MacKenzie-Davies (Executive Director, Ontario Association of Social Workers)

1335

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Ms. Tamara Kronis (As Individual)

Mr. Martin Traub-Werner (As Individual)

Ms. Tamara Kronis

1340

Mr. Martin Traub-Werner

Ms. Tamara Kronis

Mr. Martin Traub-Werner

Ms. Tamara Kronis

Mr. Martin Traub-Werner

1345

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Ms. Marie Clarke Walker (Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress)

1350

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Ms. Kim Beemer (Vice-President, Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Issues, Canadian Labour Congress)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Joan MacKenzie-Davies

1355

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Joan MacKenzie-Davies

Mr. Peter Newman (Ontario Association of Social Workers)

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Peter Newman

1400

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Joan MacKenzie-Davies

Mr. Martin Traub-Werner

1405

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Tamara Kronis

Mr. Martin Traub-Werner

Ms. Tamara Kronis

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Tamara Kronis

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Richard Marceau

1410

Mr. Martin Traub-Werner

Ms. Tamara Kronis

Mr. Martin Traub-Werner

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Tamara Kronis

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. John Maloney

1415

Mr. Peter Newman

Mr. John Maloney

Ms. Joan MacKenzie-Davies

Mr. Peter Newman

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Richard Marceau

1420

Ms. Kim Beemer

Ms. Marie Clarke Walker

Ms. Kim Beemer

Ms. Marie Clarke Walker

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. John Maloney

Ms. Marie Clarke Walker

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Professor Bonnie Fox (University of Toronto, As Individual)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Burke Christian (As Individual)

1440

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Richard Marceau

Prof. Bonnie Fox

Mr. Richard Marceau

Prof. Bonnie Fox

Mr. Richard Marceau

1445

Prof. Bonnie Fox

Mr. Richard Marceau

Prof. Bonnie Fox

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Burke Christian

Mr. Derek Lee

1450

Mr. Burke Christian

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Burke Christian

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Burke Christian

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Burke Christian

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Burke Christian

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. John Maloney

1455

Prof. Bonnie Fox

Mr. John Maloney

Prof. Bonnie Fox

Mr. John Maloney

Prof. Bonnie Fox

Mr. John Maloney

Prof. Bonnie Fox

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Prof. Bonnie Fox

1500

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Prof. Bonnie Fox

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Prof. Bonnie Fox

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Prof. Bonnie Fox

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Prof. Bonnie Fox

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Prof. Bonnie Fox

1505

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Prof. Bonnie Fox

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Jim Duffy (President, Witness)

1515

1520

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

M. Ron Gray (National Leader, Christian Heritage Party of Canada)

1525

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Professor Lorraine Weinrib (Law School; Member, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, As Individual)

1530

1535

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Ms. Kimberly Beaven (As Individual)

1540

1545

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Richard Marceau

Prof. Lorraine Weinrib

1550

Mr. Richard Marceau

Prof. Lorraine Weinrib

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

1555

Prof. Lorraine Weinrib

1600

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Prof. Lorraine Weinrib

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Richard Marceau

1605

Prof. Lorraine Weinrib

1610

Mr. Richard Marceau

Prof. Lorraine Weinrib

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Ron Gray

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Jim Duffy

1615

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Jim Duffy

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Jim Duffy

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Jim Duffy

Mr. John Maloney

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Ron Gray

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Jim Duffy

Mr. Ron Gray

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

1620

Prof. Lorraine Weinrib

1625

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

1630

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Ms. Katherine Yu (As Individual)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Dr. Christopher McIntosh (As Individual)

1635

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Tony l Mandl (As Individual)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. David Mitges (As Individual)

1640

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. David Mitges

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Ms. Ulma Lee (As Individual)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Ms. Ulma Lee

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Ms. Ulma Lee

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Ms. Ulma Lee

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Ms. Ulma Lee

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Ms. Ulma Lee

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Marcus Logan (As Individual)

1645

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Marcus Logan

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Ms. Kathy Vance (As Individual)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Glen Pelshea (As Individual)

1650

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Brian Cohen (As Individual)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Stace Lum-Yip (As Individual)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Stace Lum-Yip

1655

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Ms. Renée King (As Individual)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Eric Stephenson (As Individual)

1700

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Van Tran-Adams (As Individual)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Matthew Tran-Adams (As Individual)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Peter Skaliks (As Individual)

1705

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. David Rayside (As Individual)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Jawed Akhter (As Individual)

1710

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Jawed Akhter

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

The Reverend Sherry De Novo (As Individual)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

CANADA

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

NUMBER 037

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Friday, April 11, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¾ (0835)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): I call to order the 37th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee has resumed its study on marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions.

This morning between 8:30 and 9:30, we will be hearing from, as an individual, Cynthia Petersen, a lawyer at Sack Goldblatt Mitchell; as individuals, Deborah Eaton-Kent and Matthew Eaton-Kent; and from the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops, Bishop Jean Boissonneau and Sylvia Santin.

Welcome to our committee. In case you haven't been advised, you will each have seven minutes, whether it's in a group or as individuals. I will indicate when you are at six minutes and then at seven minutes. Please don't test me beyond that.

In any case, bienvenue, and we will proceed.

I'm going to go first to Deborah Eaton-Kent and Matthew Eaton-Kent.

Ms. Deborah Eaton-Kent (As Individual): Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning.

Our son, Matthew, is an old hand at addressing a House of Commons committee. He presented seven years ago, at the age of eight, to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, which was reviewing a proposed bill on new reproductive technologies and its impact on children. Matthew's decision to be here at that time and again today was his and his alone. As his mom, I thank him for his courage and convictions, as I thank our daughter, Michaela, and my partner, Margaret.

In many ways our journey as a same-sex couple and parents has not been an easy one, but in so many more ways our journey has been empowering and filled with many wonderful and enlightening lessons. We have lived our marriage. Today our family is here to speak to you not just of our right to marry but also, more importantly, of our human rights as Canadians. Until our rights as a same-sex couple are fully and completely recognized in law and in civil rights, then the four of us are not equal.

We are here today to tell you that in the eyes of our God, we are as equal as any of you, and that our laws need to recognize what society already has. We are no different, no more or no less, from you or your children, your neighbours, your sister or brother, mother or father. For Margaret, Matthew, Michaela, and I are you.

Today I speak to you about the right to choose--or not--to marry. There are many in the gay community who do not want to marry. My partner and I do. However, until our right to choose to marry is recognized, we are not equal in the eyes of the law or society.

This week Margaret and I did what many moms, parents, and partners do during a typical week. We did our bills, walked the dogs, cleaned the garage, went to work, sat through an exciting hockey “Day of Champions”, attended a church seminar, shovelled off the walk again, argued about money, talked and visited with friends and family, and collapsed at night from exhaustion. In short, it was a typical family having a typical week.

The Catholic Church defines marriage as containing three essential aspects: mutual support, openness to procreation, and public commitment. The typical gay family meets all of these criteria: loving parents, nurturing children, and a respectful, non-abusive, caring environment. Our weekly family activities were accomplished as decent, reliable, and honourable people. However, we did not do any of these things as a legally married couple.

Next month we will celebrate the 25th anniversary of our marriage. Married? Perhaps not legally, but in all else, Margaret and I are about as married as you can get.

About 18 months ago I asked our congregation to sign a petition in favour of same-sex marriage. As I stood in the sanctuary of our 178-year-old country church, Ebenezer United Church, facing me were both old and young. Some people had been at that church for 60 or 70 years. We were new to the church, members for about three years. The love and acceptance our family has received at that church has been amazing.

Did they care that we were a same-sex family? Not at all. All they knew was that we were a young family with a history of church involvement and that we cared to be there. For that, and for who we are, they loved and accepted us. However, it was with some trepidation that I asked for their support. Would they actually sign a petition?

I need not have worried. They lined up in the sanctuary, young and old, country and quasi-urban folk. We had comments such as, “You're kidding; I thought you had this right already”, and “Why would you not be able to marry? What makes you any different from any other couple?” With the handshake, the smile, and the signature from a 75-year-old dairy farmer, my partner and I had tears in our eyes.

You see, we were and are no different in the eyes of the many, many people in our lives.

To say our journey has been easy.... It has not. We've had our share of rejection, intolerance, hatred, and nastiness from family members, community friends, and workplace colleagues. For many years we had to hide our relationship, deny it, not honour it for what it was--our marriage. But as we've taught our children, focus on the positive things in your life. To be here today, to live in a democracy that allows everyone their view, to live in a tolerant, caring, giving society--that's priceless beyond words.

To those of you who would deny what is rightfully ours, this is an issue of human rights, no more, no less. Either you believe all people are created equal or you don't. For those of you who choose to ignore the reality of our relationship--a marriage of 25 years--well, all we can do is speak and live our truth quietly.

As politicians, you will either have the courage to recognize what is the truth or you will not. We cannot make you change the law, but we can, in our own small way, speak for ourselves and many other same-sex families. We can say, do not be afraid of us. Do not put our human rights aside. Do not crumble in the face of loud, outrageous, and harmful hatemongers. Be brave. Be tolerant. Be compassionate, and amplify those traits that so well define our Canadian persona. Step bravely into the sun and accord us our rights that are due as equal members of Canadian society.

If you cannot, then our family, our children, will want to understand why, why an overwhelming majority of Canadians are more equal than we are, more equal than their parents.

Madam Curie said, “Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood and accepted.” As a baby boomer, I learned, with Mr. Trudeau's help, to be tolerant and inclusive. For that, I am very grateful. His dream was for Canadians' rights to be enshrined in the Canadian Constitution, to be equal to each other. Our God believes in the equality of the human race. Each of us is a gift. Our status in the eyes of God comes from being, not from how you live or why you live your life.

Our family prays that you will have Mr. Trudeau's courage and foresight to recognize that which is a given: We are all equal in the eyes of God.

Matthew.

¾ (0840)

Mr. Matthew Eaton-Kent (As Individual): Good morning. I'm a 15-year-old boy. My cultural background is English and Ukrainian. I was born in Canada.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says, in section 15.6, that:

Discrimination may be described as a distinction, whether intentional or not but based on grounds relating to personal characteristics of the individual or group, which has the effect of imposing burdens, obligations, or disadvantages on such individual or group not imposed upon others, or which withholds or limits access to opportunities, benefits and advantages available to other members of society.

This means that no matter what colour your skin is, no matter what religion you belong to, and no matter what your sexual orientation or gender is, every Canadian has the right to be treated with the same basic human rights.

This fact is stated in our Constitution so that we can live in a civil, respectful, and tolerant society. If you were to discriminate against same-sex couples by not allowing them to marry, you would be breaking that law.

Thank you.

The Chair: Now to Cynthia Petersen, for seven minutes.

Ms. Cynthia Petersen (Lawyer, Sack, Goldblatt, Mitchell, As Individual): Merci, monsieur le président, membres du comité.

I'll be making my presentation in English, but I'd be happy to take questions in French at the end.

I wanted to just briefly introduce myself. I am appearing here as an individual, not on behalf of any of my clients, although I do represent five same-sex couples in the province of British Columbia who are seeking a licence to marry. I also represent Egale Canada Inc., which I understand has already made representations to this committee, it being a national organization committed to the advancement of equality for lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgendered people. I represent them in the litigation in British Columbia and also in the same-sex marriage litigation in Ontario.

I practice law in a law firm here in Ontario, but before I went into practice I was a law professor at the University of Ottawa for a number of years. My area of expertise is constitutional law. I've published widely on issues of constitutional law. My publications have been cited and relied upon by the Supreme Court of Canada and appellate courts in this country. So without lacking too much humility, I think I can say that I am recognized as a constitutional scholar. I have been involved in most of the cases that have gone to the Supreme Court of Canada dealing with lesbian and gay equality rights under the charter.

I don't intend, however, to make a presentation to you on the charter arguments we are making in the courts in British Columbia and Ontario. My understanding is that professors Cossman and Ryder outlined the constitutional arguments to you yesterday, and I don't want to be repetitive. Moreover, the case has been argued now in three different provinces. I am not involved in the litigation in Quebec, but I'm sure you're aware that there is also a decision out of the Quebec Superior Court.

The judges in all of those provinces--it actually totals five judges, because three judges heard the case in Ontario--unanimously agreed that denying same-sex couples the freedom to marry is a violation of equality rights under section 15 of the charter, which my friend here has just outlined. I believe there is no question that this is constitutionally correct, and I believe that will be upheld by the higher courts.

Only one judge, Mr. Justice Pitfield in British Columbia, found that, notwithstanding that it's discriminatory, denying the freedom to marry can nevertheless be upheld, but he based his decision on a very narrow interpretation of Parliament's jurisdictional power under the division of powers in the Constitution Act.

His decision was subsequently effectively overturned--or if not overturned, certainly the courts in Ontario and Quebec disagreed with his decision. I think very importantly, you also have to recognize that the Attorney General of Canada disagreed with the position, and argued against it in the courts.

In my submission, it is a wrong decision, and I believe it will be reversed by the British Columbia Court of Appeal. If you read the academic literature, you will see that most constitutional experts disagree with the decision.

In my submission, there is no question that denying same-sex couples the freedom to marry is unconstitutional. The only issue is, what do you do about it? What do you do to correct that unconstitutionality, to correct the discrimination? My understanding, from reading the discussion paper that underlies these hearings, is that one of the options this committee is considering is the creation of some alternate regime, something other than marriage, that would permit same-sex couples to register their partnerships but not actually marry.

What I want to address the committee on is that particular option, why I think it's an unacceptable option and why I think you ought not to recommend it to Parliament. Rather, you ought to recommend legislation that would permit same-sex couples to marry. And I will use the short form of “RDP” to stand for “registered domestic partnership”.

Those who support a registered domestic partnership or who argue in favour of it often say to me that it would permit same-sex couples to access all of the benefits and obligations married couples can access; that they would be able to register their partnership and thereby become immediately entitled to all of the incidental benefits of marriage; and that it therefore would be equivalent to or, they even argue, equal to marriage.

In my submission, there is no equality if the regime is a separate regime. The first thing you have to realize, I believe, is that for those same-sex couples--my clients in British Columbia included--who seek to marry, marriage is for them a very important institution that has personal meaning for them, sometimes for religious reasons, sometimes for other personal reasons. What they seek is access to that fundamental social institution that is meaningful to them. They do not seek access to some alternate regime. The motivating factor for them is not access to the benefits, because all of them have already cohabited for a sufficient period of time to have those benefits under legislation already passed by Parliament in the year 2000, the Modernization of Obligations and Benefits Act.

So for them, there is no advancement toward equality in being granted access to those benefits through some alternate regime. But even for the gays and lesbians and bisexuals in Canada who would not choose to marry if they were given the freedom to do so--and there are some, like many heterosexual couples, who choose not to marry--there is a dignity inherent in having the personal autonomy to choose for themselves whether they wish to structure their personal conjugal relationship as a marriage or as some alternate, common-law form of relationship.

To have the state deny that to individuals, to deem them unworthy of it, is an affront to their dignity that creating a personal domestic partnership would simply not remedy, because they would still be excluded from choosing the option of marriage that is available to heterosexual couples.

¾ (0845)

I would like to talk about an analogy, if I could, to some American case law dealing specifically with racial inequality. An RDP regime, in my view, is simply a segregationist regime, and like all segregationist regimes it affronts the dignity of those individuals who are set apart on the basis of their personal characteristics. I believe there is a clear analogy here to the situation in the United States, where historically racially segregated policies had been justified. As I'm sure you're aware, they were struck down in 1954, in a case known as Brown v. Board of Education.

Subsequently, in 1967, the United States Supreme Court struck down another law that was very similar to the common-law rule we're dealing with here, and that was the law that prohibited interracial couples from marrying. I would submit to you that it is inconceivable to believe the United States Supreme Court at that time might have even contemplated creating a registered domestic partnership regime for interracial couples. They would not have done it, because it would have been viewed as segregationist, which, by then, for more than 20 years, the United States Supreme Court had quite appropriately said was unequal treatment and discriminatory treatment.

I suggest, and I certainly hope, this committee would not even contemplate recommending registered domestic partnerships for interracial couples, because the inequality in that type of segregationist policy is obvious. It is no less acceptable for same-sex couples than it is for interracial couples. For that reason I would urge you to reject that option and to instead recommend legislation that would permit same-sex couples to marry.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

To the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Bishop John Boissonneau (Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops): Thank you.

The Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops thanks the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for receiving our presentation and for the invitation to speak to you this morning. We are particularly pleased to do so because of our conviction that the House of Commons is the proper forum for action to be taken in regard to marriage, one of the fundamental institutions of our society.

Members of Parliament are elected representatives of the people and directly answerable to them. They will live and deal with the results of the decisions you make. We applaud you for undertaking this consultative process.

You have received our written submission, and we shall just highlight some of the key points this morning.

We are here today to support the continued recognition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. For Catholics, marriage has three essential aspects--the mutual care of the couple, the openness to procreation, and the special graces bestowed by ceremony, in our case the sacrament of matrimony.

All marriages share these three elements, and by their nature they present a symbol, in the deepest sense of that word, of the divine presence in the day-to-day life of humanity. Marriage between a woman and a man is at the same time the self-giving that exists in conjugal love that is creative and sustaining of human society.

The bishops are also concerned about the church's religious freedom to undertake, regulate, and celebrate marriage in accord with its revealed and ecclesiastical tenets. In addition, we have concerns for the common good of society if the definition is changed to include same-sex couples.

Dr. Santin will continue.

¾ (0850)

Dr. Sylvia Santin (Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops): Marriage is so foundational to our society that changing it, in our view, constitutes an experiment in social engineering, one with unknown outcomes.

Such a change ignores the abundant evidence that marriage, as it is traditionally understood, is the most stable setting for the rearing of children, providing nurturing; role models for both sexes; and economic and social security. There's also evidence that the children of single parents, when considered as a group, have considerably more developmental, academic, and social difficulties. We want to make it clear that this does not deny the heroic efforts of single parents; it only emphasizes the difficulties of their task.

We also know that the children of common-law families face triple the risk of family breakdown in comparison with the children of parents who are married and who did not live together before marriage, and parental separation is a significant risk for children.

We believe that married couples, husbands and wives, by their desire and their willingness to commit to the future by having children, and by accepting the long period of care and nurture that the next generation requires, serve the needs and well-being of the developing person and the common good of society.

In terms of the consequences of change, we begin by emphasizing that the consequences of changing the definition of marriage are unknown. Previous changes--easy divorce, the equivalences between marriage and common-law unions--have not served the best interests of children, and in turn have diminished the common good of our society. We would argue that the interest of the state is much more profound than providing a legal framework within which people can make a commitment to each other.

The state has a compelling interest in maintaining the traditional understanding of marriage as, in the words of the preamble of Bill C-23, “the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”, precisely because marriage has a proven track record for stability and nurture for partners, their children, and ultimately for the good of society.

We have laid out the conditions we see as necessary for marriage--mutual support, openness to procreation, and public commitment. All are essential. The ability to procreate is unique to a heterosexual union, and constitutes the precise reason the state does have a compelling interest to support and regulate this institution.

There is abundant evidence of the strengths of marriage, and also its weaknesses, and its contributions to the social fabric. Where are the studies that are based on broad samples of a general population as to what might be the contributions of same-sex marriages? There are questions we have that we cannot answer because the evidence is simply not there. What is the percentage of the population that would be directly involved in same-sex marriages? What would be the stability of these unions? How many children would be involved in these unions, those from previous heterosexual unions and those born with the assistance of a third party? What would be the long-term outcome of such families?

A final concern we raise, which Bishop Boissonneau has mentioned, is that of religious freedom. We are aware that it has been raised by other witnesses and that various assurances have been given. We accept these assurances with regard to the state but are less confident regarding the courts.

Given all these unknowns, and the practice and the mindset of millennia, we suggest that legislatures need to be very prudent.

¾ (0855)

Mgr John Boissonneau: From a Catholic point of view, all human beings are equal in the eyes of God. Some have a vocation to married life, some to celibate single life, some to religious life, some to the clerical life. There's no automatic additional status conferred by any of these. They are all open to God's grace, which can be accepted or rejected. Status comes from how you live the life you have chosen.

We ask you to preserve the current definition of marriage, as it is wholesome for the common good, in keeping with natural law and in conformity with God's design for the world.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I'm going to Richard Marceau for seven minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the witnesses for their presentations.

I will begin with questions for Ms. Petersen. Yesterday, as a matter of fact, we heard a very interesting presentation by two of your lawyer colleagues, Ryder and Cossman.

We have several times thus far heard a particular argument and I would like to hear your views on it as a constitutional expert.

Some people have stated that Parliament is not entitled to change the definition of marriage because in 1867, marriage was recognized as being the union of one man and one woman. They in a way would like us to retain forever more the understanding of marriage as it stood in 1867.

Would you care to comment?

¿ (0900)

Mme Cynthia Petersen: In my view, there is an error in that opinion since there is in the Constitutional Act a legal principle that everyone accepts, that has given rise to no controversy: it is the principle according to which Parliament or the provincial legislatures must have jurisdiction to legislate in any way they see fit, even in ways that those who drew up the Constitution in 1867 had not thought of.

For example, we have invented computers, the Internet and other things that no one could have foreseen in 1867, and Parliament and the provincial legislatures have the authority to make laws in these areas.

With regard to marriage for same-sex couples, we could say that those who drafted the Constitution in 1867 had never even thought of that when they drew up the document. It is highly probable that the lawmakers at the time and those who prepared this document had never even thought of that.

Parliament and legislative assemblies must have jurisdiction in this area. In our constitutional system, it would be impossible for a Parliament or a provincial legislature to not be able to legislate in this area. The federal parliament or provincial legislatures can do this.

The question is simply which parliament has this jurisdiction. Everyone, be it in British Columbia, in Ontario or in Quebec, believes that it is the federal Parliament that has jurisdiction in this area. The Attorney General is of the view that Parliament has this authority, and the Attorneys General of Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia share this view.

I believe that it is the federal Parliament that has jurisdiction over this, but if that were not the case, this would fall to the provincial legislatures. Therefore, someone, clearly, has jurisdiction over this. It is impossible for there to be a constitutional void and that no one is authorized to legislate in this regard. It is my firm belief that it is the Parliament of Canada that has this authority. It is simply impossible that no one within our constitutional system could legislate in this area.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you. That is very clear.

You talked about civil unions and stated that for several reasons, this is not an appropriate solution. You base this position, among other things, on American case law in the area of inter-racial marriages.

You seem to have forgotten Parliament's constitutional jurisdiction in the area of civil unions. I would like to hear your comments on this.

Would I be mistaken in saying that in clauses 91 and 92, dealing with the distribution of powers, jurisdiction over matters related to property, civil law and family law was granted to the provinces and that one exception to that was the matter of marriage and divorce, an exception that, by definition, must be interpreted in a restrictive way?

In your view, in family law, does the Parliament of Canada have jurisdiction over anything else but marriage and divorce? Does that not rather come under provincial jurisdiction?

Mme Cynthia Petersen: In my opinion, federal jurisdiction in the area of marriage and divorce is not an exception under provincial jurisdiction over civil law and property law.

Marriage has certain ramifications with regard to issues of property. Therefore, the federal government, given its jurisdiction over marriage and divorce, can legislate in the area of alimony in cases of divorce or separation because this is related to marriage. The federal government can legislate with regard to the separation of a married couple only. In the case of a common law couple, in other words one that is not married, it is simply a matter of civil law, and this comes under provincial jurisdiction.

If in Canada we had an act allowing gay and lesbians to marry, then the federal government would have jurisdiction as far as legislating those things that would affect these married couples, as is the case at present with married heterosexuals.

Mr. Richard Marceau: But could the federal Parliament create of its own a civil union?

Ms. Cynthia Petersen: The federal Parliament could legislate within the limits of its jurisdiction, for example with regard to matters already covered by the Modernization of Obligations and Benefits Act, immigration issues or federal income tax matters, but it could not create a civil union allowing gays and lesbians having registered their civil union to acquire rights and obligations granted by the provinces. No, that would not be possible.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Would the same thing not apply in the case of the option put forward in the document from the Department of Justice that says that we could simply leave marriage up to the various churches, because it is not the federal State that decides who is authorized to marry people, but rather the provinces, since they are the ones who appoint the registrars of births, deaths and marriages?

If I understand what you are saying, among the four options the committee is studying, namely the status quo, marriage for same-sex couples, civil unions and leaving the matter up to the various churches, two of them are unconstitutional by virtue of the distribution of powers, those being civil unions and leaving the matter up to the churches, and one of the other two, the status quo option, is unconstitutional by virtue of the Charter.

Therefore, in your view, as a recognized constitutional expert, there is only one possible solution constitutionally and that is marriage for same-sex couples.

Mme Cynthia Petersen: Precisely. Thank you.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Marceau, merci.

Mr. Lee for seven minutes.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): I just want to say that this member's view is that we're certainly not tied or constrained by the discussion paper designed by officials from the Department of Justice. The representatives of Canadians would never be tied by a discussion paper written by the Department of Justice. So all options are on the table.

I want to direct a question or two to Ms. Petersen.

We start off with a definition of marriage quite old, and at one time quite viable. Now it is alleged to be discriminatory because it doesn't provide equal benefit of the law to some people in Canada. Would you agree, then, that we're not so much dealing with intended, advertent, direct discrimination but adverse effect discrimination, really, and in the end we still have discrimination? Is that a fair way to put it?

Ms. Cynthia Petersen: I wouldn't say it's adverse effect, because it's direct. Adverse effect is a neutral rule that has some adverse effect. This rule isn't neutral. It clearly excludes same-sex couples from marriage. But I would agree with you that it's not necessarily intentional.

Mr. Derek Lee: I don't think the rule was intended to exclude anyone.

Ms. Cynthia Petersen: Is it malicious? No one is suggesting that it necessarily is. I think some of the people who oppose extending same-sex marriage do have some malice, but many people don't. Many people who support the current definition don't necessarily intend to discriminate.

Mr. Derek Lee: All right, we're not talking politics now, we're talking law. The definition was designed not so much to exclude, I think, but to create a vehicle; but in the end, and you're certainly free to differ, we end up discriminating against, if you will, or not providing equal benefit of the law to, a group of Canadians.

Is that a fair way to put it?

Ms. Cynthia Petersen: Well, when you say it was “designed”... The definition actually arises out of a series of old English cases that have nothing to do with same-sex couples. Same-sex couples weren't even involved in the early cases—

¿ (0905)

Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you. I guess that's what I was looking for, yes.

If we change the definition, we will then change the thing we're defining. Would you agree with that?

Ms. Cynthia Petersen: I disagree. I fundamentally disagree with that.

I think the best example there is if you take the notion, for example, of citizenship. For many years in the United States prior to emancipation, black Americans could not be citizens. In fact, the United States Supreme Court in 1857, in a very infamous case known as Scott, determined that the word “citizen” in the United States Constitution did not include black people because the framers of the Constitution didn't intend it to, that it never had and it did not. Many people said that if they changed that to include black Americans, somehow citizenship itself would fundamentally be changed, which I think is simply false and illogical. The meaning of citizenship did not change with emancipation, when black Americans became citizens, just as the meaning of marriage would not change if same-sex couples were permitted to marry. The fundamental meaning would remain the same. The group of people to whom the term potentially refers would change, that's all.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay. I don't agree with your view, but you've been very clear about your position on that.

Bishop Boissonneau, do you have any view on this, that if we change the definition, we change the thing we're defining?

Mgr John Boissonneau: Precisely.

Mr. Derek Lee: You do agree with that?

Mgr John Boissonneau: I do. The definition has deep significance religiously, socially, and anthropologically. If you change the definition you change the reality and open that reality to a different meaning.

Mr. Derek Lee: To go back to Ms. Petersen, if we have this problem that we have to fix--and we do have a problem, and we do have to fix it--what constraints....? This is sort of an open-ended question. I don't think we have that many constraints as a Parliament, but if we have this damaged vehicle called “marriage”--it's damaged, ineffective, not comprehensive enough, not inclusive enough or whatever--and we have to fix it, what constraints would there be for a Parliament in reshaping the whole thing?

If the courts say, you have to fix it, surely we can kick it around pretty well. We can turn it inside out, renovate it, and really reshape the sucker, because we have to fix it. Do you see any constraints?

I mean, we talked about the registered partnerships, or the RDPs, as you called them. There's any combination of options available. Are there constitutional constraints we should have our eye on here?

Ms. Cynthia Petersen: As I think I indicated in my exchange with Mr. Marceau, I believe there are constitutional restraints on what you can accomplish as a parliament. Now, you've indicated that you don't believe you're restricted to the discussion paper, and I accept that, but I'm not sure what other options you have in mind. The ones in the discussion paper I believe I've already given my view on, that some of them are unconstitutional because of the requirements of equality provisions in the charter; others are unconstitutional because of division of power issues. If there are other specific options beyond the four that are being contemplated, I'd certainly be happy to comment on them.

I think Parliament does have some latitude. You have the jurisdictional power, under subsection 91(26), to deal with marriage, but the problem that's been identified and that's being studied is the restriction on the freedom of same-sex couples to marry. I don't hear a sort of groundswell of complaint amongst the Canadian public, or in the courts for that matter, about other aspects of marriage and other aspects needing to be modified.

So I'm not sure exactly what you're asking in terms of how you would contemplate reshaping the institution. There doesn't seem to be a great need to reshape the institution, or the public and the courts haven't identified a need to reshape other aspects of the institution.

¿ (0910)

Mr. Derek Lee: That would be true from the point of view of you and your clients. I understand that fully. And I understand why you would be an advocate for that. I'm trying to think more freely than just the end-game of the litigation you're involved in.

What about leaving marriage the way it is and constructing something entirely new, like a brand-new product?

The Chair: Ms. Petersen.

Ms. Cynthia Petersen: My view is that if you leave marriage the way it is and you create some new product, that is perfectly acceptable provided that gays and lesbians have access to both marriage as it is and the new product.

If Parliament believes there is some new model of relationships that doesn't yet exist at the federal level beyond the sort of common-law recognition of one year of cohabitation, something like civil unions, if they believe there is a value to that and they want to create that, there may well be value to that. But if you continue to exclude gays and lesbians from marriage at the same time, then you haven't corrected the inequality.

If you want to create a new option in the range of relationship options, that's fine, and you might well be able to do it constitutionally. You wouldn't be able to entrench on the provincial powers that Mr. Marceau raised, but within the federal jurisdiction you could do it. So as long as you still maintain marriage as a legal institution to which gays and lesbians can't have access, then you haven't addressed the fundamental problem.

The Chair: Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

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

If there were not this distribution of powers problem, one of the possible options might have been something similar to what they have in France, where the civil aspect of marriage has been completely taken out of the sphere of religion. We might come back to that.

I would like, if you will allow me, to put a question to Mr. Eaton-Kent.

Mr. Eaton-Kent, this committee has several times been told that the children of same-sex couples are confused, have problems of adjustment, psychological problems and the list goes on and on. This does not seem to be your case at all.

I would like to hear your comments on these statements that have been made to the committee.

[English]

Mr. Matthew Eaton-Kent: I would just like to address that question, because it's very important to understand that any research that was developed most likely studied single parents. I'm not sure how fair those studies were, because from my position, in the family I live in, it is at least 100% equal to every single common-law marriage I see, if not better. I have so many privileges in my life, and my parents have been so incredibly good at raising me. It's been so incredibly inclusive that until the age of about seven or eight, I didn't even realize that my parents were any different from any of the parents of my friends.

I go to an incredible school right now. I have incredible privileges. I have a great life. I have the courage to be up here to speak. My grades are good, I'm doing well in sports, and I'm pretty sure I have no psychological problems.

So I'm pretty sure the research being quoted by the Catholic Bishops is either false or doesn't outline the variables very well, because it certainly does not reflect the life I live, or the lives of any other children I know who live in a same-sex marriage household.

¿ (0915)

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Monsignor Boissonneau, in Sudbury, the representatives of the diocese of Hearst, Sudbury and Sault-Sainte-Marie stated that if we could guarantee the Church that it would not be forced to celebrate the marriage of same-sex partners, just as it is not forced to marry divorcees or to ordain women priests, these dioceses would be prepared to accept marriage for same-sex partners as long as this was done outside the Catholic Church.

What is your reaction to the statement made by these three dioceses?

[English]

Mgr John Boissonneau: I think fundamentally the teaching of the Catholic Church on marriage is upheld. On the words you're quoting, I think the question is what... [Technical Difficulty--Editor]... alternative of legislation would be viable if Parliament decided to change the definition of marriage?

The Ontario bishops have always maintained that they would... well, “sanction” is not the right word, but they would support or could live with some sort of a registration institution for same-sex couples.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: That is slightly different from what the three dioceses stated. They said that it was not their first choice and that they did not support the idea, but that given the separation between Church and State, they would be prepared to accept it, on condition that they not be forced to celebrate such marriages. Their representative went even further than the possibility of civil unions. He stated that if marriage for same-sex partners were possible and if priests were not forced to celebrate such marriages, then the Church could live with that.

[English]

Mgr John Boissonneau: Again, it wasn't their first choice.

It does raise the question of religious freedom for the churches. That is a concern if marriage is defined in this way, and priests, deacons, and certain delegated lay people are ministers...also the government, in their marriage function, then that also impinges on their role.

To your question, yes, Ontario bishops have maintained that other alternatives would be acceptable to changing of the definition.

The Chair: Mr. Macklin.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): Thank you, Chair, and thank you, witnesses, for being here today.

I'd like to follow up on Mr. Marceau's line of questioning, because it clearly has become an issue, although at this point maybe not as much for your particular church. The question is, how do we protect freedom of religion, and are the protections in place today strong enough?

Yesterday we had three lawyers and two different opinions as to the effectiveness of what we have in place today; whether or not we could improve the protections; and if so, how we could do that. How do you feel at the moment in terms of the present situation and looking ahead?

I think I did catch that you may have some concerns with respect to the courts but not necessarily with respect to the legislatures, which I thought was maybe a rather cute way of putting a very deep and underlying concern.

Mgr John Boissonneau: Yes. There is a concern in this whole discussion, and an underlying theme, which no doubt you've heard at different stages of the committee, that if the definition of marriage is changed then it becomes a right. And if it's a right, then all those ministers licensed by the provincial authorities have a responsibility to respect those rights.

The Chair: Ms. Petersen.

Ms. Cynthia Petersen: Actually, I don't agree with that. We do have in the charter, under section 2, protection for religious freedom, and it is equal to the right to equality in section 15. There's no hierarchy of rights in the charter.

Already in Canada there is a dissonance between the internal religious rules with respect to marriage in various faiths and the civil rules with respect to marriage. Take Catholicism, for example. The Catholic Church does not condone and will not solemnize the marriage of an individual who's been divorced, but at law in Canada we permit divorced people to marry. The Catholic Church can refuse to marry them without any penalty because it's within their religious doctrine and faith to do so.

Orthodox Jewish synagogues will not marry interfaith couples. They will not marry a Jewish person and a non-Jewish person. I don't think we would ever contemplate in Canada having a law that says a non-Jewish person can't marry a Jewish person, but we don't penalize Orthodox synagogues who refuse to marry those couples, because we accept that it's part of their religious freedom.

Similarly, if Parliament enacted a law that permitted same-sex couples to marry, those religious faith groups who for sincerely held religious reasons did not want to solemnize those relationships would not be required to do so, and I personally would fully respect their right to refuse to do so.

¿ (0920)

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Yesterday, though, there was a suggestion that really the problem lies with the human rights legislation per se, that's being used as a sword at the moment, and a number of cases cause great concern.

Ms. Cynthia Petersen: The human rights legislation across Canada also includes specific exemptions for religious bodies with respect to some of the protections so that, again, it's for a different reason; it's not because there's religious freedom enshrined in the human rights legislation but rather because there are defences created within those statutes that permit individuals to rely on religious faith, and permit religious organizations, whether they be churches or synagogues or other temples, for reasons of religious faith to refuse to accord certain services such as marriage services to individuals, which would otherwise be viewed as discriminatory, but because it's based on sincerely held religious grounds, they have those defences already available to them.

That said, you'll see in my brief that I do fundamentally believe religious freedom is already protected. But if this committee is deeply concerned about whether or not those protections already exist, what I suggest in the brief is that in addition to recommending to Parliament that they legislate freedom to marry for same-sex partners, they also recommend legislation similar to what exists in the Quebec civil code that specifically says that no person will be required to solemnize a marriage that's contrary to their faith.

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I am loving this committee here today.

Ms. Petersen, let us go a little further still than clause 367 of the Civil Code. What would you say if we passed a provision that would go further than this section 367 stating not only that no minister could be forced to celebrate such a union but that no consequences whatsoever would flow from such a refusal? I do not want to speak for my colleague, Mr. Toews, who, unfortunately, is not here, but his fear is not that a church be forced to marry homosexual couples, but that the fiscal advantages, the charitable organization status of the church, etc., would be removed. In my view, this fear is unfounded, but it is shared by several other witnesses the committee has heard.

If we went further and stated very clearly that the religious institution would not lose any of its advantages because of this, would that suit you?

Mme Cynthia Petersen: I too believe that this fear is unfounded. Therefore, such a provision is not necessary. But if it is simply a matter of reassuring those who have this fear and who believe it is necessary to grant specific and explicit protection in this area, then I have no problem with that. I would support that position because to my mind the freedom of religion is just as important as equality for gays and lesbians.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Perfect. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: We'd all love to love the committee today.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Monsignor, you say that you would be ready to envisage something resembling a civil union. I do not wish to put words in your mouth, but would the people in this civil union that you would be prepared to accept have approximately the same rights and responsibilities as a married couple?

[English]

Mgr John Boissonneau: If they chose to exercise them.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Maloney, for three minutes.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): I don't mean to belabour the point, but this religious freedom aspect is very key to our considerations.

I appreciate the recommendation you've suggested, and also your assurances that religious freedoms are already protected. On the provision that an individual would not be required to solemnize a marriage that is contrary to their teachings and their principles of faith, is that a jurisdictional problem, or does the federal Parliament have the power in terms of that? Or does it come under civil rights?

¿ (0925)

Ms. Cynthia Petersen: Parliament would have the power to do it within federal jurisdiction. I'm trying to think of whether there would even be an example of something that would occur provincially. I believe those protections already exist in the provincial human rights legislation drafted and enacted across Canada in that there are already exemptions for religious faith.

So essentially those statutes already say you can't suffer any penalty as a result of discriminating if the discrimination is for reasons of religious faith. The question is, should Parliament also do it within the federal jurisdiction? I don't think it's necessary. I think it's acceptable and I think it would be within your jurisdiction to do it within the federal sphere. I mean, you're quite right that even within the human rights context there are provincial statutes and federal statutes, because human rights themselves touch on both provincial and federal matters. So you could provide protection within the federal sphere that wouldn't extend to the provincial sphere, but I believe the provincial sphere is already protected, not only by the Constitution but also by statutes that have actually been enacted.

Mr. John Maloney: Okay.

I just noticed an interesting comparison between the Eaton-Kents' presentation and the Ontario bishops' presentation vis-à-vis the definition of marriage being mutual support, which both parties indicated, and we would have that with gay unions, same-sex unions; and openness to procreation, which is certainly possible biologically for female unions, and certainly same-sex males could adopt. So they're similar there. But the Eaton-Kents referred to public commitment as the third precept, and the church referred to the sacrament of marriage, or whatever the terminology was.

Public commitment, that's not a sacrament. Are we almost on track as far as recognizing the precepts of marriage, between the two presentations?

Dr. Sylvia Santin: The openness to procreation, the possibility, the sort of essential procreative nature of heterosexual unions, to us shows a very big difference between same-sex and heterosexual unions and our understanding of marriage. We see all of those elements. Obviously the love and mutual support of two people is essential. A public commitment, because marriage has social significance, is essential, but the procreative nature of heterosexual marriage is an essential quality for us.

Mr. John Maloney: But certainly female same-sex individuals have the biological ability to procreate. Obviously they need a sperm donation--

Dr. Sylvia Santin: Yes, but there must be a third partner of the opposite sex. The relationship itself is not essentially procreative, as the relationship of a man and woman is.

Mr. John Maloney: But the same end can be obtained.

Dr. Sylvia Santin: We're aware of the fact that there are gay couples with children, whether from a previous marriage or whether through reproductive technology. I mean, we're aware of that fact, but that is not an essential characteristic of the relationship. Most married couples do eventually have children, and for us that is the reason that the state has an interest in marriage; it's because of the fundamentally procreative nature of marriage.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Maloney.

I believe Ms. Eaton-Kent wants to speak to this.

Ms. Deborah Eaton-Kent: Yes, I'd like to speak to that, because obviously it's very close to my heart.

I often tell friends of ours who can't have kids, female and male, that whatever way you get those kids, through adoption or whatever, get them, because kids are the most amazing part of your life. Children are wonderful.

My partner and I wanted kids. We are very fortunate to have two wonderful children. I have many friends in same-sex families who have the same feeling about their kids. They are so wanted, so cherished. We care for them. We nurture them. We treat them well. And I would say I speak for many same-sex families.

If you want to talk about the horrific and horrendous abuse of children, then perhaps you shouldn't be looking at the gay community. There are other groups and institutions who have mistreated children extremely badly. Same-sex families are not treating their children any differently from any loving family.

I think my son would like just a minute.

¿ (0930)

Mr. Matthew Eaton-Kent: I was getting the impression that there's a sort of discriminating effect involved in having children biologically by means other than consensual sex by two adults. The national average in Canada in terms of the birth rate is only about 1.5. Men and women in Canada produce far more eggs and sperm than are used to populate this country. Therefore, there is already overproduction, and by allowing same-sex couples to be married, they will have many options to procreate.

So there's no issue there.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I want to thank the panel, and thank the committee. I'm going to suspend for three minutes while this panel is excused and the next panel steps forward.

¿ (0930)

¿ (0935)

The Chair: I call back to order the 37th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for our study on marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions.

From now until 10:30, we will be hearing from, representing the Free Methodist Church in Canada, Rob Clements, a member of the study commission on doctrine; representing the Right to Life Association of Toronto and Area, Natalie Hudson, the executive director; and appearing as individuals, Siobhan Devine and Alexandra Raffé.

I first should explain that each individual or group has seven minutes. At six minutes I'm going to indicate you have one minute left; at seven minutes, please draw your comments to a close.

Mr. Clements.

Mr. Rob Clements (Member, Study Commission on Doctrine, Free Methodist Church in Canada): Thanks for the opportunity to be here this morning.

To tell you a little bit about the Free Methodist Church in Canada, we are an evangelical Christian denomination in the Methodist tradition. We have 130 churches in Canada, located between Vancouver and Montreal, and we have about 13,000 people on average in our congregations on a Sunday morning. We have about 7,000 official members, which means they subscribe to our articles of doctrine and belief.

We're a very small denomination. We don't normally get involved with this sort of thing. I hope our presence here will give you some indication of how concerned we are about what is being proposed.

As a denomination, the “Free” in our name comes from our historic stance against slavery in the U.S. We have a strong tradition of upholding human rights, but in this case we do not feel that marriage is a human right, whether it's heterosexual or same-sex.

I want to affirm that we do feel that gays and lesbians in this country do have a right to practice the lifestyle they choose. What we are concerned with is the definition of marriage being altered.

I'll just walk you through the paper, although I'm sure you've had a chance to look at it.

One of our concerns is that we just don't feel this is the proper place for a decision like this to be made--in the courts, that is. We feel that the charter in this case is being invoked to confer social legitimation rather than to protect human rights. I think that's one of the main thrusts I want to make in this presentation. We feel that this is something that ought to be decided by Parliament.

Only two countries, as I'm sure you know and have heard before, have redefined marriage to include same-sex partnerships, and there seems to be an eagerness to jump on the bandwagon. Sure, the sky hasn't fallen, and life goes on in Belgium and the Netherlands, but the long-term consequences of those decisions have yet to be seen. We don't know what those will be.

In both cases, those decisions, as I understand it, were made democratically, by voting in the legislature. Our Canadian situation is quite different, because this is being challenged in the courts, and ideally this should be left to Parliament, not left to an unelected court's interpretation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

You've presented in your paper, or the department has presented, three options to be considered. The first is to legally define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and consider establishing a civil registry for other types of domestic partnerships. The second is to redefine marriage as the union of two persons. The third option is to cease recognizing marriages from a government perspective and create a civil partnership regime, where marriage would be left to religious institutions and have no legal status.

We would prefer the first one, to define marriage and keep the traditional definition as it is. We are not opposed to the creation of registered partnerships but we're not endorsing them, either. Our preference would be just to leave things as they are.

While the Christian church has always had its opinions about what marriage is, based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, we don't feel that the third option is a valid one either, because marriage has never simply been a religious act. Opening that up to religious preferences will introduce a number of complications.

¿ (0940)

Same-sex marriages are one thing, but what are we going to do with multiple partners? There are many other religious traditions who would want that. Is that challengeable under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well? How would that be dealt with?

The third thing I want to say on behalf of our ministers and our congregations is that we are very concerned, as someone was talking about in the previous presentation, about the impact this might have on the religious rights of our ministers and our lay ministers and our lay people.

As you know, there have been many cases--for instance, with Trinity Western University--that are very concerning to us. It's very nice to have a personal guarantee by various members who are proposing this change, but a personal guarantee isn't going to do us any good a few years down the road. We need to have this entrenched somehow.

One minute left? Thank you.

I don't understand what the difference is between a minister who refuses to marry a couple legally defined as legitimately married according to the law and, say, a printer in Toronto who refuses to print materials that he feels are contravening his religious beliefs. Yes, there are religious freedoms, but the question is, whose freedoms are being imposed on whose here? That needs to be sorted out.

I think we would be much more comfortable with your proposal of setting up registered partnerships if some sort of guarantee were in place for our ministers that they would not be forced to solemnize marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs.

The other reason we are here is that we're just good citizens. We don't think this is a good idea, but we do live in a pluralist society.

And that's my time.

¿ (0945)

The Chair: Speaking only of the members of the committee--no reflection on any present or past panellist--that's the first time I've ever been thanked for one minute.

Now the Right to Life Association, Natalie Hudson.

Ms. Natalie Hudson (Executive Director, Right to Life Association of Toronto and Area): Thank you very much.

The Right to Life Association of Toronto and Area is a non-denominational, not-for-profit organization that was formed in 1971. With a membership of over 3,000, our mandate is to promote respect for human life at all its stages, from conception to natural death.

We hold that all human life is sacred. Within this mandate, though not explicitly expressed, is the reality that all children have the inherent right to a father and a mother, and the most stable and healthy place for the begetting of new human life is within the family unit.

We look to the law to uphold the unique and fundamental institution of marriage as the place where human life is most likely to be respected and protected. The begetting of children outside the sanctuary of the family with the use of reproductive technologies lends itself to gross abuses of human life.

As this is the only way that same-sex couples can procreate, we very strongly support the institution of marriage as it has always been understood--that is, the union of one man and one woman.

Marriage existed long before there were any laws regulating it. Marriage is not a construct of law but rather an institution fundamental to society that exists by nature. The law exists only to give binding force to what nature has already prescribed, and to protect vulnerable partners and children.

This reality has been upheld in all democracies throughout history. Canada is no exception. I quote the Supreme Court decision of 2000, Mr. Justice Gonthier, who said, “Marriage and family existed long before any legislature decided to regulate them.” The House of Commons also affirmed this in a vote in 1999, where the support for the common law definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman was 216 to 55.

Legislation is for the purpose of protecting the bond of marriage because--and this is the major premise--there are social consequences to the sexual activity of a man and a woman. In marriage, not only is there the natural complementarity of the sexes but the full and rightful use of the generative powers also offers human persons the potential of begetting new human life. If the law seeks to recognize homosexual relationships as equal to marriage, by what criteria would it base its recognition?

The fact that two men or two women love each other cannot be sufficient. Siblings or friends who live together for many years often love and support each other. Would they too be able to make the same legal claim?

It is the power of the sexes to procreate that gives marriage its special character and that allows the state to have a vested interest in the institution of marriage. It is impossible, by nature, for homosexual couples to bring new life into being. To achieve this end, they must turn outside of their union to a third party and to reproductive technologies that take conception out of its natural place.

Human reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization are ethically questionable and medically dangerous. In vitro fertilization takes away from the newly conceived human being the most basic right, to be conceived in a natural way that will least likely affect the health and well-being of that newly formed individual.

In vitro fertilization for homosexual couples also denies the child the basic right to a father and a mother, and creates a situation whereby the child exists for the fulfillment of the wishes and interests of the adult couple.

Children do not exist for the sake of satisfying the needs of their parents. Parents do not have the right to mandate the existence of their children at any cost to their child, be that at the expense of the child's health or their psychological well-being. It is not well known what the psychological consequences will be on children who are raised by two mothers or two fathers who live together in a same-sex union.

In an American study, reported in Psychological Reports, they found that of the 213 score problems, 94%--and this is among children of homosexual parents--were attributed to the homosexual parents.

In vitro fertilization is fraught with complications and difficulties. The following was reported in the New England Journal of Medicine for 2002. They concluded that infants conceived with the use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection or in vitro fertilization have twice as high a risk of a major birth defect as naturally conceived infants.

¿ (0950)

Another study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that the use of assisted reproductive technology accounts for a disproportionate number of low and very low birth weight infants in the United States.

Health risks and dangers to the mothers who must undergo severe hormonal adjustments in order to have their eggs harvested for IVF purposes also are a concern. Risks of retrieval include lacerations, ovarian trauma, infection, and anesthesia-related complications.

The loss of human life in the practice of these reproductive technologies is staggering. In 1998 in England, 20,000 British women had test-tube baby treatments. This meant that 60,000 embryos had to be created, of which 3,500 live births resulted, and 56,500 embryos were lost in the procedure.

Figures for the United States show that there were 86,000 transfers, which meant that 260,000 human embryos were created, and 30,000 live births resulted, of which 230,000 human embryos were killed in the process.

In Canada, we had about 5,000 IVF cycles and approximately 16,000 embryos created. Again, there were about 1,400 live births, and 14,000 embryos did not survive the process.

In view of what has been clearly stated above, to change the definition of marriage to include homosexual unions would mean making an experiment of the lives of those children who may be brought into these marriages. It is not the responsibility of the law to give psychological affirmation to same-sex relationships but rather to protect an institution fundamental to the common good of society.

To accept homosexual unions as marriage would diminish the importance of the role in society of procreation within a natural, stable, and legally protected institution. It would further diminish society's understanding of the role of marriage, as the law is one of the most powerful teachers.

Thank you.

The Chair: And now to Siobhan Devine and Alexandra Raffé.

Ms. Alexandra Raffé (As Individual): Our names are Siobhan and Alex, and we've been in a committed conjugal relationship for nine years. We have a six-year-old daughter. We're both the legal parents. Siobhan is the birth mother and I'm a parent through formal adoption.

We both feel strongly about the democratic process, about the obligation to do public service, and about giving back to society in exchange for society's benefits. We believe that exchange is the foundation of democracy. Because of this conviction, we both work in the service of society. We've both held public service positions for federal and provincial governments of different political stripes. We both believe absolutely that each member of society in some way should work to make the world a better place. We don't feel it's fair of the state, in return, to shut us out.

We're here also because we believe it's our responsibility to stand up and say so if we feel society needs to change. We both believe passionately in state-sanctioned marriage, and we don't think it's unreasonable to expect the state to commit equal standing in our society back to us. So our appearance here today stems from both a personal desire to get married and from our conviction that individuals must speak out in a truly democratic society.

So why do we want to get married? We're in a committed relationship, we've long since decided to spend the rest of our lives together, and we want to stand publicly to celebrate that decision with friends and family, just the same as any other couple's reasons for marriage. We love each other and want to offer each other society's ultimate public statement of commitment. And we want to publicly assure each other and our daughter that we're here and together forever. It's the highest level of commitment, public and private, that one can make.

Siobhan and I experience the world as such ordinary people. We feel so normal. Our lives revolve around our daughter's well-being, our careers, our families, and our friends. We share more similarities with the rest of society than we do differences. We pay our taxes, we shovel our walk, we send our child to school, and we go to work, every single day. Marriage is a normal, ordinary state to aspire to.

All one's life one hopes to find this kind of relationship, and I feel cheated not to be allowed to marry. Finding the relationship is a miracle, realistically. Not being allowed to celebrate it is unfair.

I'm going to talk about our families a bit, and the roots in the past. My parents have been married for 56 years, my eldest sister for 30 years, and my brother for 15 years. My younger sister lived with her boyfriend for 20 years, finally eloping and getting married in the Caribbean about seven years ago. It was the only time in my life I've seen my mother cry, she was so happy.

Our parents have come so far and have accepted our relationship as a loving and healthy union, but both families are deeply conservative Catholic families. Our marriage would help provide them with a framework they recognize in which to integrate our relationship into their world view. Our parents would feel more secure about our futures. It takes the pressure off worrying about the single child. Parents want fulfillment and happiness for their children. We are healthy and happy, have jobs and friends, and have produced a grand-daughter, but marriage still represents the ultimate commitment to them, that final settling down. They could feel they'd passed the torch. There is someone else now completely bound to us who will love, cherish, and worry about us in their stead when they die.

I want to talk about our daughter and ourselves, and the present and the future there. Our daughter has all the legal security she needs; getting married is about emotional and traditional security. In teaching our daughter about monogamy and commitment and the advantages of a stable relationship, it's been important to set an example that she, at six, can comprehend.

In the eyes of a child, parents marry, or they're divorced, or single. Well, we're none of these. Many heterosexual parents are not married in law, but one can assume that they are in the absence of specific knowledge to the contrary. There's a front of sameness. But obviously we're not married, because we're not allowed to be. It matters to our daughter and it matters to us.

Our daughter asks constantly why we aren't married. The only possible answer is that we're not permitted to do so. She doesn't blink an eye that we're gay because in her circle of friends, her school, parents of her friends, and family, absolutely nobody else does. But it's hard to explain that our relationship is nothing to be ashamed of if our government and society clearly thinks it's second-class. It's the only stigma she feels as the child of gay parents.

It would add stability to our daughter's life. We have little doubt that part of our desire to get married is that when we were children, we expected to grow up, get married, have children, and of course live happily ever after. Our inability to marry remains a disappointment or a failure from that ideal. You don't shake the habits and assumptions of childhood. They become tempered by knowledge, disappointment, habit, or reality in whatever way, but they remain a guide against which you compare your life.

Our daughter sees the world this way too, and we want her to have the comfort of that foundation and that structure and that ideal to struggle for as she grows up. We both have committed ourselves to putting our daughter first. It's what parents do. We want to give her everything available. We want to pass on to her this example of a loving, committed family unit. We want to pass this on to her just the same way this was passed on to us by our loving parents.

So who loses? We actually can't think of anyone. It seems to us that many of those who object to equal marriage for same-sex couples do so on religious grounds. They should no more be permitted to dictate to those not of their faith than we are able to dictate beliefs to them. Freedom of religion is protected under our charter. Freedom to impose your views on others is not.

¿ (0955)

Gays, just like heterosexual couples, won't marry unless they feel the necessary level of love and commitment. It should be a choice to marry or not, equally available to all.

And equal marriage for same-sex couples won't undermine society. Gay couples already exist. We rear children, we manage companies, we police, we serve, we do everything. We're part of society already.

Neither of us has ever faced overt discrimination in our lives. We don't personally know a single person who wouldn't support our right to marry and celebrate it with us.

Would civil union or a registered partnership do? Well, listen to the very expression used in the discussion document, “deemed equivalent to marriage”. Deeming is emphatically not equivalent to being the same. It's just not good enough. It's inherently a second-class option. It's “please sit at the back of the bus”. Separate is not equal. A black heterosexual couple would be rightly outraged and offended if that were the choice offered to them. Well, so are we. It isn't good enough for us, for our daughter, or for our families, and we won't accept that.

Marriage may legally be a rather dry state function, distinct from a religious union that depends on faith and interpretation, but 3,000 years of tradition have given it an overlay of history, romance, love, family unit, stability, caring, affirmation, commitment, and a place in society. There is no romance in asking someone to be your registered civil partner. It lacks all the resonance of marriage, all the tradition, and all the emotional and public commitment.

In conclusion, we'd just say that we are unimaginably lucky. We know we're fortunate to be alive today, to be Canadian, to have found each other, to live freely, and we are honestly, unimaginably grateful. But we want the most complicated decisions about our marriage to be what vows do we exchange, what do we serve, where do we hold the ceremony, what flowers, and what do we wear? We don't want a victory for political reasons as such, and we don't want to make a point at anyone else's expense. We just want to get married. And our daughter really, really badly wants to be our flower girl.

Thank you for your time.

À (1000)

The Chair: Thank you.

To Monsieur Marceau for seven minutes.

[Translation]

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

Thank you for your presentations.

I would like to begin by making a comment. I must admit, Ms. Devine and Ms. Raffé, that your plea before this group in the hope of convincing us that your relationship is just as proper as the one I have with my wife and children made me feel a little uncomfortable, because I do not see why you should have to convince me of this. We should not have to be going through this kind of exercise. You are telling us that you love each other and that you want your daughter to live in a stable family, etc. You should not have to convince anyone of this. I simply wanted to say that I am uncomfortable at your having to go through this exercise. That is the first comment I wanted to make.

Ms. Hudson, you must surely have been here earlier, when we heard Mr. Matthew Eaton-Kent, a nice young well-spoken and very intelligent man. In your view, does he have any obvious health or psychological problems due to the fact that he comes from a homosexual family?

[English]

Ms. Natalie Hudson: I wouldn't know him well enough to comment on that, I'm sorry.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: More generally, what problems might a child growing up in a same-sex family have?

[English]

Ms. Natalie Hudson: As far as I know, the studies have not been conclusive. There isn't actually a lot to draw on from studies.

I think it is very essential, and I think it's been a part of marriage forever, that there is a masculine and a feminine role within marriage. There's a reason why there's a mother and a father.

I think when you look at single-parent families, when you look at common-law families, those children are on the whole much more disadvantaged than children who come from marriages that are intact, with a father and a mother, that have both a masculine and a feminine influence.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: For purposes of this conversation, let us begin with your premise. You have to your left a couple of women who love each other and who want to give stability to their family, to their daughter. You are saying that the instability of a single-parent family is not a good thing for the child. Why then not allow this young six year-old this stability, this legal protection and this State recognition that marriage brings about?

[English]

Ms. Natalie Hudson: I think it's because marriage is something that the law does not define. I think it existed, by nature, prior to the law, so it's not that the law can actually make something there that wasn't there by nature.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Excuse me. In your view, since when has marriage existed like that in nature?

[English]

Ms. Natalie Hudson: It always has, from the beginning of time. That's how we got here.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I do not want to be antagonistic, but yesterday, rabbi Novak, a man who most certainly has a better knowledge of the Jewish religion than me, came to tell us that until after the birth of Christ, polygamy was allowed by the Jewish faith, that David had several wives as did his son Solomon. He even said that in the Holy Scriptures marriage was not always the union of a man and a woman, that it existed in other forms. I therefore repeat my question: where is it written that marriage has always been the union of one man and one woman?

À (1005)

[English]

Ms. Natalie Hudson: For the most part, it has been. Certainly there have been other forms. There has been polygamy. That wasn't largely practised, but, yes, it did exist.

The law needs to recognize the basics, what is essentially necessary for marriage, and what has in general been prescribed by nature.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I come back to my example. I am married and I have two young sons. If a lesbian couple had the right to marry, what impact would that have on my family? What would that change in my relationship or in that of anyone else here?

[English]

Ms. Natalie Hudson: I think it teaches society something about the nature of marriage. I think it teaches society that marriage isn't something that exists by nature, and that the law can define what marriage is. And I don't think that's correct.

It does have ramifications on society, because we need to uphold this institution for the good of society. I certainly think that gays and lesbians can have.... As it is now, I believe they do have all the benefits that common-law and married couples have. But it does teach society, and I think the effects of the importance of marriage as an institution of society is watered down, lessened to a great extent.

The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Marceau, and thank you, Ms Hudson.

To Mr. McKay for seven provocative minutes.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Always provocative.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, witnesses.

To Mr. Clements, you raised a concern about protection of religious institutions or quasi-religious institutions. We've seen a series of cases that give some level of angst to religious and quasi-religious institutions. The B.C. Teachers' Federation decided that the teachers graduating from Trinity Western University were not acceptable teachers because the doctrines of that particular institution included a requirement to abstain from sex, homosexual sex and heterosexual sex--premarital sex.

Similarly, in the Vriend decision, a doctrine of an institution was attacked. You mentioned the Brockie case, where the individual was asked to print certain material that offended his sensibilities, and he was sued as a consequence. We've heard reference to the Hall case, where basically, notwithstanding constitutional protections for the Roman Catholic Church, the bishop got trumped by the judge. There was some amusement that the Catholic Church was not a democracy. It's not. It never has been, and has never pretended to be. It's very much of a different institution.

We've had several human rights commissions before us, such as Ontario and the Yukon, all of whom have advocated for this particular position. Had one taken a position that was contrary to same-sex marriage, one wouldn't feel a great deal of comfort in the neutrality of those commissions.

The issue has been that a lot of religious and quasi-religious institutions have felt that they've been kind of bludgeoned into a position through the use--possibly abuse, but at least the use--of the charter and through some level of political conformity.

Yesterday we had a witness who suggested that there was a need for amendments to the human rights code to protect freedom of individuals. He also talked about a “freedom to dissent” act, and a firm entrenchment of protection for those clergy who choose not to marry same-sex persons.

I'd be interested in your comments as to whether those concerns I have raised are in fact concerns that your church sees, and a trend that needs to be addressed at the same time as we address this issue.

À (1010)

Mr. Rob Clements: Yes, I think that's one of our main concerns. The cases you've mentioned give us legitimate fear, I think. As I said, various people have said, well, we won't press you on this. I find that hard to believe.

The problem is, even if those rights are entrenched in the charter, who has the money to pay lawyers to fight off these challenges? Trinity Western went through an awful lot. We had some human rights organizations intervening on behalf of Trinity Western, because it did seem so unfair. Even organizations who would normally be on the opposite side were very concerned about that.

I'm not an ordained minister in the Free Methodist church. I'm a lay minister. I have concerns about how this would affect my freedom. But particularly for ordained ministers who are full time, marriage has always been a mixture of government and religion, or religious idea. It's very tricky when we... Take the case of Trinity Western. When you have teachers who are graduating and going into the public education system, that's where it becomes difficult.

We just want to make sure that our right to not solemnize these marriages is protected. So I think that's a very valid concern.

Mr. John McKay: A certain element of charter chill, yes.

My second question is to Ms. Raffé and Ms. Devine. I have five children, one of whom is adopted. Over the course of raising him, an ongoing discussion in our family has been the role of his birth parents, if any, in raising him. There are several schools of thought in adoption circles. One is kind of a closed school of thought, which is that the birth parents are to have no role at all in the raising of an adopted child. Others advocate a more open-ended role. Our view is that if he wishes to make contact with them, we would support him in that whole process.

I don't know a great deal about lesbian arrangements for having children or adopting children, so I'm curious; what concerns do you have, or have you gone through? What has your thinking process been with respect to the role, if any, of the biological father?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McKay.

Ms. Siobhan Devine (As Individual): We had our daughter by donor insemination, so the biological father is anonymous. That's a whole other piece of legislation, of course, that currently is being discussed in Ottawa. We purposely went to a bank that keeps all the records, and we purposely chose a donor who agreed that when the legislation changes, he will be known to our daughter.

Obviously she knows that there must be a man somewhere who donated sperm, because we're not in the situation where we're like a man and a woman, where we can “pretend” that the sperm came from the father. It's clear that I'm the birth mother, that Alex is the adoptive mother, and that there's a third party. We're very open with her about that. She knows that if and when she wants to find that man--regardless of the legislation, actually--I would do everything to find him. That's why we chose someone who would agree to know us.

We could have chosen a person we knew, but we think two parents are plenty, for us. We have very complicated lives, and we decided that we wanted to raise a child in a two-parent environment. The biological father can be found at some point, when the law allows, and if and when she wants. I mean, she might not want to. Many people are not interested in their biological roots.

À (1015)

The Chair: Mr. Macklin, for three minutes. Monsieur Marceau has been generous in....

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

I guess the real question at the end of the day...and of course we have the charter side arguments. I suppose we've seen it in its extreme, where some religious organizations have come forward and said, in effect, it's our property, the word marriage, and you have no right. You first of all have incorporated it into the law, but you don't have a right to go ahead and exchange it for something different and still call it marriage. Now, that may set out an extreme position on behalf of the churches and religious institutions, but clearly it does make a point.

From your religious background, Mr. Clements, how do you look at this as an issue? Do you see that we ought not to change it because in fact it has such a basis in religion and is so well founded, and we have simply adopted it and should not change it? I mean, we also had constitutional arguments that said we don't have the right constitutionally to change it, because marriage had a specific definition at the time it was adopted by the legislature.

What is your position as a religious leader?

Mr. Rob Clements: I'm just a lay person and not much of a leader.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: But you certainly appear to have a good grounding in your religious beliefs.

Mr. Rob Clements: Sure.

As Mr. Marceau mentioned, you had a rabbi here who mentioned that marriage has not always been defined as the union of one man and one woman, and if we look throughout culture, throughout history, there are many different forms of marriage. That's true. I'm not going to argue with that. In the Bible, of course, Jesus said that it was God's intention, basically, that this was the ideal. That's why Christian churches are particularly locked in, if I may put it that way, to a particular definition of marriage.

Our marriage laws in Canada reflect that definition, and it seems to have been working quite well so far, I think. As you say, though, there is both a religious dimension and a political dimension to it. Marriages were not performed in churches until the Catholic Church declared it was a sacrament. It used to be performed on the doorsteps of churches because it wasn't seen as an exclusively religious ceremony.

What point am I making here? That we have a definition. It works. There are perhaps financial inequalities in terms of the time it takes to receive certain benefits. Maybe some of that can be rectified through the establishment of a registered partnership program of some type.

I don't think we want to rearrange our definition of marriage. If we were to do that, number one, I think that would betray a certain modern western mindset that sees marriage as just a marriage of two persons. Why two? There are many other cultures where it's not two. So you're getting into a big issue there by messing around--so to speak--with the definition of marriage.

I didn't come here to coerce our religious beliefs onto anybody else. What we're concerned about is that, number one, the marriage definition stays the way it is, because we think it's healthy for society; number two, that our religious freedoms are protected; and number three, we're concerned about the process, about how this is being done. We've been standing by for a number of years, watching various court decisions go through, helpless to do anything about it. That concerns me. We're being railroaded by the charter.

I think the charter is a wonderful document. In many respects it comes out of a Christian tradition of human rights and respecting people's rights to live and practice beliefs that they hold dear to them. You don't see pluralist societies in many other countries. So we're glad we're here, but we want to make sure you understand that we're very concerned about it.

À (1020)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

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

I would like to ask Mr. Clements and perhaps some of the other members of the panel to give me a hand here. It is important to repeat that we are talking here of civil marriage and not religious marriage. It is also important to recognize that several religious organizations have come to tell us that they fear for their freedom of religion. In my view, this fear is unfounded, but it has been expressed quite often and I believe that as legislators, we must take it into account.

Here is what I am seeking to do. By virtue of equality rights, I am aiming at allowing churches, be it the United Church, the Unitarian Church or others, who wish to marry same-sex partners to do so because it is in their view acceptable in accordance with their interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, while assuring Mr. Clements and other religious organizations such as his that their right to not marry same-sex partners would be respected. This is an absolute right of the Free Methodist Church, of the Presbyterian Church and of others, and I will always defend this right. I will always be on side with you in this regard.

Would have a suggestion for me that would allow me to respect this balance, to not see your religion imposed upon Ms. Devine and Ms. Raffé, and to see your right to not marry them, if they decided to get married, respected?

[English]

Mr. Rob Clements: You could leave the definition of marriage alone. That would be the first way.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: But if that were the case they could not marry.

[English]

Mr. Rob Clements: They would be allowed to register their partnership. You see, my concern here is that the charter is being used to confer social legitimation. I really respect Siobhan and Alex and their attempt to raise a family within their lifestyle choice. What I hear them saying is that they want their child to know that their parents are married. That is social legitimation. That is not the purpose of the charter.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Let us then talk about the civil union that you would be prepared to see recognized. Would the couples forming such unions have more or less the same rights, responsibilities and duties as a married couple?

[English]

The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Marceau.

Mr. Clements and then to Mr. Maloney.

Mr. Rob Clements: I cannot speak on behalf of the entire denomination on that question. However, I think that's an idea, that these would have similar economic benefits.

If I could just comment further here, it's fine to say that we want our child to feel that our same-sex marriage is legitimate, but changing the laws of a nation to achieve that end is not really going to help anything. Regardless of what happens with the charter, there will still be Christian groups who oppose that sociologically and culturally. It will not be accepted in some circles.

À (1025)

The Chair: Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney: Ms. Hudson, in your presentation you used the example of the lack of a male role model in the family unit as one of the reasons for opposing same-sex relationships. But in today's society, it's not a perfect world. We have premature deaths and we have marital breakups. The children of those relationships, when they started out as male and female, have problems on occasion, but for the most part I think they grow up to be productive human beings. Conversely, in some marriages where there are children it's not a very good family situation within that home.

The same-sex couples who have appeared before us and who have in fact children, whether adopted or whether artificially inseminated, seem very, very committed in their relationships; and I know that's not all of them out there, but certainly I have no reason to doubt that the children themselves are well-adjusted.

So how can you advance the argument that the male model must be there when we have these other examples?

Ms. Natalie Hudson: It seems to me that the law should be looking not to the exceptions but to the rule. I think a lot of those things you mentioned prove the rule that, really, the ideal is the way marriage has always been understood, as one man and one woman. That is the best place in which human life can be respected, because that's where human life can be conceived.

It seems to me that is what the law should be seeking to do, and that is uphold the ideal for the good of society, for the good of the children who are going to be brought into the world.

I see the procreative aspect of marriage as being its essential characteristic. What gives the law any vested interest in adult relationships is the fact that sexual activities between a man and a woman have social consequences. They are not private acts in that they have the potential of begetting human life. They hold society's future.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Maloney.

I'm going to go to Ms. Devine, if I may. She wants to respond.

Ms. Siobhan Devine: First of all, one in six heterosexual couples has trouble having children. Does that mean that at some point they'd be downgraded from marriage to registered partnerships? That's my first question.

I also just want to talk a little bit about male role models. Of course children need male and female role models, and we work very hard to ensure that our child is exposed to men and women. Most of her teachers are women, because that's what happens in elementary school, but we have a male babysitter who looks after her regularly. I have three brothers. Alex has a brother. We both have fathers. I think by the time she was two, she had a Ken doll.

I mean, she's not immune to the social pressures, and all of her games are “mommy and daddy”. She's not confused about how most of the world's families exist. She knows that most people have a mommy and a daddy, and that she just has a mommy and a momma. She is infinitely less confused than many adults seem to be.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Monsieur Marceau has been generous again, and is going to offer me...

Oh, sorry, Ms. Hudson.

Ms. Natalie Hudson: I wanted to just respond.

Please don't get me wrong. I have no problems with your situation except that we're looking at--

À (1030)

The Chair: Through the chair, please; it's a little tough to have conversations.

Ms. Natalie Hudson: Through you. Okay.

What I'm saying is that the law itself has a vested interest in the union of a man and woman, and needs to protect that. So I'm not passing judgment on your individual relationships. I'm simply stating the fact that the law has this grave responsibility.

Thank you.

The Chair: I have one minute, and I think I can do it. My clerk is timing me. I have to leave to go back to Fredericton shortly, and it terrifies me to know that the only non-lawyer left is going to leave, so I'd better get this in.

In the context of the way in which this is evolving, I think it's important for us to understand that there isn't a great deal of dispute, I don't think, although I'm sure somebody will challenge me on this, that the present definition of marriage is discriminatory. It discriminates. It says that if you're a same-sex couple, you can't get married. That's the way the law reads. It's the law of the land.

There's a provision in the charter that says that sometimes that limitation is justified, sometimes that discrimination is justified, and yet everybody seems to be arguing that the discriminated have to make the case. It's my understanding that it isn't the discriminated-against who have to make the case that this is acceptable; it's the state who has to make the case that the discrimination is in fact reasonable.

So for those who say, “Do you have any evidence that this works?”, I think it needs to be put on the record that to some extent it isn't for the person who has been discriminated against to prove. The onus is on the state to justify the discrimination. And it strikes me that it's remarkable that it's the sociologist who gets to say it.

On that point, thank you to the panel, and thank you to the committee.

We'll suspend until the next panel can come forward.

À (1030)

À (1035)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): As presenters for this next hour we have the Islamic Council of Imams, as represented by Shabbir Ally and Aden Esse. I assume Mr. Esse is on his way. As an individual, we have Gerry Vandezande, and for the Community Advisory Committee on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Issues, we have Amelia Golden and Tatum Wilson.

Mr. Ally, are you prepared to present at this point?

Mr. Shabbir Ally (Coordinator, Islamic Council of Imams-Canada): Yes, I am.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Okay. It's seven minutes each.

Mr. Ally.

Mr. Shabbir Ally: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak before you. I will be using an outline of five pages, which I hope, if you're following in English, you do have before you. If you don't, I have some copies, which I'd be willing to give you immediately. I'll just leave them here so that somebody can help us with that if the need arises.

The presentation is from the Islamic Council of Imams, which is a council made up of the collective leadership of Imams, ministers of religion, in Canada. It was established in 1990, with a composition of scholars serving the Muslim community across Canada. It has members from two major sects, the Sunni and the Shi'a.

Muslims in Canada number some 650,000, the majority of which reside in the GTA.

I'm bringing an Islamic perspective on this, and I must say from the start that the Islamic perspective is based on the Koran, which is a divinely inspired book in the understanding of Muslims.

In that book, the concept of a family is that God created in pairs, male and female. This is reiterated several times throughout the Koran, so it is a very important teaching. Bringing that into the discussion means that we also have to be reasonable as Canadians and as Muslims. We want to respond to the ever-changing circumstances and challenges.

What is put before us is a discussion paper, entitled “Marriage and Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Unions”, November 2002, from the Department of Justice in Canada. In looking at this paper, I'm going to make some reasonable observations.

The paper invites Canadians to reflect on the issues involved in trying to reconcile the traditional definition of marriage with the recognition of gay and lesbian unions within the framework of the Canadian Constitution and its equality guarantees. This is on page 28.

The paper invites discussion on some of the philosophical issues that give rise to laws dealing with marriage and conjugal relationships in Canada, and on proposals for change that would recognize same-sex unions either as included under the definition of marriage or under a parallel registry equivalent to marriage.

The discussion paper suggests that we reflect on some fundamental philosophical questions, so I'll take them up one by one.

First, does marriage have a continuing role in our society? The answer to that, I feel, is yes. Marriage exists for the following reasons, or answers to these needs. The first is biological. It is natural for a man and woman to copulate. The second is moral. We are different from animals, so we have a need for privacy and a need for males to commit to the care of his partner and any offspring. Three, there's the need for personal attachment after sex. Marriage provides this moral ground from which to work. We also get psychological, emotional, and social needs fulfilled through marriage. And four, there are benefits of marriage to society. What we have cited as psychological, emotional, and social needs benefit society, and if we enumerate them, we'll see why.

Marriage provides a simple, convenient, and harmless way of socializing with a variety of humans--man, woman, child. A family is a cradle of love in which children are nurtured and taught in the developing years of their psychology. The benefits to society are obvious. If these needs are not satisfied in a family, the result could be delinquency in society.

Second, the family is the basic building block of society, so strong families build strong societies.

Third, marriage ensures the continuation of a youthful population, which would be committed to the welfare of society on the whole. Hence, marriage needs to be encouraged.

A second question from the discussion paper is, should the role of the family be reflected in our laws? My answer to that is also yes, for the following reasons. One, marriage should be state-sanctioned to highlight its desirability as a social institution; two, the institution of marriage should be safeguarded against any attempt to redefine it; three, continued benefits to married couples; four, provide benefits for, and alleviate the burdens on, child-producing marriages.

The third question is, should same-sex unions be regarded as equivalent to marriage? Now, if we're to answer yes, the following must be done. First, it must be shown that same-sex unions confer on children and partners, and on society at large, benefits equivalent to those we have listed above as conferred by marriages.

Second, it must be shown that same-sex unions are not more disadvantageous to society than are marriages. If such is not shown, we shall have to logically conclude that same-sex unions are not equivalent to marriage. But would such a conclusion be contrary to our constitutional guarantees? This now is our challenge. My answer to that is no. Marriage is an institution open to every couple who meets its requirements and chooses to enter. No one is refused entrance based on his or her sexual orientation. But marriage does have its restrictions that some people wishing to enter may not be able to overcome.

À (1040)

For example, two persons closely related cannot marry, and an adult and a child cannot marry. Such restrictions are not contrary to the principle of equality. But is homosexual orientation predetermined? This is important, because if it is, we have implications. My answer to that is no.

One, on the claim that it still is unproven, in 1993 it was claimed that a gay gene was identified, but in 1999 this was discounted, as reported on ABC and on BBC. The details are available on the Web, and in the handout given out beforehand.

Second, that claim is contrary to the philosophical basis of Canadian law. Our law is based on the philosophical position of free will and responsibility for personal behaviour.

For lack of time, I will proceed, and skip some of the points.

Are there negatives associated with same-sex unions as compared with opposite-sex marriages? My answer to that is yes. There are some negatives involved. The main negative I cite there, just to summarize--seeing I have only one minute left--is that marriage allows us to think of sex in a way that transcends the animalistic nature of sex.

There's nothing wrong with sex, but just the idea of marriage and linking it to the possibility of procreation gives a whole new different slant to it. If we take that out, in a same-sex union it seems to me that the idea there is more the pursuit of one's own sexual orientation.

Finally, should society sanction same-sex unions as being equivalent to marriage? If my analysis is correct, I've shown that in fact same-sex unions are not equivalent to marriage. Logically, they're two different things, centred on two different themes and objectives, and hence to equate them would be a travesty.

In conclusion, we need not make any changes to current legislation. The federal government should continue to regulate marriage, and should continue to not sanction same-sex unions as being on par with marriage. If that were to be done otherwise, it would have tremendous implications for Muslims. Muslims would be concerned, and would want to make sure that Imams would not be required to sanction or to preside over or to associate with the joining in union of two persons of the same sex.

Such type of legislation would have implications for Islamic rules regarding adoption and regarding inheritance laws and child custody. It is a can of worms, and we would beg that the status quo be maintained. Marriage should be kept, as a definition, between a man and a woman.

À (1045)

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

Mr. Vandezande

Mr. Gerald Vandezande (As Individual): Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee.

I usually try to see issues from the vantage point of the MPs who are seized by the issues. Having appeared before various standing committees, I know that you have some tough challenges on your hands.

In that context, I want to raise or make some suggestions in terms of the value framework, which I think is relevant, and secondly, some recommendations.

I first want to acknowledge that the question we are discussing is certainly complex and that we owe it to each other as Canadians, as citizens, to engage each other in respectful dialogue in a determined attempt to reach a resolution that could lead to recommendations to Parliament that would contribute to a legislative approach to this vital issue from a public justice perspective.

I will focus on certain public core values and public justice principles that in my view could contribute to the development of a public policy framework based on equal justice for all Canadians. This framework in turn could offer a legislative approach that includes relevant policy proposals aimed at doing justice to the fundamental freedoms and equality rights embedded in Canada's Constitution, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

There are two key principles that we, I and others, think are crucial. The first is human dignity and mutual respect--that is, the right of all persons and their communities to be treated with justice, love, compassion, and respect, and their responsibility to treat others likewise. The second principle is the one of mutual responsibility, which I describe as the duty of all persons to contribute to the well-being of the community as they are able, and the duty of each community to contribute to the well-being of all its members, regardless of their ability, and of those in the larger society.

So there are two principles--mutual respect, which is linking people and communities through bonds of equity and fairness, and mutual responsibility, as the tie that binds, linking people and communities through deeds of compassion and solidarity. In appendix A there is further elaboration.

The essential commitment to, and consistent practice of, these fundamental principles and core values of human dignity, self-respect, neighbourly love, and mutual respect are foundational to the careful consideration and formulation of a legislative approach that is humane, compassionate, just, equitable, fair, inclusive, and non-discriminatory. The committee's report and proposals to Parliament in my view should be guided by the principles of mutuality and public justice for the common good of all.

The implementation of these principles should result in legislation and policies that affirm human life, build caring communities, foster mutual commitment, and promote social harmony. Such basics contribute to enduring social relationships, including marriages, civil unions, and other domestic partnerships that need the legal recognition, public protection, and social support of our governments, communities, and citizens alike.

I'll make a couple of comments about the fact that we live in a democratic, pluralistic society. Our society includes public expressions of numerous basic beliefs, core values, heart commitments, faith perspectives, ideological persuasions, religions, philosophies, and ultimate goals. This plurality of life and world views, also known as religious and ideological pluralism, expresses itself in various human relationships and diverse social structures, including friendships, marriages, partnerships, families, households, and other mutually dependent relations.

In my view, a non-discriminatory understanding of justice means that Christians and other people of faith, especially when it comes to developing public policy proposals, must be truly concerned about the fundamental freedoms and equality rights of other faith and value communities. People's religious or ideological disagreement with others may not result in societal discrimination against them. Jesus' saying, “In everything, do unto others as you would have them do to you”, also applies to our responsibility as citizens and MPs when advocating legislative change.

I have become convinced of the need to address the following social realities in a consistent, principled manner. There are five of them.

À (1050)

First, marriage, the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others--a definition that has existed since before Confederation--clearly, in answer to the question raised by the discussion paper, has a continuing role in our modern society. This reality should continue to be reflected in Canadian laws. The definition of marriage should be clear and precise and not be expanded. Legal clarity is essential.

Secondly, committed conjugal relationships other than marriage--committed common-law couples and committed same-gender relationships--appear to have continuing roles in our society as well. This reality should also be reflected in Canadian laws. Definitions of committed common-law couples and committed same-gender relationships should be clear and precise. Again, legal clarity is absolutely necessary.

Third, marriages, common-law couples, and same-gender committed relationships, though they differ in character, should be recognized legally and supported equally. These different conjugal relationships should be legally entitled to the same rights and the same responsibilities, the same benefits and the same obligations, including the legal relationships between the partners and their children.

Fourth, the adoption of children by couples living in committed conjugal relationships that are legally recognized should be subject to the explicit provision that no person or couple has the legal right to adopt with automatic entitlement to a child.

Fifth, marriage and other committed conjugal relationships should be defined legally as civil unions. The partners should go through a civil ceremony, regardless of whether or not there has been or will be a religious ceremony, if they want their particular committed conjugal relationship legally recognized.

It is essential that Parliament, probably in consultation with the provinces and the territories, create an appropriate legal mechanism or city hall process. This official process governing the establishment and solemnization of civil unions should require a public declaration of mutual commitment containing appropriate pledges and promises confirming the partners' mutual faithfulness and loyalty.

À (1055)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Mr. Vandezande, are you close to the end? You are already over seven minutes.

Mr. Gerald Vandezande: Yes.

The religious ceremony, or service of blessing, would not have a civic, legal dimension. This civil union and public declaration, entered into and made before legal witnesses, would help to ensure that the partners are legally entitled to the just protection of their civil rights and fundamental freedoms and to the same fiscal treatment, pension, and other social benefits now available federally and provincially.

Thank you.

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

Mr. Wilson or Ms. Golden.

Mr. Tatum Wilson (Representative, Community Advisory Committee on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Issues): We'll be splitting the deputation here, going back and forth a little bit between the two.

Hello, and thank you for the opportunity to address the committee. Amelia and I are here as part of the Toronto City Council Community Advisory Committee on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Issues. This committee works towards ensuring that the concerns and commitments of these diverse communities are relayed to Toronto City Council and reflected in their policies and decisions.

In a city as large and diverse as Toronto, it would be inappropriate for us to suggest that there is universal agreement on what best serves our communities or where the focus of energy should go. We are, however, unanimously committed to equality. For this reason, we feel comfortable in saying that we as a committee recommend that the federal government take immediate steps to allow marriages between persons of the same sex.

In reading about the three options that the justice committee is considering, there was a clear recognition that extensive social and economic benefits come along with marriage for a committed couple. Whether through taxes, finances, or simply social awareness of the marriage, allowing a couple to marry inherently produces these benefits for the couple. It is unacceptable that same-sex couples do not have this important option available to them in deciding the nature of their relationships.

We acknowledge that some couples, both same-sex and opposite-sex, are not interested in taking the step into marriage. However it is patently unjust that some families, same-sex families, cannot enjoy the same benefits and recognitions simply because of the gender of those involved.

Ms. Amelia Golden (Advisor, Community Advisory Committee on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Issues): Some might say that unmarried same-sex couples have all the same rights as unmarried heterosexual couples, through common-law spouse status, but even if all the rights and benefits of married heterosexual couples were conferred to same-sex couples, except for the actual ability to marry, I would still say there is an inherent inequality.

History has shown that the doctrine of separate but equal does not produce equality at all. While there exists two classes of people, those who are allowed to marry and those who are not, there is no equality before the law, so there is no equality under the law. The only true equality is giving same-sex couples the same choice as opposite-sex couples, which is allowing them to marry if that is the type of commitment they want to engage in.

I know the justice committee has in front of it a number of choices. Some of the choices are leaving the legislation the way it is; changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage; or removing marriage from the government's purview at all, and leaving it in the hands of religion.

Historically, of course, this was the way marriage started. It was a religious ceremony only. So why did it change? Well, clearly, there were those people who didn't belong to a religion who wanted to have that level of commitment. For a myriad of reasons, mostly based on historical discrimination within organized religion against same-sex partnering, many people in our communities do not belong to a religion, although many also are active in religious, community, and spiritual lives.

Even if on the face of it removing marriage from government and giving it only to religion seems equal to all, it would inevitably result in a differential impact on the LGBT communities and result in an inequality of access to the institution of marriage.

Another issue that should not be ignored is that many LGBT couples are creating and raising families. If the fundamental purpose of marriage is to provide a legal framework under which individuals take responsibility for their partners and children, don't the families of LGBT couples deserve that same framework of obligations and benefits? And don't our children deserve to not wonder about their parents' level of commitment when marriage is posited as the ultimate level of commitment by our society?

These are the points put together by the City of Toronto Community Advisory Committee on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Issues, but as Tatum pointed out, we are all made up of individuals, and we all have individual stories.

I'd like to take this opportunity to tell part of my story. My partner and I got married on July 5, 1998--or at least that's what it said on our wedding invitations. Although we were married under a chuppah, which is a Jewish wedding canopy, and in the same location as my sister and her husband got married, we were given flak about our choice of words on the invitations. We heard time and time again, “Why are you calling it a marriage. It's not a marriage, is it? Why aren't you calling it a commitment ceremony?”

My response was always, first, I always felt the term “commitment ceremony” sounded more like somebody was being forcibly confined in a psychiatric institution.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Ms. Amelia Golden: Second, it is a marriage in our eyes, and in my families' eyes, just not in the government's eyes.

And yet, I had to recognize that for some it was less than a marriage because it did not have the status offered by the government. I can't tell you how much it galls me that in a society where marriage is offered as a prize on a reality game show, or it's promised on television, sight unseen, but just based on a witty response to a clever question, I can't get marital recognition for my and my partner's lifelong soul-searching commitment to our future as a couple and as a family.

Á (1100)

Mr. Tatum Wilson: My own personal story relates to the early stages of coming out. It is widely known that coming out can be a confusing, challenging, and difficult time. My experience and those of many around me is directly related to the issue of marriage.

In coming out and acknowledging that I was gay, one of the biggest challenges for me was accepting the reality that I would not be able to get married. Whether gay or not, as children we are all subject to the influences of society around us, where marriage is seen as the pinnacle of success and a final step into adulthood.

Being denied that right has an immeasurable impact on the process and understanding of the coming out process. I think it's important that this government remove the barrier that currently exists for LGBT people, whether young or old.

Finally, we all recognize that Canada is known around the world as a leader in many areas related to equality and human rights. We have now arrived at another crucial time, where Canada has the opportunity to show leadership. Right here in Toronto, our city council, an elected body, has taken this opportunity to show leadership. This is made clear through the motion you all have in front of you, where city council decided to pass a motion that supported the rights of same-sex partners to have legal recognition of their marriages.

We implore the federal government to seize this opportunity and follow the lead of its municipal and provincial counterparts by recognizing the inequality inherent in denying benefits to this group and to honour the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by recognizing same-sex marriages.

Thank you.

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

[Translation]

Mr. Marceau, your have seven minutes.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses for their presentations.

Mr. Vandezande, is the solution you are promoting similar to the system in place in France? In France, for a marriage to have legal status, couples must go to City Hall. Then, if they so wish, they can go to a synagogue, a mosque or a church.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Vandezande: That's correct; the reason I do this is that clergy of whatever kind are caught in a dual capacity. The ceremony is religious, and then suddenly, in the middle of the ceremony, he or she says that on behalf of the Province of Ontario, or the Province of Quebec, I declare you husband and wife. Two ceremonies have blended into one.

Not everyone wants to be married religiously, so I want to make it possible that there be equal treatment, through a civic ceremony, that all people are required to go through the same process. Then, if they voluntarily want to invoke or ask for their religious community's religious blessing, that's for them.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: In theory, this is a very appealing solution, but I see in it a problem, and it is on this that I would like to hear your comments. Canada is a federation and has a Constitution. It is clear that you and I cannot resolve Canada's constitutional problems in the same way.

It is however not up to the federal parliament to decide who can marry people. As you stated in your answer to my first question, a priest, an imam, a rabbi or a minister can marry a couple on behalf of the province where he or she lives because he or she becomes a civil registrar for that province.

If we opted for your solution, there would be a difficulty. The federal Parliament cannot order Quebec, Ontario or Alberta to stop handing out marriage licences for people in churches, synagogues and mosques. I would like to hear your comments in this regard.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Vandezande: I think I understand your question.

Because of the complex problems you are asked to address, and having listened this morning, and yesterday, to these lawyers and rabbis arguing with one another, it again confirms for me that it is absolutely essential that it not be a quick, clever, neat decision to do one thing or the other. That would result in a tumultuous uproar throughout the country, no matter where you live and what side you're on, because in that process, no one is going to be happy.

My hope and my suggestion is that Parliament and this committee will take the time to see what could be done across Canada in consultation with the relevant provincial and territorial jurisdictions, some of which are ahead, others of which are behind, to see if we can't come to a consistent interpretation of the constitutional arrangements that are in place so that full legal equality is practised across Canada, across the board, for all relationships, but recognizing the different character in relationships.

I do that partly from the vantage point of you people sitting there, facing constituencies and provinces, in the House of Commons and the Senate, saying how are we going to pacify all these people who come with very conflicting demands?

This is an attempt for a way through those, through what I consider to be false problems, because then you are not doing justice. As it is, we are not doing justice to the arguments made to my friends on my left, nor to the couple that was here this morning, nor to the people who presented in other contexts.

So it is very important to take our time to look at creative solutions that totally meet the demands of legal equality and fundamental freedoms and the freedom of religion, the freedom of expression. But let's not use any institution to impose a particular viewpoint or ideology on the nation.

Justice must be blind but justice must not be.... Justice is not just for us but for everyone.

Á (1105)

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you.

Imam Ally, we have heard representations from various religions organizations that would like to have the right to marry same-sex partners because that fits with their interpretation of divine will.

Your interpretation is obviously different. I would therefore like your help in resolving the following dilemma. How could I go about allowing branches of Jewish reform, the United Church and the Unitarian Church who wish to marry same-sex couples to do so and thus completely fulfill what their theology allows them, while assuring you and other religions organizations that do not want to marry same-sex partners that your right to refuse to marry such couples is absolute and guaranteed and that you will never be forced to perform ceremonies that your religion opposes for theological reasons?

[English]

Mr. Shabbir Ally: The answer to that question is not going to be easy. These are some of the things that need to be discussed, and dialogue needs to continue on this before we make a move to sort out exactly this type of issue.

Marriage within the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim tradition is the sacred institution given by God. It is not something that humans invent. So we do not make up the rules of it as we go along. The interpretation I've advanced is to me in harmony with plain statements from the Bible and the Koran.

Now, how do we cater to people who want to go against the dictates of the scripture while they at the same time make it appear as though they are using the scripture to bless what they are doing? To me there is an inherent contradiction there that needs to be sorted out through further dialogue before we make a move on this. Exactly how that will end up, I'm not sure, but I expect that we should be able to persuade those who have that opinion that in fact they are pursuing something that is contradictory to the foundation on which they stand, and which they need in order to justify a marriage.

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

Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney: Mr. Vandezande, on your fifth suggestion, civil unions and public declarations of mutual commitment, would you eliminate the word “marriage” in dealing with those? It's on page 5 of your brief.

Mr. Gerald Vandezande: I went to city hall and picked up the papers that applicants who want to be married need to get a licence. In the Marriage Act in Ontario, there are definite requirements that can't be avoided. Those are provincial dictates that couples must meet in order to get the licence, and no one who is licensed to marry people can dodge them unless they want to risk criminal charges.

So my suggestion is that we deal with the reality in Canada--and this sounds terribly pragmatic, but I think it's legitimate--that historically there has been this institution called marriage, and it has been defined in a certain way.

In addition, in my view, there should be no stumbling block placed in the way of other committed couples to be entitled to the public protection of the Constitution and the law so that they, in law and in public policy, enjoy the same benefits and also accept the same responsibilities and have the same rights.

That comes partly from this comparison: I used to work in a bank. A bank is not a credit union. They are two different institutions. Both have to meet certain public accountability criteria in law in order to operate as a bank or a credit union.

What I'm suggesting is that when there are different cultural, structural identities that Parliament must address, then it must take into consideration that different things need recognition. But in the process of recognition, you can give them the same rights and responsibilities, as in this case.

I am not suggesting any difference in treatment between married couples and same-gender couples, just to use that as an example. I want them to have the same rights and responsibilities, the same benefits and the same obligations, so that there is no discrimination and the principle of section 13 of the charter is applied consistently. I argued that before this committee seven years ago, and I am happy the day has arrived that we finally have this kind of discussion. But we can't in one fell swoop resolve all the problems there are and put it into one category, because that's not going to solve the problems currently around these various relationships.

I want to include, in a treatment of legal equality, the rights that economically dependent people, such as mother-daughter, mother-son, friends, and households, have. How can we in law, in public policy--and I often appear before the budget committee--do justice to these people's need for social support, tax relief, etc.?

So in this context I think the committee needs to recognize that a variety of issues need equal treatment, but given the genuine variety of things you are dealing with, I think in that process some major steps can be taken, and must be taken.

Some people have argued, “Gerry, your proposal is that a same-gender relationship is really the equivalent of marriage.” And it is. That is, the people who enter a same-gender relationship make this public commitment of mutual loyalty, and they go to the same city hall to which a married couple goes, and indeed make the same commitment. They are under different headings... and so would common-law couples.

I think it's crucial that the law recognizes the variety of relationships that are fully entitled to legal equality, but we must do it in a way that facilitates what I call the “building of community”, the fostering of good relations. I think churches have a lot to contribute...and one way for them to get out of the marriage business officially, and bless those who want to be blessed.

Á (1110)

Mr. John Maloney: But the same-sex community--and we'll accept what you're saying--wants to go one step further. They want to use that name, “marriage”, for all it entails through centuries and centuries of tradition. Are you saying, no, they should not be able to use that, or should we get rid of that terminology altogether and just have a civil union, and some other term for a church ceremony if they so chose?

Mr. Gerald Vandezande: I'm of two minds on it. Let me put it this way. I have met with people within the gay and lesbian community, and I have gay and lesbian friends. Interestingly, they have different views within that community on these questions. The same is true of common-law couples who have different views about their relationships.

In part, as a person who deals also with social and fiscal policy, I have difficulty with that, because I think the law, whether it's fiscal law or a law pertaining to the diversity of relationships, must, as much as it can, fulfill the spirit and the letter of the charter and provide equality. I want to go out of my way to make sure that people feel welcomed, feel embraced, feel protected. My short creed is, “God loves all, the church should welcome all, and the state should protect all.” I think that's crucial in a democracy. That love then must be unconditional, must not discriminate, must be inclusive, but you do recognize a variety of relationships that exist.

Let me just be very personal. My wife and I could not have our own children. We were graciously blessed and could adopt two children. We are deeply thankful for that. We also fostered seven children. My wife did most of the work. She is particularly talented at that.

We had different relationships with the foster children. You even have different relationships with your own children, whether they are biological or fostered, because every person is different. But within our family, when we had the foster children as well as our adopted children, that was one family. We treated all with love, respect, and so on. But one needs to recognize the variety of relationships that these children either come from or go back to. We were thankful that all seven foster children could go back to their parents.

What I'm saying is that lawmakers, when developing policy, have to ask themselves, who do we try to help? Are we helping them fairly? Are we treating people across the board as equally as possible within the limits that the state can provide? And do we make sure that we build an inclusive Canada that really builds on the goodwill, love, care, and support of all the people in the community?

I was appalled yesterday--and I will not mention names--by some of the people who in the name of Jesus said things that I think God would be very angry about. I'm not passing judgment, but we need to learn to practice, as people of faith--I try to do that, and I don't always meet the criteria--what is the meaning of peace, compassion, concern for others, care, public support, etc.

It's also important for parliamentarians to say, we're going to have to make sure that no one is excluded, that everyone is invited and everyone is included. We're going to make sure that the laws of the land are going to be equally applicable to all so that people feel at home in this good country that is ours.

Á (1115)

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

Mr. Macklin.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Thank you, Chair.

I would simply like to give an opportunity here for Ms. Golden and Mr. Wilson to respond to what you've just heard from Mr. Vandezande, who appears to make a very passionate plea for consideration.

What is your reaction to what he has brought forward today?

Ms. Amelia Golden: On the face of it, it sounds reasonable. I have two comments, maybe three.

On the doctrine of separate but equal, meaning that “marriage” be used for one group and another term be used for another group, with all the same rights and responsibilities, it seems like, well, on the face of it, in law people have all the same rights and responsibilities. But separate but equal has been shown not to work. The way in which the separate institutions evolve usually starts showing down the line in another set of inequalities.

My opinion is that the justice committee is going to all this trouble to try to stop the inequality, not to put something into place, which down the line is going to create more inequality. In my opinion, the only way to stop the inequality is for everybody to have the same access to the same institutions.

I had also made the point in my deputation about having marriage as a religious ceremony only, and how, once again, to me, the term “marriage” then would confer a certain status on the relationship that certain people don't have access to, depending on what religion they are.

Your bank versus credit union example also seems reasonable, on the face of it, but the thing is, the bank and the credit union get to decide how they want to set themselves up. I'm not talking about biological determination or anything; I'm talking about how they get to decide whether they're going to follow the rules of a bank or follow the rules of a credit union. I can't make that decision; I can't make the decision of whether I'm going to get married or I'm going to go for a civil union and get that different sort of recognition in the world.

I would just like to have the same access, the same freedom of choice, as somebody in a heterosexual relationship.

Á (1120)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Mr. Vandezande, you wanted to respond?

Mr. Gerald Vandezande: Yes.

Thank you very much for your comments. The same-access question is vital. In my experience, I don't care where you live in this country or in other countries, people don't always have the same, identical access to everything. That's just the reality. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be. I am saying that in the way we evolve, develop, and implement policies, there is a constant...and there's a need for ongoing dialogue.

I'll just take the national child benefit as an example. We met with Mr. Manley and Mr. Martin and Mr. Chrétien's people around the latest budget. You know, a perfect solution around poverty is not there, however much I want it and give all my volunteer time to it.

On the question of separate but yet equal, I don't believe in apartheid in any way, shape, or form. I'm one of the strongest opponents of what people in South Africa did. At the same time, I worked hard with the native peoples in Canada in getting their self-determination rights in the Canadian Constitution, and they had certain ideas about what self-government or self-determination is and ought to be about, and what that means for them.

In the context of the current questions, I think we need to ask ourselves--heterosexuals, homosexuals, other households--what goes into the making of the structuring, the support system required for the genuinely equal treatment of different relationships in our society to fully meet the spirit and the letter of the equality provisions of the law.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Mr. Wilson, did you want to answer as well?

Mr. Tatum Wilson: I just want to say that obviously I appreciate a great deal Mr. Vandezande and his comments, and have a lot of respect for his support. It's especially nice to hear from a religious point of view; it's sometimes a little bit different for us.

On its face, though, I don't think that solution of civil unions for everyone addresses the issues that both Amelia and I, and I think a lot of our counterparts, have brought up. I think the issue, again, is the symbolic meaning of what marriage means.

Even from my own experience--and this could be my own personally, so I'm not going to speak for everyone--I've heard friends' parents say, “Oh, we just got married at city hall”, meaning something less than the celebration of love and so on that goes into a marriage. Again, I think it's the emotional and mental issues that arise from being denied something that everyone else is allowed to do.

Right now, for me, the question is about whether you're allowed to get married or not allowed to get married. Something in between frankly just isn't good enough.

With respect to the other issue of acknowledging relationships that require dependence and things like that, certainly that's an important issue, but on its face right now I don't think that's what we're dealing with. I fear the idea that people would interpret us looking to have our marriages recognized and then ignoring those other issues as a suggestion that they're not important. There's an inherent inequality that exists right now that needs to be addressed immediately, and then after that certainly it's something that can be looked into further on.

Á (1125)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): That's the end of that round....

Mr. John Maloney: I wonder whether we could give Mr. Ally a crack at that.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Did you want to make an observation?

Mr. Shabbir Ally: Yes, thank you.

I think the demand for equality here is a little bit misplaced, because it misses the focal point. Marriage in this great country is a label given to a certain activity, and that label has acquired a status of honour because of the honourable nature of that activity itself and what it confers to society in return.

Marriage does two things. On the practical level, as I have shown, it fosters the growth and development of a youthful population that becomes of service to the nation. It gives something back. That is very different from a same-sex relationship, which is not for the purpose of producing but of perhaps adopting. There is a very different theme here.

So whereas in marriage there is an underlying assumption of two people getting together for the continuing benefit of society, as has been done before, so we receive and we give further--we were nurtured and we nurture further, we were given birth to and we give birth further, and so on--that same theme is not there in the same-sex relationship. On the practical level, then, marriage deserves the honour it gets.

Secondly, on the moral level, human beings think conceptually about sex. We do not just simply proceed on instinct, but we have an idea of how to make our thoughts about sex supercede that animalistic nature in us. So we think and talk about sex in such a way that we sideline it. We talk about people getting married to have children. We don't think or talk about the mechanism of that production, whereas in fact if we were to transpose this to the same-sex relationship, there is no escaping the facts of copulation here.

On the one hand, we can talk about people looking forward to a new generation. On the other hand, we can think of people looking forward to the pursuit of their own sexual orientations. They are two different themes, and because of these two points, the practical considerations and the moral, marriage deserves the honour it gets.

So it is a title that is conferred on a certain activity. If people choose not to act in that way, then on what grounds would they claim that they deserved that honour? One has to show that a same-sex relationship is on equal ground with a usual opposite-sex marriage, and then claim equality on that basis.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

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

I would very quickly like to ask a question of Ms. Golden and Mr. Wilson.

Given the fears that we have repeatedly heard mentioned, namely that religious groups might be forced to marry same-sex partners, if the committee were to recommend allowing same-sex partners to marry and if we wrote into the act a very clear provision, similar to section 367 of the Civil Code, stating that nothing could force a member of the clergy to perform a ceremony that would go against his or her faith, would you be comfortable with that?

And if this provision went further still and said that no benefit, fiscal or other, could indirectly or directly be removed from those institutions that would refuse to marry same-sex partners, would you be comfortable?

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Very briefly, Ms. Golden.

Ms. Amelia Golden: My rabbi wouldn't marry my partner and I because my partner is not Jewish, not because we were two women. I didn't try to attack my rabbi or my religion based on religious freedom, because I knew that was a tenet in that religion. There is a constant conversation in the Roman Catholic Church about women being allowed to offer certain sacraments. Nobody is taking them to court and suing them on gender discrimination, or claiming that they are contravening the charter. I think religious organizations should be allowed to follow the tenets of their religion, but that does not mean to withdraw choice from others.

Á (1130)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): A very brief question from Mr. Lee, and a very brief answer, please.

Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I should first thank Mr. Vandezande, who is actually a constituent of mine. He's been a totally non-partisan, publicly committed, active person for many, many years, and it's good to see him here today. I don't know what party he is with, and I don't know who he votes for, but it doesn't matter. I just know that ever since I have been involved, for 15 years, he has been active publicly on behalf of Canadians in a good way.

To Mr. Ally, I know you speak for the Shi'a and Sunni branches of the Islamic faith. Can you tell me if any of the branches of the Islamic faith to your knowledge in Canada have managed to escape what I would call the “strictures of the scriptures”, the Koran, which sort of preordained marriage to be for a man and a woman? Have any of the branches of the faith escaped that and been more open to gay and lesbian unions in the faith?

As a slightly add-on question, when you refer to marriage do you describe it as “marriage”, or is it like the Christian “matrimony”? Does the joining together of the couple come right out of the Koran as something that's very old and traditional, and does it happen separate and apart from the public marriage licensing, civil marriage?

Mr. Shabbir Ally: The marriage ceremony in the Islamic context is performed based on the principles and instructions given in the Koran itself. Usually this is performed by an imam, who is also authorized by the state to perform marriages. So both the civil and religious are accomplished together.

On the question of whether any groups within Islam have managed to supercede the Koranic instructions on this, I'm not aware of any, and I don't see how, religiously or logically, it might be possible. Religiously the instructions are very clear that marriage involves marriage between the opposite sex. Logically, since this is the case, one would not be able to stand on the Koran to pronounce a marriage, because the Koran itself is pulled out from under one's feet at the moment of making such a pronouncement.

So we have this difficulty. If we are going to argue on the basis of tradition, which is what we are doing here, that a marriage is justifiable, then the same tradition has to allow for that marriage. Tradition by definition is not something that we invent.

That goes not only for the traditions within faith, but also, I would argue, for the traditions we have inherited in Canada. Even though our Canadian traditions do have a historical faith background, logically marriage is something that has this definition already. This is something that the Canadian public has come to accept. This has been honed and refined by long historical experience.

If anyone wishes to argue from within Islam, from within Judaism or Christianity, or from just within the Canadian context that marriage should have a new definition, one has to provide either the traditional or the logical or reasonable basis for that argument. So far this has not been done, at least not in our session here, from what I've observed.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): I want to on behalf of the committee thank the panellists for a very vigorous and informed discussion.

I also wanted to endorse Mr. Lee's comments about Mr. Vandezande. He has provided to Canadians a public service over many, many years.

Thank you, all.

I will suspend for three minutes while the next panellists make their way to the table.

Á (1133)

Á (1137)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): I call this meeting back to order. We seem to be a little light on MPs, but I'm sure they'll be arriving fairly shortly.

Mr. Macklin, we're counting on you.

In our next panel we have Robert Cooper as an individual; from the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, Reverend Ted Seres and David Hazzard; and from the Fallingbrook Heights Baptist Church, Reverend Mel Finlay.

Welcome to you all. Just a little review for those who weren't here. Each panellist gets seven minutes to present. At six minutes I'll try to get your attention to let you know that there's one minute left. After that we get a little bit rude, so perhaps you could confine your presentation to seven minutes. After that the MPs will want to ask you some questions, on a timeline as well.

Mr. Cooper, could you lead off, please.

Mr. Robert Cooper (As Individual): You want me to start? Okay. I will read my brief to you.

Thank you for allowing me to appear today to speak in support of the federal government's recognition and protection of same-sex marriage.

My name is Bob Cooper. I was born and raised in the city of Oshawa. I have spent my life in the province of Ontario. I currently live and work here in the city of Toronto and I am employed as a lawyer by the Hudson's Bay Company.

It should come as no surprise to you that there are many gay men in this country who have fathered and raised children in a traditional heterosexual marriage. I am one of them. My own marriage ended in separation approximately 12 years ago, after a long and painful period of estrangement, made all the more difficult by my reluctance to come to terms with my own sexuality.

Two children were produced from the marriage--my son, who is now 18, and his sister, now 17. They have been a constant source of joy to me. Like any parent, I wish their lives to be as free from grief as is humanly possible.

The other source of joy in my life is my partner, Dick O'Connor, with whom I have lived for over 11 years. Over that time we have shared all the ups and downs that can be visited on any couple committing themselves to a life together. Throughout those years the children have been an integral part of our lives, and have shared our home as well as their mother's. Since they were seven and five respectively, the children have in effect had three parents--a mother, a father, and, in Dick, a very real and loving step-parent, although a term defining his position in the family has yet to be coined.

The world in which I grew up offered little in the way of gay role models, and what little society had to offer was invariably presented as something perverse and alien to normal family life. The problem was not so much that I was exposed to homophobic comments as it was the total absence of any commentary at all. For all intents and purposes, it was as if homosexuality simply did not exist. This rule certainly held true for my immediate family and friends, and there was little outside of that circle to make me think otherwise.

The confusion and fear generated by this lack of information and example may be difficult for some people to appreciate. Looking back, I can see that I grew up assuming that, since mine was a normal life and a normal family, I too was normal, and that, wishing to love and be loved and to have family and friends, I too fit somewhere within the heterosexual model of what normal is supposed to be. It was not as though the public world provided any alternative.

As it became more and more difficult to adapt to that heterosexual model, I grew more frightened. When I reached the inevitable breaking point in my life, I felt totally isolated and alone.

I was extremely lucky to find a support group for gay men with children, called Gay Fathers of Toronto. You cannot imagine how wonderful it was to discover that there were countless others who shared my experience and to see how capably they had accepted their sexual orientation and taken charge of their lives. The benefits I received from Gay Fathers will last me the rest of my life. Truly, for the first time I saw that being gay does not mean spending one's life on the outskirts of society, and that being gay and having a partner, children, and extended family are not mutually exclusive.

But it shouldn't take a support group to discover that truth. The gay men and women who have always formed part of society should share the same rights and benefits as their heterosexual counterparts, and their enjoyment of those privileges should be equally celebrated. Marriage is perhaps the most public of these rights, and for that very reason same-sex marriage should be championed by any government that prides itself on protecting human rights and dignity.

The ban on same-sex marriage is a gross disservice to all gays and lesbians, whether or not they ever intend to enter into a long-term relationship or to raise children of their own. It tells us that the public expression of our sexual orientation relegates us to second-class status, that we have no right to expect the rights accorded to heterosexual individuals. It promotes the feelings of rejection, shame, and embarrassment that gays and lesbians have had to battle for far too long.

The prejudice exemplified by the ban on same-sex marriage hurts many who are not gay. Our parents, siblings, children, and extended family are equally affected.

A common saying at our Gay Fathers meetings, or at least the ones I attended, was that as soon as the parent comes out of the closet, the child goes into the closet. The truth of that saying was very evident to the members of my group. It is no easier for children or any other family members to publicly acknowledge a gay relative than it is for the gay individual to declare his or her own sexuality. They experience the same fear of rejection and the same feelings of embarrassment or shame for the very same reasons. It takes a very special kind of courage for a child to defend and take pride in something that the world at large seems to treat with contempt.

Dick and I have been blessed by having families who have welcomed each of us into their lives without reservation. Nonetheless, I have seen how difficult it is for some of them to acknowledge our relationship publicly. Many other gay couples I know have been far less fortunate.

I like to think that such problems with private acceptance and public acknowledgement would be greatly diminished if our government would take the necessary leap to extend to same-sex couples the same rights that are taken for granted by heterosexuals.

Á (1140)

My closing remark is this. When one is deprived of basic rights there is no social recognition. Without social recognition there is no acceptance. Without acceptance there is no tolerance. And without tolerance there is no justice. I'm not so naïve as to believe that lifting the ban on same-sex marriage will eliminate prejudice against gays and lesbians, but I do believe it would initiate a much-needed sea change. It would serve as a public acknowledgement that same-sex relations do exist and should exist, and that they play a vital role in the very fabric of our society.

Thank you.

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

On behalf of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, Mr. Hazzard.

Mr. David Hazzard (Assistant Superintendent, The Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada): Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present this brief on marriage on behalf of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. We will be co-presenting.

Allow me to provide a context to understand the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, which would include our fraternal relationship with the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland. There are 1,250 churches represented in our fellowship coast to coast, representing approximately 250,000 members and adherents. We would be the sixth-largest Christian organization in Canada.

Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada is an active member in the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. You've already received a brief from them, and we would like to support the brief of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.

We are a faith-based group, and we would openly acknowledge that we are committed to the biblical scriptures as the basis for our faith. There are numerous references to marriage in the biblical scriptures in which the definition of marriage is clearly established. There are many criteria included in the scripture relative to marriage--that marriage is a relationship involving humans; that marriage is a relationship involving two humans; and that marriage would be a relationship protected by a certain amount of distance in certain familial relationships. The scriptures would guard against incest, etc. As well, we believe the biblical definition of marriage acknowledges the gender relationship of a man and a woman, a heterosexual marriage.

We believe it is the responsibility of the state to affirm the social ideals of society and to affirm that marriage between a man and a woman would be the social ideal. We are not opposed to legally recognizing other relationships of intimacy and loyalty, and we would appeal for the definition of marriage to continue as a heterosexual relationship.

Reverend Ted Seres is going to make a comment on the paper itself.

Á (1145)

The Reverend Ted Seres (National Coordinator, Specialized Ministries, The Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada): While our understanding of scriptures does not allow us to sanction homosexual and lesbian relationships, the scriptures also command us towards justice in everyday life and practice. So it's not the intent of this submission to advance a morality towards those who do not subscribe to our faith and practice, but as responsible citizens in a pluralistic society, we offer our position in the hope that the common good of Canadian society will be accomplished.

I just want to point out first of all that heterosexual marriage originated not as a church institution. Even in the scriptures marriage was defined as the union of a man and a woman before religion was established.

Faith groups from the earliest time incorporated marriage into their catechisms. Recognizing the significance it held in the maintenance and the advancement of society, faith groups considered marriage then to be in the realm of the sacred. To counter abuses in marriage often as a result of a male-dominated society--and male-dominated even within the church--the state assumed more and more responsibility in the recognition and the solemnization of marriage. Common law provided protections within marriage, especially for wives and children. Moreover, in the event of annulment, separation, and divorce, legislation evolved to offer protection to disadvantaged parties. Again, throughout this evolution of common law the essential definition of marriage remained the same.

Interestingly, neither the church nor the state instituted marriage, although our theological position would say that marriage was a provision by God, instituted by God, as a social consequence of the created order. Marriage was embraced by society as a universal construct. Later, the Christian church as well as other faith groups gave...and then was later given protection by the state.

There is a uniqueness about heterosexual marriage. I'll touch on that briefly. Our courts have alluded to that, and other reports. I believe the Evangelical Fellowship report alluded to Justice La Forest in Egan v. Nesbit, who said:

...the ultimate raison d'être [for existence] transcends all of these and is firmly anchored in the biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate, that most children are products of these relationships, and they are generally cared for and nurtured by those who live in that relationship.

The contribution of both sexes creates a family environment in which both husband and wife fulfill their roles in a complementary way. A healthy understanding of the distinctiveness of both sexes makes for healthy families, producing healthy citizens. Many studies have revealed that disadvantaged children coming from homes where family structure has been altered in any way contend with some of those disadvantages.

Same-sex unions cannot offer a family venue based on sexual difference. Including same-sex relationships in the definition of marriage would send a clear message to Canadians that sexual difference makes little or no difference in the formation of family in society at large. It would also in effect say that there is nothing unique about the community and families that men and women create.

Another issue is the issue of monogamy. Marriage reflects a monogamous model of a cohabitating relationship. Marital fidelity is what is most common in a traditional marriage, and in fact it is foundational to the maintenance of that relationship. To a large extent, fidelity is generally not present in homosexual relationships. My paper gives a number of examples. Let me just refer to one.

Even when one limits the study of homosexual couples to those who consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the numbers are not significantly different. In The Male Couple, from a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to 37 years, they reported that:

Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.

Given the above information, marriage inclusive of same-sex couples would appear to undermine the monogamous characteristic of which marriage is dependent upon.

I would just conclude by saying that PAC affirms the institution of marriage as the permanent union of one man and one woman. This is the most favoured context in which families can be raised. It is the complementary nature of male and female living in intimacy that gives marriage its unique status in society. By definition it cannot include other types of relationships.

Á (1150)

In recognition of recent challenges to the institution of marriage, we encourage the Government of Canada to ensure that the status of marriage, as presently defined, be protected in legislation for the common good of Canadian society. Issues of equality for other couples, including non-conjugal dependent relationships, obviously need to be addressed but not at the expense of the institution of marriage.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thank you, Reverend Seres and Mr. Hazzard.

Reverend Finlay, on behalf of Fallingbrook Baptist Church.

The Reverend Mel Finlay (Pastor, The Church at the Centre, Fallingbrook Heights Baptist Church): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have provided a detailed submission that will be available to the committee upon translation. This is a summary of that submission.

I'm here on behalf of Fallingbrook Heights Baptist Church here in Toronto. We bring to our submission a range of international experiences and cultural backgrounds, and experience, in developing public policy in addition to our faith. We're a culturally diverse group of people, with experience literally from A to Z, Afghanistan to Zambia. Our people come from 14 countries, including Canada, from many different cultural backgrounds and languages. They have first-hand experience and knowledge of many different religions, cultural practices, languages, and behaviours.

I personally have served as advisor to deputy ministers, ministers, and cabinet committees on a variety of national and provincial policies and programs.

We concur with and support the presentation made by Focus on the Family Canada on April 1, 2003, and are also in substantial agreement with the positions put forward by the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada in their presentation to the committee on February 13, 2003.

That said, there are a few points I wish to make today that may not have been given the kind of attention we believe they deserve.

First, on the nature of marriage, we identify in our submission three characteristics of marriage. One, marriage--that is, the union between male and female--goes back at least four millennia. As Mr. Justice Gonthier has said, “Marriage and family life are not inventions of the legislature.” Neither are they the invention of the state, we would say.

Two, all of the world's major religions, including but not limited to Islam, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Sikh, and Christian, have from time immemorial recognized marriage to be in its essence the union of male and female. A multi-faith group, including Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians, supports an opposite-sex definition of marriage in Canadian courts and has been granted intervener status in Ontario and B.C. cases on the definition of marriage.

Three, such unanimity among such diverse faiths speaks to something very basic to the human psyche and to human existence itself as well as to the divine origin of marriage. Institutions that are solely man-made do not have that kind of staying power.

On the nature of law-making, Nathalie Des Rosiers, president of the Law Commission of Canada, commented before this committee on January 30, 2003, that “the process of law-making is to make distinctions”. She added that “in a society that says it has equality of its citizens in front of the law, you must be able to justify why you exclude some of them [from specific legislation].”

We would go further and say that it is equally necessary to justify why some citizens are included within specific legislation. In our opinion, there is no compelling argument for including any of the relationships that currently fall outside the legal definition of marriage, whether same-sex relationships; multiple partners of either or both sexes, meaning bigamy or polygamy; prohibited degrees of consanguinity, such as blood relationship; those whose divorce is not yet final; or any of the other relationships that currently fall outside the definition of marriage.

To summarize our position, as the committee members are quite conversant with the four options, in the interests of time I will not read them but simply refer to them by number.

Option one, obviously we support. We would support whatever legislative means is required to ensure that this definition of marriage--that is, the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others--continues to be the definitive, legally binding one.

Option two we do not support, creating an equivalent to marriage, for federal purposes, for other conjugal relationships. We believe the word “marriage” incorporates a comprehensive concept of a lifetime commitment of one man to one woman, one woman to one man, to the exclusion of all others, undertaken in the presence of witnesses for the purpose of strengthening, encouraging, nurturing, and caring for each other, for procreating and caring for children born into, or who otherwise become part of, that family unit, and contributing to the development of a healthy and nurturing society. We also believe marriage is a visible expression of the relationship between Jesus Christ and his church.

A number of jurisdictions have attempted to define the many types of relationships that exist in society. The result is a hodgepodge of definitions with nothing even approximating agreement on any of them, with the exception of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Á (1155)

To call other relationships the equivalent of marriage discredits the institution of marriage and does little to address the issues of rights, responsibilities, obligations, duties, and consequences of breakdown of the various relationships that currently fall outside the definition of marriage. We believe the issues of the rights, responsibilities, obligations, duties, and consequences of breakdown of these relationships--that is, other than married relationships--need to be addressed but not under the rubric of equivalent to married.

We believe that no other relationship approximates that of marriage, and that while some of the rights, responsibilities, obligations, duties, and consequences of breakdown of non-married relationships may be similar to those of married relationships, they do not therefore make the relationship a married one. Such relationships may well have a name, but the name is not “married”.

With regard to option three, for reasons we have already put forward we do not believe the state should provide a secular blessing by formally sanctioning relationships between same-sex couples or others currently falling outside the definition of marriage.

Option four seems to us to be based on a notion that it is solely a religious ceremony that differentiates marriage from other categories, classifications, or descriptions of relationships. We believe there is much more to marriage than a religious ceremony, and the state has no viable option but to recognize and deal with it.

By way of conclusion, then, we want to support recommendations that have been made by Focus on the Family.

I just want to finish with two sentences. First, it is not the role of government to provide psychological affirmation of private relationships; many relationships are quite healthy without being supported by law. Finally, we encourage you as parliamentarians not only to maintain the definition of marriage but also to promote policies that support and strengthen the institution of marriage.

Thank you very much.

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

[Translation]

Mr. Marceau, you have seven minutes.

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

I know that Reverend Seres and Reverend Finlay as well as Mr. Hazzard have listened in on the various presentations made this morning. They will therefore not be surprised by a question on the freedom of religion in a secular context.

It is important to note that we are obviously talking about civil marriage, but several religious organizations have told us that they are afraid of being forced, directly or indirectly, to marry same-sex partners.

I am of those who believe that the right of a church or of a faith group to refuse to marry same-sex partners is an absolute right that comes under freedom of religion. This to my mind is a right that we must defend with the greatest vigour.

However, certain churches, namely the United Church and the Unitarian Church, have a different interpretation of the Holy Scripture. You will understand that it is not up to me to determine who is right and who is wrong in that interpretation.

I am seeking a way to allow these churches who want to go the full extent of their theology and marry same-sex partners to do so, because that is part of their religious freedom, while ensuring that your churches will never be forced to do something that goes against your religious beliefs.

I am simply asking for your help. What could you suggest to me to ensure the freedom of choice for the State, for individuals and for religious faiths wishing to get married or to marry same-sex partners, while at the same time protecting your right to refuse to do so?

Â (1200)

[English]

Mr. David Hazzard: We would recognize the fact that there are varying definitions within the Christian community relative to marriage. We do believe the scriptures, though,are relatively clear on their definition of marriage.

We would encourage the state, the Government of Canada, to protect the denominational positions that are taken by differing groups. If it were the decision of the Government of Canada to allow same-sex marriages, we would assume that denominations that did not agree with that would be free to disagree and communicate that point and not participate in those marriages.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Therefore, you mainly want to be allowed to continue to refuse marrying same-sex partners in accordance with your interpretation of the Holy Scripture. You would not promote same-sex marriage, but you would be prepared to live with that, on condition that you not be forced to marry homosexual couples and that you be allowed to continue to state your disagreement, same-sex marriage being contrary to your interpretation of Holy Scripture.

[English]

Mr. David Hazzard: I would say our main point is that we believe marriage was defined prior to scriptures themselves, and the discussion to redefine marriage pushes us beyond what has been historically and culturally understood to be marriage. That is my main point.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: In your view, when was marriage defined as the union of a man and a woman?

[English]

Mr. David Hazzard: I think the scriptures teach that. I think cultures have affirmed that historically and traditionally.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: That is more or less what I thought, but rabbi Novak, who has a much better knowledge of the Old Testament than me, told us yesterday that after the birth of Jesus, judaism recognized polygamous marriages. I do not want to do any advertising, but I went to the Indigo store yesterday and picked up a copy of the Old Testament. I read in it that David and Solomon, among others, had several wives. That somewhat flies in the face of what we have heard said, specifically that historically marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman.

I would like to hear your comments in this regard.

[English]

Mr. David Hazzard: We would believe that God's gift of marriage to humankind includes one man, one woman. There have been various cultural adaptations to this that the Jewish community historically has identified. While they are recorded in scripture, they wouldn't necessarily represent God's ideal for marriage, but social, cultural accommodations. Not everything recorded in the Bible would....

It's often an historical record of what took place. It doesn't necessarily record completely what God's purpose is in the historical record that is given.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Merci.

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

It would be a happy consequence of these hearings if Mr. Marceau got religion.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Mr. Lee, for seven minutes.

Â (1205)

Mr. Derek Lee: I'm going to offer to Reverend Seres a suggestion that may seem to be going in a direction other than that which he was urging on the committee.

You referred to the old football--well, it's not old, but for us it may be old--of monogamy in same-sex relationships. In my view, it is the pure and utter function normally of the commitment of the two individuals rather than other paradigms out there that shape. But I will offer the following suggestion, for your comments.

If we did recognize same-sex marriages, if there was a societal vehicle for people of the same sex to come together and commit for a lifetime, wouldn't that have impacted greatly on the statistics you've described here?

I mean, fifty years ago you could have been thrown in jail for being whatever we're talking about here, same-sex or whatever; let's just use the one of many categories of being homosexual. You would have been thrown in jail, so how in heaven's name could people who were homosexual ever have generated a tradition of public commitment and living together and being together? It just couldn't be there. It wasn't even legal let alone there being a vehicle they could use to come together and be together.

So aren't those statistics a little bit too rear-view-mirror? We blame the group as if it's their fault, when in fact they had no possibility at all of forming relationships publicly.

Rev. Ted Seres: Well, I would simply say that I don't think any group, whether they're heterosexual or homosexual, needs to rely on public policy for them to enter into a loving, caring, monogamous relationship. I don't see how recognition of marriage of same-sex couples would change lifestyle when it comes to a loving, caring, monogamous relationship.

How does public policy affect their private lifestyle? If a couple comes together and claims to care and love and be committed to each other, that to me would also include some kind of monogamy there. The fact that a couple looks for sexual expression outside that relationship would say to me there is a lack of commitment.

And I would say that to not just homosexual couples but also to heterosexual couples who would come to me to be married. If I felt there was a sense that they weren't going to be monogamous, I would simply refer them to counselling and refuse to marry them until they could commit.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay. Now I'll turn the thing around almost completely. It's been urged upon us that we shouldn't change marriage at all because it is so fundamentally important as a legal and cultural institution in shaping how we all organize ourselves as a society. So if it is that important, isn't it also just as important to gays and lesbians to have that building block, that vehicle, that means?

I personally see the importance of law and legal infrastructure shaping the way society forms itself. It's clear that this definition of marriage has shaped how society has evolved over the last millennium, or two or three or ten or whatever. It's clearly there. So it has to be important to gays and lesbians, how we legally define things.

Don't you think, for the thousands or millions who are out there who happen to be gay, lesbian, or transsexual, or the category of people who for whatever reason are excluded from the marriage infrastructure now, we should provide some vehicle? We have to have something. Otherwise, they can never build; they'll just float out in society without having a vehicle to organize their personal relationships and commitments.

Â (1210)

Rev. Ted Seres: Sure, and I believe...and our submission would be to try to elevate the institution of marriage as it is presently defined--that is, not to take away from other committed relationships. But in terms of definition, and I think it was talked about earlier this morning, marriage has been defined in one way for millennia. To change that definition, in the interests of equality, just all of a sudden, would be the same as saying, well, women do not have the same rights and same freedoms as men in society, so let's change the definition of what a woman is and include all sexes together, to elevate their equality.

I think we need to recognize other domestic relationships. In our paper we talk about the special status, I think, that is afforded to heterosexual marriage. Beyond that there are other dependent relationships. If we are going to walk down the road of granting rights and privileges to other dependent relationships, then I think it's only proper that we open that all the way and include other domestic partnerships and relationships. It might be two sisters living together, with some kind of dependency there. I think in fairness we need to explore that.

Again, I just want to come back to this uniqueness of what marriage is and what it has provided for society. I think we need to continue to have those protections for a heterosexual marriage.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

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

Indeed, this was a most interesting revelation for the committee from a theological point of view. If I arrive at any conclusion, it is that there is no truth with a capital T and that everything is a matter of one's interpretation.

That being said, I agree with some of the points Reverend Seres brought up, namely those with regard to the relationship between, for example, a brother and a sister. I am of those who happen to believe that Parliament will sooner or later--and I hope it will be sooner rather than later--have to deal with non-conjugal dependency relationships that might for example exist in the case of a daughter who takes care of her elderly mother or her elderly father, etc. I agree with you and I believe we should deal with this.

However, I believe that this committee is here dealing with various forms of conjugal relationships. In any field, in order to do one's work properly, one must target the issue. Here, we are dealing at present with the conjugal relationship, and I would afterwards side with you in saying that we should look at non-conjugal forms of dependence.

With regard to civil unions or registered partnerships, would the partners in this type of civil union have approximately the same rights, duties and responsibilities as a married couple?

[English]

Rev. Ted Seres: I'm not a legislator, but I would think, if there are issues of dependency, there obviously needs to be some tax benefits. In the case of where children are involved there obviously needs to be some protections there so that the couple, that relationship, can provide for those children.

I'm not familiar with all the privileges that are given to marriage as opposed to privileges given to other domestic partnerships, so I'm not sure I can comment fully on that.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I will try to put my question to you differently, without going into detail. You would not have any objection as to same-sex couples having just about the same rights and responsibilities as a married couple as long as the term “marriage“ is reserved solely for heterosexual marriages. You would accept that the State recognize, regulate and frame same-sex relationships, even were they to resemble marriage, as long as they are not called “marriage“. Is that what you are trying to tell me?

Â (1215)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Merci, Monsieur Marceau.

Reverend Seres.

Rev. Ted Seres: Well, as long as we don't water down the meaning so much so that everybody is.... You know, it would almost come to the point where everybody's married, so everybody's the same. It's more than just, I believe, a definition.

I believe in the special status of family, of heterosexual marriage and what it contributes to society. For those reasons, I would say--and some courts have agreed with this--it still deserves a special prerogative within legislation. It's not a matter of discrimination. It's simply a matter of recognizing the contributions that marriage provides to Canadian society, and building in protections there.

As well, we talk about conjugality. As much as conjugality is essential in marriage, it's essential for the purposes of procreation, because within that context children are born, they're raised, and they're nurtured in the most stable environment. But conjugality within marriage serves a far broader purpose than simply gratification between the two partners. Standing alone without this broader purpose....

It's not a prerequisite for meriting special status, and it's not the question of a conjugal relationship that deserves special status, it's what else that brings to society.

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

Mr. Macklin.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for appearing before the committee today.

It really is quite a challenge we've been given, needless to say. What you've brought forward today, at least from the church perspective, is clearly one of seeing a need for as much governmental support, from a civil perspective, as possible for the concept of marriage and the families that this reflects. However, we do have the Mr. Coopers of this world. We do have many who have come before us demonstrating that there are certainly many very committed relationships that have offspring, either from technology or from other failed relationships that they bring into this. They do develop and build a clear, committed relationship. At the end of the road, I guess, is it that we shouldn't give them reasonable protections?

I had difficulty listening to Reverend Finlay say, if I heard him correctly, that he couldn't accept an equivalent way of describing, from a civil perspective, providing benefits to those who would be in gay or lesbian unions. Surely that doesn't seem to be the true and full effect of Christian charity. Is that rather flowing from more the protectionist side, that you believe you have to protect and we ought to protect as much as possible the concept of marriage as a heterosexual concept?

Rev. Mel Finlay: The point I was making is not that the rights and the responsibilities, the duties, the obligations, and the consequences of breakdown of relationships other than those currently defined as marriage don't need to be protected. They do. Obviously this committee is giving a lot of consideration to how all of those issues get addressed. The point I was making was simply that to address those under the rubric of marriage really doesn't solve anything. It doesn't adequately address those issues. It doesn't adequately address marriage as we consider marriage to be, the union between male and female, the heterosexual relationship. It's not to deny the necessity for addressing all of those other issues.

Â (1220)

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Do you...

Is that it?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): That's it.

Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

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

Reverend Seres, you talked about conjugality in terms of procreation. Do you not agree with me that it is possible to have conjugality without procreation?

[English]

Rev. Ted Seres: Yes. Well, I guess my point is that conjugality is not the only essential in a marriage relationship. Conjugality is essential for the purposes, I believe, of procreation, but any two people can become conjugal, and that conjugal relationship does not necessarily deserve special status within society.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: What other aspects of conjugality are required to have a marriage?

[English]

Rev. Ted Seres: I would say the elements that we believe publicly define marriage would be a publicly recognized coming together for life between a woman and a man, who live together in a relationship, committed to other-centred love, fidelity, lifelong companionship, mutual interdependence, and responsibility for each other, and potential procreation. Those would be a few of those characteristics.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: All the aspects you have detailed, such as public recognition of the relationship, commitment, fidelity, interdependence, companionship are also possible in a same-sex relationship. Therefore, the difference is the potential for procreation. It is another way of saying that it takes a man and a woman in order to procreate. All other aspects can exist just as well in a same-sex union.

[English]

Rev. Ted Seres: In a heterosexual marriage there is a complementarity, the complementary contribution of both sexes, of a man and a woman.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I would like to know what these complementary things are.

For example, I have been married for nine years and have been with the same woman for eleven years. In our household, the toolbox belongs to my wife. If she goes into the kitchen to boil water, I worry she will manage to burn it.

The complementary contribution varies from one couple to the other. It is not because a man is a man that he will do any given thing around the house and it is not because a woman is a woman that she will undertake any specific task. It is not like a collective agreement. These things may vary in a couple. In our house, my wife does a number of things which are usually done by men.

In our view, what are the characteristics of a man within a family, as opposed to those of a woman?

[English]

Rev. Ted Seres: I think it's more than just the roles. I wish my roles were better defined in my home, in that way.

I think it's part of the psyche of a man and a woman, and I think as we look at the whole picture of family and procreation and children, there is a better understanding of sexuality when both a male and a female are present in the home.

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

We're all looking forward to meeting Mr. Marceau's toolbox.

Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee: I would like to ask a question focusing on the religious element here. We've had many witnesses who've represented religious groups, giving a religious perspective. As a legislator I find that I have to look at society in the broad perspective, not just through the eyes of one particular religious faith, and I just wanted to get the views of those who directly or indirectly articulate a religious perspective.

Is it possible for Canadians who subscribe firmly to a faith, and the faith includes rules that exclude homosexuality and that regard homosexuality as somewhere between inappropriate or wrong or morally inappropriate--there are all different views out there--to step outside of that, to stop being of that faith and to think about society as a whole? Or are Canadians, at least those from the faith you represent, firmly adherents of a faith because they see that their life and their eternity is wrapped up in there?

How free are they, the people of the faith that you represent and work with, to look at this any other way, to do anything other than be what your faith says they must be? And they all believe they're doing the right thing in God's eyes.

Â (1225)

Rev. Mel Finlay: I have a couple of responses to that.

First of all, it's important to know that from our perspective as a church, because we engage in society every day, and our people every day are functioning with people from all cross-sections, and we are made up of people from various countries and various experiences, we have to wrestle with the issues that this committee is wrestling with, and many others as well.

So at one level, not only is it possible, it's mandatory to engage with society on society's own terms. At the same time, we, like everyone around this table and like everyone in Canada, operate from a particular basis. We happen to articulate ours in a particular way, and certain guidelines, rules, commandments, interpretations, and all kinds of things inform that. But it's not true in any way to suggest--and I know you are not suggesting this--that we are not able to take into account societal needs.

To give you some of my own background, for example, I have been back in the ministry a relatively short period of time. Prior to that I was engaged as a government employee and as the head of a very large not-for-profit organization that had to interpret laws and deal day to day with all of the issues of those applications.

So that's not just a religious background but a comprehensive societal background.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): I want to thank the panel for their courageous and thoughtful interventions, and for the assistance they have provided to the committee.

We are now going to suspend for one hour for lunch.

Thank you very much.

Â (1225)

· (1330)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Ladies and gentlemen, we'll get started on our afternoon session. Thank you for coming back.

Our first panel is the Ontario Association of Social Workers, represented by Joan MacKenzie-Davies and Peter Newman; as individuals, Martin Traub-Werner and Tamara Kronis; and the Canadian Labour Congress, represented by Marie Clarke Walker and Kim Beemer.

Thank you, all. Just for those of you who aren't familiar, it's a seven-minute presentation. At six minutes, I'll try to get your attention and hopefully you'll wind it up. If you don't pay any attention, I'll use this.

Please make every effort to stay within the seven minutes. There will be a question and answer session afterwards with the opposition, as represented by Mr. Marceau, and the government over here, as represented by these fine and noble gentlemen.

We'll begin with the Ontario Association of Social Workers.

Ms. Joan MacKenzie-Davies (Executive Director, Ontario Association of Social Workers): Thank you, and good afternoon.

My name is Joan MacKenzie-Davies and I'm the executive director of the Ontario Association of Social Workers. Peter Newman, my colleague, is assistant professor at the Faculty of Social Work at the University of Toronto.

We appreciate the opportunity to make a submission to the standing committee. We are doing so not only on behalf of our provincial social worker organization but also our national body, the Canadian Association of Social Workers.

Our organization is one of 11 provincial and territorial organizations that comprise the Canadian Association of Social Workers, which is in turn a member of the 76-nation International Federation of Social Workers. Our national body has approximately 20,000 social workers as members from across the country. The practising members are individuals with university degrees in social work at the doctoral, baccalaureate, and master's levels.

As the voice of social work in Ontario, we are offering unwavering support towards amending federal legislation to legally recognize same-sex marriages. In doing so, I am going to be addressing issues related to equality, pluralism, protection of minority rights, anti-discrimination, and health and well-being.

Equality is a pre-eminent value of Canadian society and a guiding principle underpinning the mission of our social work organization. Guided by the principle of equality, we support the equal rights of same-sex couples to legally be married, and we oppose any two-tiered system of relationship recognition among same-sex and opposite-sex couples in Canada.

The current system, which allows only opposite-sex marriage couples the right to marriage, is patently discriminatory. The only path that honours the principle of equality is that of allowing same-sex couples the same access to legal marriages as opposite-sex couples. As social workers, we work with numerous constellations of families, which include increasing numbers of same-sex couples both with and without children.

Canada is a pluralistic society in which church and state are separated. Our organization fully acknowledges and respects the existence of the diversity of religious and cultural beliefs in this country. We also respect the rights of religious institutions to establish their own doctrines and to make their own decisions regarding whom they shall marry.

As a pluralistic society without an established state religion, however, religious doctrine should not dictate the Canadian government's approach in the civil act of regulating relationships between individuals in a couple. The federal government has a responsibility to set public policy with respect to the civil act of marriage, and must do so without bias and prejudice, and regardless of whether or not the couple chooses to officiate their union in a religious context.

The protection of social minorities is a vital tenet of Canadian society, as upheld by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The legalization of same-sex marriage is important and pressing precisely because it involves protecting social minorities. The courts are part of the democratic process to ensure that the majority does not trample on the rights of minorities. We must not be governed by public opinion when addressing equal rights for social minorities.

Over the decades, Canada, either through political or judicial action, has eliminated most of the vestiges of institutionalized legal discrimination. Throughout Canada, with the exception of Nunavut, it is illegal to discriminate against someone because of his or her sexual orientation.

As a leading social work organization in this country, we are strongly aware that discrimination against gay and lesbian Canadians continues to inflict enormous damage. Discrimination creates second-class citizens and reverberates throughout our entire society. Anything less than allowing same-sex partners equal access to marriage perpetrates discrimination. The inherent message in not allowing same-sex marriages is that these relationships are somehow inferior and that the children of same-sex couples are somehow less important and less worthy than the children of opposite-sex couples.

Our organization, supported by numerous scientific studies and decades of professional experience providing social and health services, unconditionally asserts that discrimination and stigmatization are antithetical to human health and well-being.

· (1335)

We assert that discrimination, stigma, and prejudice exert a negative influence on social, psychological, and physical health and well-being. It inculcates shame and low self-esteem in gay and lesbian children, both the children of gays and lesbians and young people who are gay and lesbian. It also contributes to chronic stress that may negatively impact on the health of adults, both physically and psychologically.

In conclusion, our organization and the national body that we are a part of strongly urges the Canadian government to amend federal legislation to legally recognize same-sex marriages.

Down the road, we also believe consideration should be given to legal recognition of a broad spectrum of non-conjugal relationships. At that time, the government should explore the establishment of a system of providing benefits to non-conjugal relationships. We do, however, want to emphasize that is not a first step, that we are very clear in supporting the need to amend the federal legislation and to enable and recognize same-sex marriages.

I thank you.

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

Tamara Kronis.

Ms. Tamara Kronis (As Individual): Martin and I want to thank you for the honour of being able to present before you today.

We are a straight couple, today married for eight months. As Martin will tell you, we are here on behalf of ourselves but we are also here on behalf of approximately 500 of our friends, families, and co-workers.

We strongly believe in the need to rectify the discrimination against same-sex couples in not allowing them into the institution of marriage, and believe marriage is the only viable alternative. We thought the best way to convey that to you would be to talk about how, in connection with planning our own wedding, we struggled with some of the same alternatives the committee is struggling with.

Mr. Martin Traub-Werner (As Individual): I was struck by the testimony this morning of the Eaton-Kents and the courage they had in explaining to the members of their church, and getting support from the members of their church, and how the members of their church didn't appreciate the fact that gays and lesbians hadn't the right to marriage.

I grew up with the understanding that one lives one's life, meets the woman of one's dreams, and gets married. So that's what I did. I was living my life and met the woman of my dreams, only to find out that she had some very significant thoughts about marriage, especially the fact that it is, at this point, discriminatory: It is not accessible to all Canadians.

This was a personal struggle we spent a lot of time discussing and debating.

Ms. Tamara Kronis: When I met Martin, I was living in the neighbourhood of the gay community, and had made a lot of gay friends. I didn't have a lot of gay friends growing up, but I met lots of folks in this neighbourhood and found out that lots of them were nice, and that lots of them were gay. I could not imagine having a wedding where I would walk down the aisle and some of those people would be sitting in the audience, watching me do something that they couldn't do, watching me have something and enjoy something that they couldn't have.

I thought that would be very painful, and by the time I met Martin had decided I didn't believe in the institution of marriage.

· (1340)

Mr. Martin Traub-Werner: As we went back and forth, I became not only convinced but of the conviction that I actually didn't need to be married to Tamara, that the fact that we were going to live the rest of our lives together was enough. While marriage had value to me, or to us, I was happy to abstain from not participating in the institution of marriage.

Ms. Tamara Kronis: At the same time, as I grew to love Martin I became convinced of the value of the relationship, and became convinced of the idea that there was something intangible about being married. We actually ended up quite on opposite sides again. We had convinced each other quite thoroughly, and we struggled with what to do about it.

I was sitting in a cafe with one of my friends, who said, “Tamara, don't be ridiculous. Don't give up your freedom just because I don't have it.” That twigged an idea in our minds, that we would try to celebrate our freedom to marry and at the same time recognize that other people didn't have the same freedom.

Mr. Martin Traub-Werner: We debated what course of action to take. We thought, well, we could send back our marriage certificate, and try to encourage others to send back their marriage certificates, but that didn't really work well for us as an idea. We ended up designing a postcard campaign. In the weeks leading up to our wedding and at our wedding itself, we encouraged our friends, family, co-workers, and guests at the wedding to send in a statement of support for same-sex marriage to the Prime Minister's Office. We printed off and the PMO received 500 of these postcards from Canadians who agree that this is an issue that affects all Canadians.

So that was the result.

Ms. Tamara Kronis: And it's funny, because the night of most people's weddings, they can't wait to open the presents. We'd had a shoebox on the table, and we couldn't wait to open it. When we got home and opened the shoebox, there was a stack of postcards. But when we looked at the postcards, we were completely confused; we didn't recognize a whole bunch of the names. Was it a prank or something? It turns out that almost the entire wait staff and catering staff at our wedding, without our asking them, actually took it upon themselves to do this as well. So we were quite intrigued by the fact that, given the opportunity, the so-called silent majority of Canadians were very supportive of us.

I just want to touch on why we didn't want to accept the status quo and just accept the opposite-sex definition of marriage. We wanted to do something to show our protest against it at the same time that we were entering into it.

The common-law marriage concept to us very much feels like an institution that allows some people in through the front door and some people in through the side. People like us are able to get married, and other people, like some of our friends who are here today, Barbara and Gail, whose commitment ceremony I actually attended, have to go in through the side door.

We just think that's profoundly unfair. If marriage was an institution that had walls, and the people being allowed in one way or the other were Jewish or black, we don't actually think this would be a very long debate.

We've heard a lot of people speak before the committee--we've been following it with interest--that this is an issue of morality. We strongly agree that it's an issue of morality, but we believe the moral imperative at play is not homosexuality but actually equality.

We know that you are making very difficult decisions and that as parliamentarians you have constituencies, and that it's very difficult to make these decisions. We had lots of friends and family with whom we had very difficult discussions around this issue, and we felt very strongly that in the name of equality it was very important for us to stand up and be counted. We know it's a difficult decision for you to make as well, but we urge you to join us and stand up and be counted on this issue.

Thank you.

Mr. Martin Traub-Werner: I do want to say....

Oh, sorry, are we timed out?

· (1345)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): There will be a lot of time during the question period. Thank you.

Marie Clarke Walker.

Ms. Marie Clarke Walker (Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress): I'd like to thank the committee for this opportunity. I am Marie Clarke Walker, executive vice-president of the Canadian Labour Congress. With me is Kim Beemer, our vice-president representing gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered workers. Also in the audience is Sue Genge, our national representative in our women's and human rights department, who is also responsible for, among other things, the solidarity and pride working group.

We've provided to the committee copies of our submission in both English and French.

The Canadian Labour Congress represents 2.5 million working people in Canada. We have unions affiliated to the congress who represent workers in public and private sector in every province and territory. We also represent men workers and women workers who may be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered, and heterosexual workers.

The CLC has a long history of promoting equality amongst workers, and therefore this situation is no different. In 1980 we adopted policy that opposed discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, and have had many resolutions passed at convention, including making same-sex benefits a collective bargaining priority and reaffirming labour's opposition to homophobia in all areas.

We also have a very long record of fighting equality through grievances and arbitrations, many cases of a high-profile nature. The issues we fight for are issues that are of benefit to all workers. This issue, the issue of equal rights for all, is an issue the labour movement has had on its agenda for a very long time, long before many governments saw it as a right for all.

This is something the labour movement took on as far back as the 1950s. With respect to rights for lesbian and gay workers, as far back as 1980 we adopted policy opposing discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. In 1994 we adopted a policy paper that furthered our analysis of discrimination and extended our policy, calling on labour to negotiate equal benefits and protections and on governments to institute laws establishing equal rights in all areas.

It was important that labour play a significant role in helping to create a context in which gay men and lesbians could achieve equality in society, because we recognized that one could not achieve equality in the workplace without having it outside as well.

As part of our responsibility to confront discrimination, we have presented numerous briefs, presentations, and petitions to amend federal legislation. The Canadian Labour Congress was one of the groups involved in discussions with the federal government around the issue of amending federal laws that discriminated against same-sex couples.

Our position then, as it is now, was that all couples, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, whether married or common-law, deserved the same legal rights and the same respect. We urge this committee to build on the commitment to equality that is widely shared by Canadians. The law is clear that lesbians and gay men must not be subjected to discrimination. The Government of Canada must be bound by its own equality guarantees, which include the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and its stated commitments to human rights, both nationally and internationally.

As I have said on many occasions, we can't point fingers at others on their human rights records if we are in violation here. The government has an obligation to promote equality and acceptance of all people in this country, including gay and lesbian citizens. It is not fair to prevent same-sex couples who have achieved equal access to a number of important social benefits, and have accepted a number of social responsibilities, from having their marriage legally recognized. It's actually overt, direct discrimination.

Therefore, same-sex couples must be given the same rights as heterosexual couples. Denial of these rights promotes prejudice, discrimination, and inequality. Marriage must be one of these rights. Denial of these rights gives legitimacy to denial of other rights, and this will be a step in the wrong direction.

We understand there are some who are opposed to this and who have used various arguments, such as religious reasons. I would respectfully remind this committee that many of the arguments used have also been used in the past to deny rights of people of differing ethnic and racial origins. They were not right then and they're not right now.

There are some lesbian and gay couples who may choose not to marry, just as there are heterosexual couples who may choose, or not, to marry. That is a choice that should be left to the couple, not to the government. All relationships, whether married or common-law, require acknowledgement and respect. The same rights and legal choices must be available to all.

On behalf of the Canadian Labour Congress, we urge this committee to do the right thing, the socially and legally responsible thing, and recommend to Parliament the amendment of Canada's laws to allow lesbian and gay couples access to civil marriage.

I want to thank you for taking time to consider our submission, and we do look forward to a favourable response.

· (1350)

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

You have approximately two minutes left.

Ms. Kim Beemer (Vice-President, Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Issues, Canadian Labour Congress): Thank you.

As Marie said, I'm Kim Beemer. I'm the vice-president of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender working group of the Canadian Labour Congress. I'm a proud activist, feminist, trade unionist, and lesbian, and I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to address this important social and legal question.

If the institution of marriage as it is defined and applied to society today continues to exist, we are guilty of allowing discrimination to prevail. We are knowingly acknowledging that the diversity we embrace as a country, our collective differences, does not include equal and fair treatment.

I know that the legal recognition of same-sex relationships does not guarantee that all will embrace the importance or value of these relationships. There are a lot of stereotypes and myths about same-sex couples that will only be demystified through education and time. That is why it is critical that our government takes the initiative by amending this antiquated legislation and supports the rights of same-sex couples to marry. This must be done without compromise or conditions being placed on these relationships.

The registration of same-sex relationships as civil unions is simply not good enough, as it undermines the value of the relationships and sends a negative message to the rest of society. As a country that has an incredible record of advocating for human rights, we cannot say that we openly respect and embrace diversity and then apply limitations and restrictions on our differences.

We are simply asking to exercise our rights, and by doing so we accept all the legalities and responsibilities that come with the commitment of marriage. Our relationships are no different from those of a heterosexual couple. They evolve like all relationships. They begin, they flourish. They are difficult and challenging at times. They are about respecting commitment to the one you love and, yes, sometimes they end.

What is very different about our relationships is that they continue to be discriminated against and subject to verbal or physical abuse because of our sexual orientation. As advocates for human rights, we recognize the inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family as a foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as proclaimed by the United Nations.

We strongly advocate the eradication from our society of all traces of discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status, or handicap.

On behalf of the Canadian Labour Congress, I urge the committee to support the rights of gays and lesbians to marry, and furthermore seek your support to add sexual orientation to the list of included grounds under hate propaganda legislation in Canada, because we are all entitled to equal and fair treatment.

Thank you.

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

Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

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

Thank you to the witnesses for their presentations.

Before asking my questions, I would like to tell you what happened to me over the noon hour. I went for lunch to the restaurant downstairs and they served fortune cookies. I took one and this is what was written on the piece of paper inside: “What is vice today may be virtue tomorrow.“ I found it very interesting to stumble on this message today when we are having this discussion on same-sex marriage.

My question is directed to Mrs. MacKenzie-Davies. It has been said very often at this committee that children of same-sex couples are having psychological problems, that they are often confused and ill-adjusted and that same-sex families tend to be more abusive than heterosexual ones.

You are professionals, social workers. Could you tell us if in your experience and that of the people with whom you work these assertions are true? I would also like to have your comments on these aspects.

[English]

Ms. Joan MacKenzie-Davies: Social workers are among the largest mental health providers in North America. There is no credible research that supports that belief. That is a belief that unfortunately comes out of misinformation and misperception, and is not supported by any professional practice.

There is, unfortunately, across this country and across the western world, any number of children who suffer at the hands of parents who do not have good parenting skills, who have emotional and social problems. There is no indication that gays and lesbians as parents form a higher percentage of those parents who have social and emotional problems.

As I think one of our previous speakers indicated, it is a situation that really very much needs to be dealt with through public education, because it is that kind of misinformation and prejudice that then does create problems. It creates problems of excluding people and creating barriers for young people down the road.

· (1355)

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Therefore it is quite clear, from your studies, that the child welfare argument used to oppose same-sex marriage does not hold water scientifically.

[English]

Ms. Joan MacKenzie-Davies: Yes, but there is a problem that society can create. We have seen society creating problems; I think in our own nation we only have to look at aboriginal people as one group where exclusion, and the creation of biases against a group that is seen as second-class, and seen as inferior, can have tremendous negative impacts. But there are no credible findings or research in that matter.

My colleague Peter Newman may wish to address that.

Mr. Peter Newman (Ontario Association of Social Workers): I think Joan has adequately addressed the issue. I can say, in my 20 years of practice experience and also the experience of many people I've worked with, there is no credible scientific evidence that there is any greater incidence of any kind of problems among these children of same-sex couples than among children of heterosexual couples.

Some of the issues faced may be different, but there's no greater incidence in terms of mental health in any issues that we can match up clinically. As Joan suggested, some of the different issues these children face are precisely because of discrimination against their parents. This leads to their sometimes having other issues: Why isn't my family a real family? Where does that place me?

So in fact the redress to that is precisely not to bar same-sex marriage. In fact, by legalizing same-sex marriage, we would be eliminating some of the extra stressors that some of these children face, which is a result of the social context rather than a result of their parents or families.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Some people here have said that if same-sex marriage was allowed, more people would opt for this lifestyle. If this possibility was made available, would it incite more people, one way or another, to become homosexuals?

[English]

Mr. Peter Newman: I appreciate the ability to be able to respond to that.

One, if you look at the premise of that, if that were the case, why in the world would the current level of gay and lesbian and bisexual people exist now in the world? I mean, if there was a choice about it, many of these people would be much better off, in terms of dealing with consistent legal discrimination, violence, and prejudice, to not declare their same-sex orientation.

While I cannot say, in terms of firm scientific evidence, where this comes from, more and more our evidence is pointing to factors that are more genetic, biological, and beyond our control in terms of people's desire and who they would choose to love or marry.

Basically, I find that argument unfounded. It's not a simple matter of a hotdog or hamburger, neither of which have any higher cholesterol or lead to any further problems in term of what's going to happen in your life. It's much deeper than that. And this comes from many sides in terms of the issue of choice. It's not really a simple matter of choice on that level.

¸ (1400)

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

Mr. Macklin, seven minutes.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: As I'm sure you realize, we have a task of some complexity here. I don't know how many of you were here this morning, but you certainly would have seen from the religious perspective a very strong feeling among certain parts of religion on the use of the term “marriage”, although it is symbolic, as a gold standard for those who want to talk about committed relationships, as they view it. To take an extreme example, it was indicated that one particular religion felt that they had virtually a property right to the term, and that the government had no right to change that term.

What it goes to is that when we're looking at social policy, we have to look at the effects on everyone within society. It isn't simply, in its most basic form, only a section 15 issue. If it were simply a section 15 issue, I think it would have been disposed of by now.

The question is, how do we deal with religious institutions that feel under attack, and how do we respect them as well as those who wish to enter into matrimony or in some way proclaim their relationship before God and country? How do we give them that opportunity?

So we have to find a sense of balance. You're coming today and advocating for the equality side, or at least generally speaking; that seems to be very, very clear. But I think you have to help us, from a social policy context, understand how we can properly deal with and accommodate those who have significantly different views on the definition or term “marriage”.

I'll let the panel generally come forward with their thoughts on this.

Ms. Joan MacKenzie-Davies: Perhaps I can offer a couple of brief comments.

I think human nature finds change very hard. Our preference is to have things remain as we know them to be. For instance, when divorce was first considered, many religious groups saw divorce as being something that would destroy families, as something that would have a tremendously negative impact on society. It also happened when there were discussions of women voting.

Discussions of providing equality to all have throughout our history been tremendously hard. I don't envy the federal government the dilemma they are facing in trying to find a way of moving forward and ensuring that the rights of some people do not continue to be negatively impacted because certain groups are fearful of what change will bring about.

As we indicated in our brief, we feel that religious groups have a perfect right, an absolute right, to their doctrine, and to marry only whom they choose to marry. We are simply advocating for the government to ensure that rights and choices are available to others.

Mr. Martin Traub-Werner: And I would just echo that. Tamara probably has some comments on this as well.

I sat in this room all morning, and I watched. The prevailing sentiment appears to me to be a fear of change. It is institutions that are fearful of change. And when you wear the glasses of change, and watch change happen, it's really interesting to see this fear--thinking about changing definitions; being threatened by new reproductive technologies; wanting to live in a world locked in 1867. It's interesting to watch.

¸ (1405)

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: As you could hear this morning, they were not witnesses who were in the extreme, either; they were relatively moderate in their views. How do we give them comfort and protection? Some of them feel very uncomfortable about this, and they do, in terms of population, represent a lot of this country. That's not to say that this carries the day, but it's something you have to take into consideration when you're looking at this from a public policy perspective.

Ms. Tamara Kronis: I think education is going to be very important on that road. The thing that people consistently forget about these cases is that this is not about a church or a synagogue or a mosque. It's about city hall.

We sort of framed our discussion by talking about how we grappled with these issues, and this is one we really grappled with. I grew up in an Orthodox Jewish household, and I am yeshiva-educated. One of the things we actually considered that would have worked for us in some ways was not having the civil ceremony, because that was discriminatory--and we couldn't get out of it being discriminatory--but actually finding a rabbi who was somehow Orthodox and somehow okay with it at the same time, having that kind of person marry us and having a commitment ceremony, just like they have in churches.

The thing that amazed me about the discussions we had with people on that topic, and one of the things that convinced me about the importance of the equality issue, was that people said, “You can't do that. You won't really be married.”

Mr. Martin Traub-Werner: That's right.

And you heard similar statements to that effect from Ms. Golden this morning.

Ms. Tamara Kronis: I agree that people are afraid of change, and I guess the perspective we wanted to present to this committee is that we are people who are genuinely afraid of things staying the same.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: But I think if you listen to those members respecting their religions, it's not that they fear change. They simply want to be able to hold to the tenets of their religions, and they're fearful of the way in which the courts are going these days, giving indications that in fact religious freedom may be under attack. Well, I shouldn't say “maybe”; to some extent, it is under attack under human rights legislation, as a number of cases across this country indicate.

How do we give them comfort? They seem to be clinging to the word “marriage”, and not necessarily, I think, against some form of equality--some form. I know you say there is equivalency, but, look, from what we've heard, a lot of people in the heterosexual community believe the goodwill of marriage was built up based on a heterosexual relationship, substantially in the last while, anyway.

They believe that if you wish to create a different institution, one that isn't based on that opposite-sex foundation, then in a sense maybe you have to build up goodwill in that institution.

The churches are struggling with this concept of losing that terminology as their own.

Ms. Tamara Kronis: I have two comments.

The first one is that until 1857, our marriage wouldn't have been recognized in this province because it was a Jewish marriage.

My other thought, which is extremely controversial, is that in the community I grew up in, the goodwill of marriage was built on a marriage between two Jews. That is an extremely controversial position within the Jewish community today. We deal with it.

The same way you can legislate equal marriage at city hall, there must be a way to legislate a right of private institutions or religious institutions to deal with the topic in their own way.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

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

Mrs. Kronis and Mr. Traub-Werner, you were here this morning and you must have heard the discussion on the complementarity of men and women, another way of saying that each gender has its own proper role to play.

As a recently married young couple, as modern, articulate and intelligent people, what do you make of this theory that says a man and a woman are complementary just because of their gender?

¸ (1410)

[English]

Mr. Martin Traub-Werner: I enjoyed very much your comment about the toolbox being your wife's. When we moved into our new home, Tamara decided she didn't like one of the cupboards, and decided it needed to be taken down and sawed in half, with new walls put up. My response, of course, was that we should call a contractor to do so.

So she as well owns the toolbox. We split the kitchen fairly equally and—

Ms. Tamara Kronis: You get the basement.

Mr. Martin Traub-Werner: Yes, I get the basement. It's unfinished, and a scary place, but the basement is mine.

It definitely is our belief that the concept of gender roles is outdated, frankly. I would say that's where we stand.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Mrs. Kronis, you mentioned that you have been educated in a yeshiva, in a very religious environment. I suppose you have kept in touch with very religious Jews.

Do these people tell you that if ever gay people get the right to marry, they themselves would no longer want to be associated with this institution of marriage, that they would divorce or refuse to marry or stop getting married because homosexuals would also be able to do it? Have you heard anything like that? People always talk about the consequences of allowing same-sex marriage. I wonder what the consequences would be for heterosexual couples. You are young and you know many heterosexual couples. Is this something you have ever heard?

[English]

Ms. Tamara Kronis: To the contrary; at the end of the day, we actually were married by an Orthodox rabbi who probably doesn't believe in same-sex marriage. He was one of my high school classmates. Notwithstanding the fact that we had a postcard campaign, and notwithstanding the fact that in our speech at our wedding we stood up and said we'd taken three journeys to get there--a religious journey, a social journey, and a personal journey--he stood up under our chuppah and talked about how it was my social activism that led him towards his social activism. I would have said it the other way around.

Even though we don't necessarily believe the same things, we both have a tremendous amount of respect for each other, and that respect comes through tolerance. So at the same time that I recognize the need of different religions to have their own codes and to espouse their own beliefs, some of which I agree with and some of which I don't agree with, I'm a very strong believer in the public realm being a place where all people are able to be safe and all people are able to feel dignity. That is the basis of our Constitution.

Although it is very difficult, and it takes broad shoulders to do the difficult things and face the constituents who are going to be angry--and let's face it, people on the other side of the issue from us are frequently very vocal and very angry--and it takes a lot of courage to do it, we think you can do it.

We thought it would take a lot of courage, and we thought it would be harder than it was, but we have a lot of respect for and have built a lot of bridges with people who don't feel the same way we do.

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

Mr. Maloney, I think we are going to bronze Mr. Marceau's toolbox. If you wish to make a contribution, I'm sure he would appreciate it--or actually, his wife might appreciate it.

Mr. Maloney, three minutes.

Mr. John Maloney: To Ms. MacKenzie-Davies and Mr. Newman, a lot of groups have criticized this concept of same-sex marriages on the basis that it is another further assault on the family and the family unit. Are you in a position to comment on whether same-sex relationships are any more committed or any more secure, or any less committed or secure, than a heterosexual family unit?

¸ (1415)

Mr. Peter Newman: Thanks for your question.

In response to your question, no, we don't have any evidence in terms of research evidence, and neither am I aware of evidence from practice experience of any assault on the family unit.

Mr. John Maloney: You also can comment, Ms. MacKenzie-Davies.

Ms. Joan MacKenzie-Davies: Our experience is that there is not a difference in terms of commitments. Again, I come back to my comments in terms of change and the impact of change. Those of you who have lived in Ontario know that a few years ago there was a decision made to have Sunday shopping. And I don't mean to trivialize this issue, but about Sunday shopping there was tremendous, tremendous concern. Now, looking back on it, some of the arguments put forward were about the impact on families, about the tremendously negative, destructive impact of having stores open on Sunday. And this was only in the last ten years.

So I think tremendous concern is brought forth whenever anything impacts on how we act and how we are used to organizing ourselves. Many gay and lesbian couples that I know have indicated to me that they may or may not choose to marry. They have not decided yet. It is simply a choice. I have friends who say they will, others who say they would not, and not because it reflects on a lack of commitment; they simply are not drawn to the idea.

Our position, however, is that there should be that opportunity for legal recognition of that committed relationship when gay and lesbian couples wish to do so.

Mr. Peter Newman: There's one thing I would like to mention. As it currently stands, often when same-sex couples declare themselves in any way publicly, they invite, unfortunately, given the hostile social context at times, acts of discrimination and violence, verbal and physical, against themselves. As the system currently stands, it actually takes a tremendous amount of resilience on the part of that couple to be able to endure, to be able to even declare themselves a relationship.

If anything, then, the legalization of same-sex marriage will take down some of the barriers and symbolically remove some of the issues in terms of the various types of assault on those couples by in fact supporting people in a “unit”, as we would say in social work terms, in terms of giving each other social support and love, which are really part of the basis of human health and well-being.

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

Monsieur Marceau, three minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: It has been stated several times that there is an issue with freedom of religion. Mr. Macklin mentioned it also.

In your view, would that be any way to guarantee freedom of religion while allowing same-sex marriage? Is there any way to reassure churches that they will not be compelled to marry same-sex couples against their will?

Maybe Mrs. Walker or Mrs. Beemer might be able to provide an answer to this concern which has been expressed a great many times. Would there be any way, legislative or otherwise, to protect this freedom of religion, in your view?

¸ (1420)

[English]

Ms. Kim Beemer: I think the churches have that capacity now. They have the right to choose to “engage”--for lack of a better word--marriages today. They have that choice. What we're asking, for the churches that want to participate, is that we are allowed to have access. So I guess I see that they already have that ability.

Marie.

Ms. Marie Clarke Walker: It goes back to what was said earlier about their just being uncomfortable with where things are. I mentioned in our submission that many years ago, churches and religions, as Tamara has already said, refused to marry people of different races or of different religious beliefs. It was outrageous then, and it's as outrageous now as it was at that time. Things have changed now.

As Kim indicated, with education, and I think a lot of education, things will change. It has changed in other areas, and it will change in this one.

Ms. Kim Beemer: I'd like to add that I think you'd see a greater participation of religious faiths if same-sex couples had access, because if they're not recognized, they don't generally practice their religion. Again, it's another form of discrimination.

Ms. Marie Clarke Walker: Fear will always be there. You're not going to take that away. We're asking for equity of rights, and choice.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Merci.

Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney: Ms. Walker, you represent the Canadian Labour Congress, which is roughly 2.5 million people. That's a lot of people. A lot of union locals are underneath that umbrella.

When you take a policy position, what is the process? Is it driven from the top down or the bottom up? I'm just trying to get a grasp on how this process works and what percentage of the people you represent in fact would aspire to the position you've taken today, or support the position.

Ms. Marie Clarke Walker: When we take a policy position, it's usually at convention. It's voted on at convention. We have affiliates that are part of the congress, and they take those policies back to their particular affiliates.

A lot of the time, and I would venture to say most of the time, those same policy decisions that we have taken have usually been taken by those affiliates before they actually get to the CLC convention floor. If it's the opposite, if it's the CLC taking a policy to go back to the affiliates, they also will take a vote at their convention and whatever process they use to ensure that there is education around that policy, whether it be from the top down or in some cases from the ground up, that's done.

We're not always going to get 100% support on anything we do. We recognize that the labour movement is made up of a microcosm of society, and there are differences amongst the members of the union movement as well. However, in cases of equity, equality, and discrimination issues, it's very clear that if we want our membership to understand the issue, we have to provide the education. We do that from the top down. But we also have a lot of support at the grassroots level, with our members saying that we need to do more, that we need to do other things to ensure that the very policies we've taken and the various rights that people should have are also dealt with and done from both levels.

So it's not just from the top down. I assume that's what you're getting at. And in terms of the percentage, I can't tell you the percentage, but I can probably say that a majority of our members believe in equity for all.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): I want to take this opportunity to thank the panellists for informing the committee. We appreciate the hard work you've put into your submissions.

I think it would be appropriate, on behalf of the committee, to wish Ms. Kronis and Mr. Traub-Warner all the best in the future.

Thank you very much. We'll suspend for three minutes.

¸ (1432)

¸ (1435)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Ladies and gentlemen, we'll reconvene.

For this period of time we have presenting, as individuals, Bonnie Fox, professor at the University of Toronto; Burke Christian; and Kimberly Beaven.

I don't know whether either of you were here earlier, but you each have seven minutes for your presentations.

If I may, I'll start with Ms. Fox, please.

Professor Bonnie Fox (University of Toronto, As Individual): I'm Bonnie Fox. I'm an associate professor of sociology at the University of Toronto.

I've been doing research and teaching courses on the sociology of families for over twenty years. I have an edited textbook on family that is widely used at the graduate and undergraduate levels. Currently I'm writing a book on ten years of research on the changes couples experience when they become parents for the first time.

I'm here to lend my support to arguments that we should change Canadian law to allow same-sex civil and religious marriage. My position on this matter is based on an appreciation of the historical and cross-cultural diversity in marriage arrangements and family patterns; the fact that family in Canada is changing continually; and the fact that there is considerable diversity in family patterns at the moment.

It's also based on evidence on same-sex families, which I'll talk about, and it's based on my conviction that we as a community should be extending support to people who are raising children, and not maintaining barriers to them and others making family.

I'll first discuss the research on same-sex families, focusing on the issue of children and their care. Research on same-sex families and on same-sex couples raising children is fairly new. However, there's a body of solid research on the kinds of families that same-sex couples are creating. There's also a body of research--consisting of over twenty studies, mostly done by psychologists--about children and their parents in same-sex families.

The latest review of this research, which appeared in 2001 in the American Sociological Review—which, by the way, is the premier sociology journal in North America—summarized the findings of this research as showing no notable differences between children raised by lesbian and gay parents and children raised by heterosexual parents, and showing lesbian and gay parents to be as competent and as effective as heterosexual parents.

The authors, Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, wrote that:

...every relevant study to date shows that parental sexual orientation per se has no measurable effect on the quality of parent-child relationships or on children's mental health or social adjustment.

The same authors say that “few respectable scholars today oppose such parenting”.

There are two very important areas of inquiry in this research, and let me tell you a bit about them. The first is about the effects on children of growing up in families headed by same-sex parents. Children's psychological well-being is usually investigated in this research, and all of the research to date indicates that there are no differences in psychological well-being between children raised by heterosexual parents and those raised by homosexual parents.

There were no differences in self-esteem, anxiety, depression, behavioural problems, and performance in social arenas, among other things. As well, researchers often examine gender identity, gender role behaviour, and sexual orientation. They're looking for differences between children raised by same-sex and opposite-sex parents.

With respect to gender identity, there's no evidence of difficulties identifying with the appropriate sex category. With respect to gender role behaviour, there's no evidence of differences assuming appropriate gender role behaviour. With respect to sexual orientation, there's no evidence that children raised by same-sex parents are more likely to be lesbian or gay than those raised by heterosexual parents.

There's also direct evidence on the nature of parenting in same-sex families. The research indicates that lesbian parents share the roles of parenting more than do mothers and fathers--biological fathers as well as non-biological fathers--in heterosexual couples.

According to the research, non-biological mothers in lesbian couples are more involved with children than fathers in heterosexual couples tend to be. They're more likely to do a full range of child care than fathers do. Qualitative studies of lesbian mothers show that their children have the benefit of having two mothers, and more general research on parenting--my own included--has shown that mothers typically do much more child care than fathers do.

Moreover, direct measures of parenting skills, and of quality of interaction with children, indicate that non-biological mothers in lesbian relationships have better skills and higher quality of interactions with children than do fathers in heterosexual families, whether they're biological or social fathers.

As well, children in donor insemination families report feeling closer to their non-biological mothers and stepmothers than children report about fathers or stepfathers in donor insemination families.

One researcher concludes a review of this research by saying, “The best interests of the child lay with a loving parent, not with a heterosexual parent or a homosexual parent.”

Decades ago, most family sociologists stopped using the words “the family”. We instead refer to “families”. And we do that precisely because of the diversity of types of families in our society.

Years ago my colleague at York, Meg Luxton, and I adopted the following conceptualization of “family”: The relationships that bring people together daily to share resources for the sake of caring for children and each other. We see family as sets of relationships in which people care for each other, and especially for dependants.

Marriage, it seems to me, is both symbolic of a commitment between two people to create family and a legal contract that assigns benefits and obligations, especially responsibilities for the support of dependants. As it has been in many earlier cultures, it is also a ceremony that bestows social legitimacy on any children raised by the couple.

There are many children in Canada now whose biological fathers abandon them following divorce from their mothers, failing to pay child support and losing contact with them over long periods of time. There are also many women in lesbian relationships who are mothering children and who do not have the same kind of claim to those children that biological fathers automatically have. We need to allow partners in those latter relationships to marry in order to confirm their commitment to each other and to their children.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Seven minutes right on, thank you very much.

Mr. Christian.

Mr. Burke Christian (As Individual): Good afternoon, and thank you for allowing me to appear before you.

I am a 24-year-old individual. I served as the first openly gay president of the McMaster students union, in 1999-2000, and I've done advocacy work on behalf of gays and lesbians in different forums in Hamilton and here in Toronto.

It's a pleasure to appear before you to discuss the topic of same-sex marriage. As my brief indicates, I am asking the standing committee to recommend to the federal government to pass legislation to remove the opposite-sex restriction on legal marriage, thereby extending the freedom to marry to same-sex couples. No other recommendation provides equality.

I'm going to break my presentation into two components, one talking about what it means to me personally to be able to marry my partner, and the second talking about how civil union is an inadequate recommendation that does not create true equality.

Coming out was one of the most difficult things I've done in my life. It was met with a lot of hatred and different experiences when I went to university. Those sorts of things are oftentimes propagated because the state does not take an active role in supporting gays and lesbians. It hasn't in the past; it's starting to do so now.

By denying equality to gays and lesbians, the state creates tiering, and creates the environment in which hatred can form and be presented. I realize this would never end hatred--you can never change people's beliefs--but it could certainly check the behaviour. And that's an important step.

Marriage, for me, means that my love for my partner is of equal value to my parents' relationship, to my brother's relationship with his wife, and to that of others who have married.

When I go to work, I oftentimes have to conceal who I am or change the nature of how I interact with people. On occasion, I've had to pretend to be heterosexual, which I'm not. And the state has a role in that.

I know, by reading some of the transcripts from previous discussions here, that the committee has felt that the state cannot end hatred and it cannot end discrimination. I agree with that. However, don't take away from the role you have as legislators and the role the state has in structuring society.

When interracial marriage was permitted, and the end of discrimination against racial minorities, hatred didn't end and discrimination didn't end. But it did send a clear signal that the state will not tolerate these types of discriminations and behaviours, and forced a check on it. That check is equally important in the rights of gays and lesbians to marry.

It's important to recognize that the state, in supporting families and supporting those who are married, does not tolerate a child being beaten up in the schoolyard because his mother is a lesbian, or his father is gay. It is very important for the state to recognize its role in society.

In terms of religious institutions--it's come up a lot--there are religions that do support same-sex marriage, and they should have the right to perform those marriages if they so choose.

In terms of those who are opposed to same-sex marriages, we recognize that religion is a private institution, and that they have their own sets of rules on how they structure their policies. But that's for them to discuss their changes, just as it is for churches who do support same-sex marriage to process their own.

In terms of civil unions and why they're not adequate, by changing the terminology you're suggesting that somehow the relationships are so different and so adverse that it almost destroys the existing institution. I don't accept that notion. The notion we want to create is a society in which we value relationships that are loving and caring and conjugal, and gays and lesbians are equally capable of forming those conjugal, safe, loving relationships.

I noticed in the previous presentation that the chair wished a recently married couple well in future. But I attended these hearings yesterday, and those same privileges were not extended to gay and lesbian couples. You can see how it's noticed that a higher status is created for married couples than for gay and lesbian couples. It's an important distinction, and it can be done very unintentionally.

There was a time in this country when only those of a certain gender had any rights at all to marry, when women were declared property, and racial minorities were not permitted to marry. But over time our legislators have changed that definition to include others. What I'm asking you to do today is extend that definition one more time to include my partner and I into that institution.

¸ (1440)

I know that it's hard for you as legislators to make these decisions, and that you are faced with competing interests and oftentimes controversial opinion, but leadership is about taking stands and recognizing that you have a leadership role to play. I'm confident that you can do it. Legislators have done it in the past, and they'll do it again.

If not, again, the recourse is for gays and lesbians to once again turn to the courts to have their rights enforced. I would very much like it, very much, if my legislators for once would take that position so I don't have to, with others, go to the courts to have the charter recognize my rights.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

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

First of all, I have a few comments to make. From now on, I will keep close at hand the presentation of Mrs. MacKenzie-Davies, Mr. Newman and Mrs. Fox because they are of such clarity and I will use them to put questions to people who come here and make assertions without supporting evidence.

Mrs. Fox, you say there is no difference between children of same-sex couples and children of opposite sex couples, that those raised by same-sex parents do not show any more psychological problems than other children and that no research has shown that a child raised by a same-sex couple is more likely to become homosexual.

Yesterday, somebody stated before this committee that there is a proven link between homosexuality and pedophilia. People have gone so far as to assert this.

You are an expert and I would like to give you an opportunity to correct these notions. Tell us if this is true or not. Tell us what the situation really is.

[English]

Prof. Bonnie Fox: Unfortunately, I am not an expert on pedophilia. I'm also not an expert on violence against children. However, I have read summary research on child abuse, child neglect, and violence against children, and it indicates that children are much more likely to be the victims of abuse at the hands of men, as a group, than at the hands of women.

That's about the most I can say about that. I don't know specifics on pedophilia per se, or sexual abuse of children. We do know that men as a group are much more of a problem.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: You never heard of a study that would establish such a link, is that right? I for one have never heard of such a study. Have you ever heard about this?

[English]

Prof. Bonnie Fox: I'm not sure where they're finding these studies, but I have never heard of such a thing.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Therefore, we can agree that there will be no difference between little John, who is being raised by heterosexual parents, and little Janet, raised by a same-sex couple, except for the effect of their surroundings and their personality. The little boy or the little girl raised by same-sex parents will have no additional problems. They may get teased in school, but a child wearing glasses also gets teased in school. A child raised by same-sex parents will be just as well adjusted as any other. There will be no added confusion. People here have said that children raised by homosexuals are more confused. It is not true. Your research has consistently shown that this is not true.

¸ (1445)

[English]

Prof. Bonnie Fox: That's right. It's counterintuitive. As sociologists, we firmly believe that one's context, and especially one's parents and other significant influences, shape or at least have an influence on our children. So we're surprised by this finding, but there are many studies. They are done by psychologists, not by sociologists. So I can read them....

I do not know the details of the research, but over and over again, no study finds significant difference, much less any harm or any damage.

So, yes, that is what I am saying.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Here is my last question. In your experience, or according to the studies you have carried out, is it a fact that the signal we send to society by refusing to recognize same-sex relationships is more harmful to that child than the signal we would send to society by allowing same-sex couples to marry and saying that these marriages are just as valuable as those of heterosexuals couples? Do you not think it is more harmful for children of homosexual partners to imply that having two daddies or to mommies is bad?

[English]

Prof. Bonnie Fox: Yes, I do. What my research shows is the importance of social support for parents, and to the extent that we put any barriers in the way of parents getting the kinds of support they need, certainly the kind of supportive atmosphere they need to raise children, that is problematic.

Again, it's very surprising that children do so well in same-sex families given the obstacles they face. If we make it easier for them and easier for their parents, I suspect they'll do even better.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Mr. Lee, seven minutes.

Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you.

My question is a bit of a leading question to Burke, but I quite quickly gained the impression from those who would advocate changing the definition of marriage, getting rid of the opposite-gender requirement, that overall the harmonization of our legal structures in society wouldn't just solve the problem involved in the change of the definition for the immediate case at hand; it would also have other effects socially, in normalizing or harmonizing or creating a legal infrastructure that was more inclusive of everybody irrespective of gender, of sexual orientation, etc.

So could you elaborate? Do you agree with me that the implications of getting rid of this particular barrier and moving towards more “harmonization”--I will use that term, although it's not quite the right word--would allow more inclusivity for lots of other fellow Canadians? Is that a fair way to put that?

Mr. Burke Christian: Possibly.

Mr. Derek Lee: Are there other barriers you see? Where would you differ with me on that, or where would you caution me on thinking that way?

¸ (1450)

Mr. Burke Christian: Currently we have lot of distinctions about relationships, and the use of conjugality is oftentimes the limit. I would suggest that's oftentimes an economic decision as a way of keeping benefits and economic privilege for a certain percentage of the population that the big insurance companies and benefit providers prefer.

If I can extrapolate from where you are going, where other committee members have suggested, leading to more multiple-partner relationships, I would not support that. I think those relationships lead to exploitation and oppression, and I don't think that's what the issue is about today.

Mr. Derek Lee: Actually, I wasn't going there, but thank you for pointing out that I inadvertently may have been intellectually heading in that direction. We have lots of turns in the road at the House of Commons.

I thought you would actually buy into the whole premise, that as we try to put the charter into play everywhere across the country, to reflect what we believe was intended by it...more inclusivity, more equality, accordance of equality. So you do have a reservation or two, then, do you, about lowering barriers and opening the door to let society evolve so that each of us as individuals is actually pretty much equal under the law, if not pretty much very equal under the law?

Mr. Burke Christian: You don't make public policy in a vacuum, and no one would ever suggest that. So you do look at potential consequences. And there is always the unintended effect, possibly. But I think ideally we want to treat people and couples with respect and equality under the law. I think that was the point of the charter.

Mr. Derek Lee: Some of the more conservative Canadians feel that if we get rid of all the barriers, we'll have an avalanche of unplanned everything, of unplanned movement in society to the point where our infrastructure will become unmanageable.

Mr. Burke Christian: I think that's a bit dramatic.

Mr. Derek Lee: They feel we'll have all the colours of everything, and all of the shapes of everything, and we just won't have any order any more.

Mr. Burke Christian: Conservatives by definition are a bit more cautious about change as an ideology. In my critical thinking course at McMaster, they suggested that the slippery slope argument had no basis in logic, that you can't make public policy on the notion that it may slip to this, or to that, or to the other. You have to make public policy based on the facts presented, and on what is perceived could be a consequence, not what may or may not happen.

I mean, when they opened up marriage in the Netherlands, everyone suggested it would potentially go downhill, but there's been no movement towards this slippery slope argument that had been presented by conservatives.

Mr. Derek Lee: Would you agree that our society has evolved so well and nicely now that the state doesn't really have an interest or a role in guiding males and females together into a union that will stick so that we can propagate and be healthy as a society? Have we gone past the stage where we have to do that? Some people have said to us that the state still has a role in doing that, in keeping the fundamental pieces of the foundation together.

Mr. Burke Christian: My sister-in-law is expecting a baby in a month and a half. My brother and my sister-in-law did not decide to not have children because I'm gay and will potentially marry my partner.

I think children and child-rearing will continue. People will continue to procreate. I think the notion that they're going to stop doing that is ludicrous.

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

Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney: Ms. Fox, I'm a little more interested in process. When you're writing a book, what is the extent of your investigations, your research--10 case studies, 100 case studies? On what do you base your conclusions and positions in a book? How far in-depth is a study, generally speaking?

¸ (1455)

Prof. Bonnie Fox: I'm wondering if you're concerned about the research I alluded to, or my own.

Mr. John Maloney: Both, quite frankly.

Prof. Bonnie Fox: Okay.

There are many different methods for gathering data in the social sciences. It's been difficult, I suspect, to study same-sex couples, because we don't have censuses where people identify who they are. We don't have lists of same-sex couples. We can't take large random samples.

The research I alluded to usually is based on larger numbers, but not certainly in the thousands, and not random samples, because we don't know the population. Psychologists have very rigorous methods, though, and the research I alluded to was presented in peer review journals. There is a long process of peer review by anonymous reviewers of the work. The methods are interrogated. So it's a long process.

Is that what you're concerned about?

Mr. John Maloney: Yes. So the American Psychological Journal would have been peer-reviewed, the research from various parts of North America, by different individuals? Do they lead to the same conclusion? Or how does this work?

Prof. Bonnie Fox: The editor of a scholarly journal would have a list of people with different areas of expertise, and he would choose four or five reviewers for an article. Then they would review it anonymously.

Mr. John Maloney: You also indicated in your testimony that males are more likely to be abusive of their children than females. You also indicated that sometimes same-sex couples, lesbian couples, are perhaps even more attentive to the needs of their children, they being two mothers, etc., but you didn't speak about two fathers in all your discussions.

Do the same rules apply, or are you a little concerned about two fathers, two gay individuals, having children?

Prof. Bonnie Fox: In the research I was able to locate, I actually couldn't find anything on gay fathers. I think the reason for this is that the research has been driven by concerns about court cases, and the court cases have been around the custody of children--mothers risking losing and often losing custody of their children as they leave heterosexual marriages. So that's what has driven the research.

I couldn't find anything on gay fathers. I personally am not concerned about them.

The way I think about gay and lesbian couples, not being part of one myself, is that these people have gone against all the odds to create families. These people have made conscious choices to come out, which is difficult. They have made conscious choices to have children. Some of us don't make those choices; we just get pregnant. These people have made choices. And in the cases of donor insemination, they've made very difficult choices, and they have gone through long processes.

I have infinite respect for these people. I think raising children is very hard. I think it's a long-term sacrifice and commitment, a lot of work. It's incredibly rewarding. The people who do it should be supported.

So I wouldn't suspect, before seeing any evidence, that gay fathers are going to be any kind of problem.

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

Mr. Macklin, do you have any questions?

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Thank you, Chair.

We've heard various things suggested to us in terms of reasons for marriage. One of those was that marriage was an institution that was designed to, in quotes, “deal with men”, and to “keep men in line”, so to speak, or the male partner of that relationship.

Have you done any studies that relate to the family construct and marriage's implications for that construct?

Prof. Bonnie Fox: The arguments being made about marriage “civilizing” men, which is the way I think it's sometimes put, are coming from the conservatives, from the Christian right in the States, usually. It's an absolutely bizarre argument, as far as I'm concerned.

If you're asking me about the institution of marriage, the research I would draw on is cross-cultural research, anthropological research. Again, I'm not an anthropologist, but it seems to me that every society has rules and regulations that often are geared primarily to making sure that any children born have a place in the society, are socially legitimate.

I'm going through all sorts of different examples, but marriage generally is universal; it just takes very different forms and has often very different purposes. Sometimes it's to designate legitimate sexual partners, sometimes it's between a man and a woman, sometimes it's between groups of women and groups of men.

There's just an infinite diversity out there in terms of the ethnographic evidence, so maybe you could ask me a more specific question.

¹ (1500)

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Is there any evidence to suggest that, as a matter of social policy, we ought to be advocating marriage as an institution that would assist in assuring our society through procreation continuing?

Prof. Bonnie Fox: I'm not following the logic of that. I'm not sure why a society would think it needs to put a man and a woman together for the sake of procreation. Procreation is... To me, the difficult part with children is raising them, and we as a society...

I think sexuality occurs. Sex is pleasurable, and it will happen. Children will be conceived. The question for society is, how do we ensure that kids get raised properly? How do we support parents in raising children?

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: That's correct. And the question is, should the government be advancing a particular preferred form of relationship that would be beneficial to that society, and in so doing likely discriminate in some form or other? In that creation, do they create, in their wisdom, the best form of family as it is envisioned, and try to assist in any way possible in order to encourage that institution, and the development of that institution?

Prof. Bonnie Fox: I again would just refer to the research I reviewed, which indicates that children do as well in same-sex families as in opposite-sex families. I'm a researcher, and I don't see a research-grounded reason for--

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Are there societies that have basically disposed of marriage as an institution? Are you aware of any?

Prof. Bonnie Fox: For the sake of what?

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Well, they've simply, as a society, seen no reason to establish any formal process to recognize relationships.

Prof. Bonnie Fox: No. There may not be a ceremony or a process, and there may not be a state or a government, but there are usually rules, informal or formal, on who's responsible for children, on what sex is appropriate, etc.

So, no, there's no society where there are no rules, if that's what you're asking.

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

With the consent of the committee, I'd like to just direct a question to you, Ms. Fox.

You said that the sample was not random and not large, but in the research you had done there were no notable differences between same-sex raising patterns, if you will, and opposite-sex. I take it from your subsequent testimony that what material there is would be based largely on female same-sex. Is that correct?

Prof. Bonnie Fox: First of all, it's not my research, it's research by psychologists. I'm a sociologist, and I have not done any of this research.

And the answer to your question is, yes, it's largely female same-sex partners with respect to parenting. There's a fair amount of research on gay couples with respect to family, and the kinds of families they make, but with respect to parenting, it's about females, yes.

¹ (1505)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Okay.

You were saying that in some respects lesbians are more involved than the fathers in the opposite-sex relationship, in some respects, exhibiting better skills, and that there is no notable difference in the children--their psychology, their well-being, their psychological adjustment, and things of that nature. The issue is essentially that of getting a loving parent.

It seems to me to be kind of driving towards an issue of the relevance of males, if you will, or the marginalization of males in child-rearing. It leads you to the question, when males are either self-marginalized or marginalized by other circumstances in societies, are there any noticeable differences that can be observed in the outcomes for children?

Prof. Bonnie Fox: Again, the only evidence would be the evidence I spoke of, where there is no father, social or biological, present in the household and there doesn't seem to be a difference.

But let me respond to your notion that I might have been opening the door to the marginalization of males from parenting. That's not where I was going at all. I was simply trying to look at the evidence and look at the differences and the possible differences that might exist between different kinds of families. I was not implying that kids in general are better off without fathers. I was simply looking at the research.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Okay. Thanks very much.

Any questions arising out of that?

I want to thank the panellists for their contribution. We appreciate it. It certainly continues to inform our discussion.

I'm going to suspend for three minutes and ask the next set of panellists to come forward. You know who you are.

Thank you.

¹ (1504)

¹ (1510)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Ladies and gentlemen, I call this meeting back to order.

Our final panel of the day consists of Mr. Jim Duffy, president of Witness; the Christian Heritage Party, as represented by Mr. Ron Gray; and Professor Lorraine Weinrib, with the University of Toronto law school.

Welcome to all. Just briefly, for those of you who haven't been sitting in on the hearings, it's seven minutes. Towards the end of seven minutes, I'll try to get your attention to wind it up. If you could adhere to those timelines, we'd appreciate it. Afterwards there will be questions and answers among the members and the panellists.

I think we'll start with Mr. Duffy, for seven minutes, please.

Mr. Jim Duffy (President, Witness): Thank you very much.

My name is Jim Duffy. I'm speaking today as president of Witness.

Today the family is being subjected to many unprecedented challenges that were all but inconceivable a mere 30 years ago. In Canada, the latest threat to the family is a campaign to redefine marriage so that it includes cohabitation of homosexuals.

Recently the courts in both Ontario and Quebec have said that denying gay couples the option of marriage is unconstitutional and a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In the present attack on family values, it would be hoped that politicians, judges, homosexuals, and others would want the outcome to be based on truth. Is it true that homosexuals can marry?

The first relevant truth about marriage is that it was instituted by God, our creator. God, not man, determined its essential nature. Man would need to be God to change it. Vatican Council II states, “Since the Creator of all things has established the conjugal partnership as the beginning and basis of human society,” the family is “the first and the vital cell of society.”

The second relevant truth about marriage is that it is exclusively a union of a man and a woman, ordained by its nature to the continuation of the human race. There is not only the witness of revelation, there is also the witness of reason, of the complementary nature of man and woman and the non-complementary nature of man and man, and woman and woman. Thus, revelation, tradition, and reason instruct us about the truth of marriage.

Christian tradition confirms the evil of homosexual practice. The fathers of the church consistently affirm this: “The Christian tradition over the centuries has affirmed the heterosexual, monogamous, faithful marital union as normative for the divinely given meaning of the intimate sexual relationship.”

Nor was the evaluation of homosexual practice as a grave moral evil only in the Judeo-Christian tradition. All major religions and societies, until this age, have condemned it.

There remains the argument from reason. Human anatomy proclaims sodomy unnatural. The complementarity of man and woman physically, psychologically, and emotionally declare it. The very body cries out against this.

In sum, the argument against the evil of homosexual acts is based in revelation, tradition, and reason.

The catechism of the Catholic Church tells us that men and women who have homosexual tendencies are to be treated with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

We treat homosexuals with respect when we treat them as human persons with all the rights and obligations of human persons. We treat homosexuals with sensitivity when we show goodwill towards them, when we condemn all violence against them, when we avoid all derogatory remarks and labels, when we support them in all that is right and just, and when we regard them as brothers and sisters in Christ.

On the contrary, we do not show respect, compassion, and sensitivity towards homosexuals when we support laws that reward homosexual behaviour; when we applaud the vulgarity, and even obscenity, of gay rights parades; or when we cooperate in imprisoning them in sterile, depraved, and spiritually dead unions that call lust love.

Homosexual marriages would not be the end of the deformation of marriage. It is certain that there would be pressure for the legalization of more bizarre unions. Homosexual marriage would result in a further deterioration of sex education in our schools. Children would be taught that homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality. They would be more easily seduced into homosexual experimentation. Children reared by homosexuals have their own set of problems, including the absence of mother and father.

Most clergymen licensed to witness marriages would refuse to assist at homosexual marriages. This would result in a new conglomerate of confrontations. It would be more difficult to uphold the essential distinction between sin and sinner. Condemning homosexual behaviour would be more likely interpreted as a form of homophobia.

¹ (1515)

Homosexuals themselves would be victims. Caged in a legal prison, those who wished to extricate themselves to live lives of chastity would find a new obstacle in their path. The marriage of homosexuals would lead to an increase in divorce and litigation, with accompanying financial and psychological problems.

Above all else is the spiritual havoc that homosexual marriage would bring upon society in general and homosexuals in particular. There would inevitably be a lessening of the already low standards of morality in our society. Grave evils have grave consequences. When a society attacks the very foundation on which it is built--the nuclear family--one can predict with certainty the decline of that society.

It would be ludicrous if it were not tragic to see ministers of the Crown and provincial judges claim that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms demands a change in the definition of marriage. There is no right to vice, and freedom is not denied when wrong is restricted.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, if faithful to the truth, would not grant benefits to homosexual behaviour. The right interpretation would recognize that for homosexuals, freedom is the right to live free from the cage and the restraints placed upon them by contracts that would bind them in an unnatural union.

There are worse sins than those of the flesh. One of these is the wilful rejection of truth. The truth about marriage is an eternal truth, beyond the decree of judge or Parliament.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we come here before you to urge this committee and all parliamentarians to reject any proposed changes to the laws concerning marriage that would allow for any definition other than the traditional one of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

We thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman.

¹ (1520)

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

Mr. Gray.

M. Ron Gray (National Leader, Christian Heritage Party of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and committee members.

I have with me here a box of petitions, which I am gathering up for the minister, because he has asked for counsel and advice on this. That's why this committee is holding these hearings.

There are 8,600 people represented here, mostly from my home riding in British Columbia, who have signed petitions urging Parliament to retain the present definition of marriage.

Many statements have come before this committee that are based on emotional appeals, and many more will probably come to you. In essence they plead, “Think of how I feel, have pity on my injured feelings.” But injured feelings and pity are not a good basis for law, and this honourable committee is required to assist the Commons in developing good law.

There is a legal maxim that's important to remember that says, “Hard cases make bad law.” We've had a lot of bad law in Canada recently, largely imposed by the courts, and almost all of it based on hard cases. It's really time for Parliament to begin to plug that leak.

I might make reference, for example, to the fact that in 1980-81, when Parliament was drafting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the committee drafting that debated for two days on whether or not to include the phrase “sexual orientation” in section 15. In fact, one of the members of Parliament who then sat on the opposition side, one Jean Chrétien, said at that time that the phrase “sexual orientation” did not belong in any law because it was so ill-defined. That is still a standard to be remembered.

Thirteen years later, the Supreme Court quite unconstitutionally usurped the legislative prerogative of Parliament and ordered that the phrase be read in. It was not as though Parliament had not considered it. The committee considering it voted 26 to 2 against it, and Parliament upheld that decision.

You will also be reading appeals to the “trend of the times”. This is what the brilliant Cambridge and Oxford philosopher Don C. S. Lewis referred to as “chronological chauvinism”. It is no substitute for constitutional authority, reason, or truth.

You'll hear references to what foreign governments have been doing, such as Holland, but please do not get caught behind the curve on this. The people of Holland have just recently re-elected Jan Peter Balkenende, giving him an increased number of seats precisely because he has been campaigning on a promise to roll back some of the social decay that has afflicted Holland since the Second World War. In short, the people of the Netherlands have tried this and they don't like it.

You'll be hearing appeals to equality. Equality is not necessarily always a good thing. Arbitrariness is not always a bad thing. The law of gravity is quite arbitrary.

Dr. William Gairdner, a Canadian philosopher, athlete, and Rhodes Scholar has made reference in his book, The War Against the Family, to two different constructions of family. There's the natural family--mom, dad, and any children they may have or adopt--and there's the artificial construct. Artificial constructs come and go, and natural families endure.

Again, I urge the committee to protect Parliament from being caught behind the curve. Very often the attempt to do what is trendy only catches yesterday's trends when they're on the way out.

You'll be confronted with similar misstatements about love, such as, “We just love each other”, or “I only want to be able to love my partner, and I want us to be together”, or “I want our relationship to be recognized and valued.”

But love is not about “I want”. That's self-love, selfishness. Love is about a commitment to others, for their benefit, not for my own pleasure. Love is about sacrifice. It's about giving up what I want for the benefit of the loved one, for the benefit of society, and for the benefit of the next generation of children.

¹ (1525)

You'll be hearing references again and again to the idea that homosexuals are in some way disadvantaged in society. This was addressed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in the United States during attempts to include homosexual orientation in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. What they have said--and this is true for both Canada and the United States--is that people of African origin have median incomes far below the national average. Homosexuals have median incomes far above the national average. Blacks have a far lower per capita rate of graduation from post-secondary education, while homosexuals have a higher than average per capita rate of post-secondary and graduate degrees. Blacks have a much lower than average rate of professional and managerial positions. Homosexuals appear in such employment at much higher than average rates.

What you will find is that documents like the Civil Rights Act, intended to redress these imbalances, will be destroyed if they are exploded to include virtually everyone.

Egale has repeatedly said that some day same-sex couples in Canada will have the legal right to marry, it's inevitable. That's part of their presentation. Forgive me for being blunt, but I believe this lobby group is deliberately manipulating the public, the press, and Parliament with the Nazi technique of the big lie--tell the same untruth often enough and loudly enough and people will eventually begin to believe it. When enough people believe it, you can change the shape of the nation to fit your views, but the truth is lost in the process.

There is no inevitability about breaching the definition of marriage. If there were, this hearing would be pointless.

There have historically been five criteria for marriage: gender, age, number, propinquity, and species. If we remove any of those, how will we justify defending against the others?

In closing, I would like to refer to the fact that Brent Hawkes came to this committee. I read his testimony, and he said that fundamentalist Christians always refer to the same three scriptures, but not all churches agree on their interpretation.

For the record, I'd like to read into the record four very short scriptures, three of which probably include them—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): You're already over your time, Mr. Gray, so maybe you can read it during the question and answer period.

Professor Weinrib, please.

Professor Lorraine Weinrib (Law School; Member, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, As Individual): Thank you.

I appear before you as a professor of constitutional law and as a member of the Department of Political Science at the University of Toronto. I spent the first half of my career as a government lawyer in the Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario, doing advisory work, policy work, and constitutional law and litigation. I was part of the Ontario team in the policy and legal work leading up to the adoption of the charter. I now teach constitutional law, charter litigation, and comparative constitutional law.

My formal comments will address three aspects of your deliberations: first, the role of Parliament under the charter; second, the constitutional issue that is the subject of your deliberations; and third, the resilience of the institution of marriage.

Turning to the role of Parliament under the charter, I wish to displace the common understanding that the charter was put in place to establish some sort of hierarchy in which courts usurp the traditional public policy role of legislatures. In fact, the courts, legislatures, and the executive are partners, not rivals, under the charter. The failings that the charter was put in place to correct, with great popular support, were failings of the executive, the legislatures, and the courts. The charter's adoption was designed to correct these failings by establishing substantive protections in the form of guaranteed rights and freedoms through an institutional structure in which courts and legislatures operate with their best expertise, process, and experience to forward the values of what we call a free and democratic society.

The template that courts and legislatures must forward under the charter is a template that respects the equal human dignity of all members of Canadian society. This is not unique to Canada. It is the modern practice of liberal democracy in all western countries today, whether they have written constitutions or not.

Equal human dignity is the abstraction--that is, the generalized container in which we understand all the particular rights and freedoms. It includes the personal autonomy of all persons. It also includes not only freedom of religion but the freedom and equality of all religions as well as freedom from religion.

The charter not only protects autonomy and equality; it has specific provisions that endorse gender equality and the multiculturalism of Canadian society.

In my view, the courts have already given sufficient direction on the meaning of equality under the charter in respect to gender and sexuality for this committee to go forward with a recommendation for the expansion of marriage to include same-sex couples. In doing so, the legislatures would be carrying forward their representative function in a wider framework than they have in the past in terms of a traditionally disadvantaged and politically powerless sexual minority.

Let me turn to my second point, which is the subject of your deliberations, on whether the common law bar on same-sex marriage is a breach of the charter, and whether, if it is a breach, it can be justified under the charter's limitation clause.

I think it is clear from the judicial, political, and academic discussion that there is general agreement that there is a breach of the charter in the common law rule that insists upon a heterosexual marriage. The real question to be debated is whether that breach is justifiable under the charter.

Now, what is interesting about this question is that the very basis on which there is a finding of a breach has been brought forward, even in this session, as a basis for limiting the actual right of equality.

¹ (1530)

In the February 4 session of this committee, Derek Lee said, “A right...is a right. If a person has a right, you can't take it away.” In that sentence is deep insight into the way the charter works. A charter right can't be taken away, it can only be justifiably limited by the courts. Of course, there's the override clause as well, and I'd be happy to address that possibility in the question period.

What is clear from the litigation so far, in my view, is that despite the fact that the Government of Canada has invested considerable talent, expertise, and resources in defending the common law restriction on same-sex marriage, upon analysis the arguments being brought forward recapitulate the reasons why the exclusive heterosexual character of marriage is no longer sustainable. The arguments boil down to religious teaching or a moral generalization from religious teaching--claims about nature, and claims about culture. These are the kinds of arguments that do not respect equal human dignity under the charter.

While it is true that in 1980-81 Parliament, in its wisdom, decided not to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination in the drafting of section 15, it did not, by doing that, preclude the courts from including sexual orientation as what we call an “analogous” ground, a court-developed ground. And that's in fact what the Supreme Court of Canada has done.

To conclude, the institution of marriage as it operates in Canadian society today is drastically different from the religious idea of marriage that we absorbed from the British legal system. It has been changed in order to add divorce, which undermines the whole religious idea of divine support for marriage. It has also been transformed extensively in order to create the idea that there are two full, equal partners in marriage, and that the woman does not become subsumed in the man's legal identity.

These changes have not undermined marriage. In fact, they have strengthened marriage. I would suggest that the one further dramatic evolutionary change of including same-sex couples in marriage will further strengthen and not undermine the institution of marriage. It will not undermine it in terms of the foundation that marriage provides for individuals to flourish in an intimate relationship, a family structure, and it will not interfere with or undermine the strong contribution marriage makes to the stability of our society.

¹ (1535)

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

I apologize to the audience for being distracted just at the moment when some language was used that, if it is in the brief, is unacceptable language before this committee. We have made considerable effort over the three weeks in Ottawa and the two weeks on the road to take what is a very contentious subject and to bring the language within parameters that are acceptable in public discourse. If what was said is as is in the brief, and as brought to my attention by the researcher, that is unacceptable language before this committee. I caution all witnesses and all people who will be presenting in the future on that point.

Now, with the permission of the committee, we were missing a witness in the last panel, Ms. Beaven. She has arrived, and with your permission I'm expanding the panel to include her presentation.

You have seven minutes to make your presentation, please, Ms. Beaven.

Ms. Kimberly Beaven (As Individual): I come with my reputation within the community itself. In preparation for today, I felt there were many factors that were very important to address.

I certainly have read over a lot of the notes from the previous meetings all across Canada to sort of get a perspective on what was being brought to the table. I have been on both sides. I have worked within the Christian community for over seven years. I have been within the gay and lesbian community since I was 17, so this is something that is not new to me.

On the aspect of marriage, there is a great emphasis on the belief of what marriage represents and the commitment it stands for. I do agree that the definition of marriage certainly has evolved and changed over the years. Basically, it's the commitment within the heart of one person to another person, knowing that this person is the one you want to spend the rest of your life with. I think that's a bottom-line basis everyone can agree upon. The area where we run into some struggle is who that partner is.

It certainly doesn't negate what that commitment is when it's a same-sex partner. It doesn't bring into other issues of a lack of commitment or a de-emphasizing of what that is. I could cite to you many examples, as could someone within the heterosexual community. I'm not here to compare stats, but the emphasis is still the same in terms of what that represents.

From my viewpoint, and I can only speak from my viewpoint, the ability to have the recognition of what that relationship represents is really the emphasis.

For example, I have been friends with this one couple for quite a while. Recently, one was admitted to the hospital in a very serious condition, and her partner was not permitted to be with her in the same way her ex-husband was. Nothing against what that relationship itself represented, but here was someone who had made a lifelong commitment to their partner and who wasn't recognized as such, as having a suitable relationship. Now, as you can probably well understand, that was an incredible offence to both of them in that situation. And it's crossing political and religious perspectives and beliefs and societal understandings and evolutions. That will come with change, but I do believe the same emphasis of marriage and commitment and what that represents is the same whether it's a same-sex relationship or a heterosexual relationship.

I was reading some of the notes from yesterday, where David Brown actually said that same-sex marriage was not a marriage, and that when he represented family values, as an intervener in B.C., he said the concept of bringing it forth as a marriage...he was laughed at.

I think a lot of that stems out of where we've come from in our understanding. If we base everything on what has been, we will never, ever evolve, or ever change.

That's why I really appeal to you, to the justice committee, that we have to take a very open understanding and we have to put aside the things that we have been taught in the Judeo-Christian understanding. I don't mean put aside our Christian beliefs; as I say, I have worked in that community, and my faith is very strong. Many people would see that as a hypocritical statement, or not understand how that could be, but that is a fact. Faith is not something that you give a litmus test for, to see whether it's right or wrong. It's something within your heart. So that remains the same.

But from where we stand right now, are there enough examples, is there enough of a perspective, to see that a same-sex marriage is a stable and healthy environment for both of those people, for the children who may be in that environment? And that is true. You will see that in many cases with the foster children's program. A lot of children are taken out of whatever environment, whether it be same-sex or heterosexual that hasn't been healthy, and are then brought into an environment that is healthy, whether that be heterosexual or same-sex. So if we don't diverge there, why are we diverging on the basis of a commitment to one another, and on the basis of, is that acceptable, or does it exist?

¹ (1540)

Many people from the community would tell you that it is a reality. It doesn't mean there's going to be more polygamy. It doesn't mean there's going to be more sexual crimes, or there's going to be a divergence of understanding of what even a commitment means because we allow same-sex marriages. That's taking something and tainting it with all the badness in the world. We could do the same with heterosexual relationships, but that's not true, and we know it.

This is just a reality. This is not something we choose, because, by choice, this certainly would not be the lifestyle that would be the easiest one to choose. It has been a very difficult road. I've seen friends lose their jobs and I've seen people criticized.

In conclusion, I would just like to offer you a very simple expression from somebody who lives within this community. It's not pinning the religious against the same-sex; it's recognizing the commitment, and what that represents, and an opportunity to share in a lifetime relationship with someone you love and care about, and have the same opportunities in that relationship to live out throughout your lives.

¹ (1545)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thank you very much.

Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

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

I liked the reminder that we need to be careful what words we use because they have meaning. I hope that some of the words used went further than the author intended.

Professor Weinrib, a lawyer who testified yesterday before the committee said that since the word “marriage“ was defined in 1867 as the union of a man and a woman, Parliament does not have the power to change this definition, that it would require a constitutional amendment.

This morning, another lawyer, Cynthia Petersen, offered the opposite opinion.

In your view, does Parliament have the power to change the definition of marriage?

[English]

Prof. Lorraine Weinrib: This is a very interesting question.

One of the points I would make at the beginning of my response is that the Attorney General of Canada's lawyers, in the litigation on same-sex marriage, are not supporting this argument, which of course would be a winning argument for them if the argument were successful. I think that is an important point, that the argument is not being raised in defence of heterosexual marriage by the Attorney General of Canada; it's being raised by interveners who come from traditional religious sectors.

Let me now address the substance of your point.

There is the idea, in our legal tradition, that when a legal text is drafted its full meaning is poured into the text at that moment, and that what later interpreters do is pull out that meaning as of the date the text was written. In our modern legal system, we no longer read legal texts that way, and we certainly don't read constitutions in that way.

I'm going to give you a very important example. Just at the time when this approach was changing, in the late 1920s, the issue came before the courts of whether women could be appointed to the Senate. The word that was under deliberation was the word “person”. Everyone knew that in 1867, when the language of the British North America Act was drafted, and it was said that qualified “persons“ could be appointed to the Senate, the understanding was that this meant “men”. It did not mean “women”. That is, I think, very clear in the historical evidence.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled, I think in the late 1920s, that because the word “person” meant “men” to the parliamentarians who drafted it in 1867, it continued to mean that. The Privy Council overruled that reading of the word “persons”, and said that the word had to be read in the context of the whole British North America Act and the use of words in that whole document.

More importantly, though, it said that the word had to be used in the light of the evolution of political institutions in Canada, and the word must be understood as including women, because Canada is an evolving democracy, and in a democracy everyone must vote, everyone must participate. This is what it means to have representative government, so you could no longer exclude women.

I give this is as an example, but there are many examples.

Let me also say that it would be very unfortunate if the words of the Constitution were read to mean what we think they meant specifically at the time they were written. This would create what we call a “frozen” Constitution. In the very first, very important judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada, when it started to interpret the charter, it said our charter was not frozen but a living instrument.

¹ (1550)

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: It has also been argued that if same-sex marriage was allowed, this would open the door to all sorts of relationships. People mentioned specifically polygamous and incestuous relationships.

I would like to have your comments on this argument which is being referred to as the slippery slope argument.

[English]

Prof. Lorraine Weinrib: I'm delighted you referred to this as a slippery slope argument, because of course it is.

The structure of the slippery slope argument has three sections. You have the current state of the law, you have the proposed state of the law, and you have these other very inflammatory claims that are made, of incest and polygamy.

The reason that people put forward the third step, these inflammatory examples, is to taint the actual issue that is on the table. And they do that because they want to strengthen their challenge to the second stage, to the example that's actually in question, because they see that the actual arguments available for the issue in question are weaker than they want them to be. So instead of actually arguing about the issue before the, they bring out these inflammatory examples to strengthen their case.

Now, let me say that the charter doesn't work this way. I think slippery slope arguments are particularly inappropriate for the charter. In the same-sex marriage context, we're dealing with a sexual minority that has long experienced disadvantage because of religious teachings and scientific teachings that label homosexuality as a sin, as an abomination, as unnatural, as abnormal, or as a psychological or physical disease.

So we have here the situation where the charter tells us--and the Supreme Court of Canada has interpreted the charter in this way, and all modern constitutions are interpreted this way--that if these teachings are religious teachings, they do not have the power over policy-making that we once understood they did; if they're scientific teachings, we understand that they are no longer valid.

And so the question of same-sex marriage has to do with homosexuality, which we now understand as a normal, legitimate sexuality, one that establishes social relations and one that can be recognized in our society without criminalization and without disadvantage.

Incest and polygamy are very different questions. I would be shocked if one could bring forward any strong arguments for legitimizing incestuous or polygamous marriages generally. There is too much abuse and too much possibility of very real harm in incestuous and polygamous relationships. These elements of abuse and harm are simply not present in our understanding of homosexual relationships today.

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

Mr. Macklin.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Thank you, Chair, and thank you, witnesses.

I was just scrambling for a moment back through some material that I carried with me on this cross-country tour and never had brought to any panel. However, I think it may be appropriate now, in light of what you're saying.

There have been a lot of fears expressed by religious organizations about where this might lead in terms of broadening marriage to include same-sex couples. Part of it related to a specific Fifth Estate program from February 19, 2003. I have a transcript from that. Hana Gartner was interviewing Geoff Plant, the Attorney General for British Columbia, concerning a “colony”, I guess you might call it, at Bountiful.

Gartner says, and I quote:

So the RCMP recommended charges in 1991, but the BC government did not approve them. They were afraid that they could lose a challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Gartner asks Geoff Plant:

“Your job is to enforce the Criminal Code. Polygamy is against the law. Why do you choose to exempt the polygamous colony of Bountiful?”

Geoff Plant answers:

“Well, I don't choose to exempt them. I think that polygamy per se, practiced between and among adults, may actually raise some issues around what our Constitution says in terms of the vigorous way it protects for religious freedom.”

The concern there is that, as an attorney general, he is at this point not pursuing charges in that particular context. And I think it's examples like that--they've been publicized recently--that give religious leaders fear as to where this may go.

What sort of suggestion or support would you have for those religious leaders who would be fearful of what the Attorney General of British Columbia says he's not prepared to do?

¹ (1555)

Prof. Lorraine Weinrib: This is actually a very interesting question. I've never seen legal opinion or even informal legal analysis in support of the position taken by the Attorney General of British Columbia. I'm very surprised by it.

I think it's unfortunate, because it's very important for an attorney general, the chief law officer of the province or the national government, to enforce the law. We've had situations in Canada where there has been a tremendous crisis on questions of whether there should be prosecutions or not. I think our long tradition of the rule of law makes clear that if for some reason there is an uncertainty about whether certain laws are enforceable, then we have to have some final authoritative legal determination that the attorney general should not refrain from enforcing a law.

So I think the question of whether same-sex marriage would lead to the authorization of polygamy, or the authorization of incestuous marriage, has to be seen in light of the proper administration of the rule of law in Canada. We know anecdotally that many communities that practice polygamy do so in ways that most Canadians might find quite unacceptable in terms of inducting very young women into marriages without their consent, or in terms of constraining their escape from these situations. So I don't see the polygamy question as being at all on par with the question of same-sex marriage.

That said, I think eventually the polygamy question will come up, and the courts will have evidence. The government will prosecute, there will be interveners, there will be participants from a wide range of sectors of Canadian society, and then there will be an ultimate legal determination of the legitimacy of that form of marriage.

I think the fact that the Attorney General of British Columbia has chosen, for whatever reason, not to prosecute does not say that this has been legalized in Canada, or that it has been channelled through the proper charter analysis, as it should be.

º (1600)

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: No, but I think what it does, though, is at least send up smoke that concerns a lot of people about the potential of finding themselves in difficulties--those people being those within the institutions that may ultimately have to carry out or consider carrying out religious ceremonies they don't particularly find fitting to their particular religion.

We've had a number of religious leaders suggest that we ought to do something in terms of legislation in order to protect further those who feel fearful within their religious institution that this may come. They've more or less framed it in terms of human rights legislation; that would be the way in which it would be brought forward, but in essence it still flows from the charter.

We've had a number of people come up with suggestions to help us in that regard, and I wonder if you believe we should in some way be bolstering the position of those who are religious leaders within the church and who might, if we change the law, want to be absolutely sure that they are not going to find themselves caught.

Prof. Lorraine Weinrib: I think this point is very well taken. Unfortunately, a very complicated legal response would be necessary because of the separate responsibilities under our federal system of the federal government and the provincial government with respect to who actually officiates at marriages.

It seems to me the charter rule that would emerge from this type of dilemma is that no one would be forced against conscience or against religious teaching or practice to officiate at a marriage. Just as a priest is not now and could not be forced to perform a Catholic marriage between people who are not eligible for a Catholic marriage, perhaps because of divorce, an Orthodox Jew or Catholic clergymen would not be required to perform a same-sex marriage. I think that's clear under the charter.

Now, if we wanted to have an actual piece of legislation that made that abundantly clear, it would probably have to be provincial legislation, because the solemnization of marriage is an exclusive provincial area of jurisdiction, whereas the actual content of the rules of marriage and divorce has been an exclusive federal jurisdiction.

So my response is, first of all, I think there is enough jurisprudence in the Supreme Court of Canada to show that a person would not be required as a clergyman to perform a same-sex marriage if that were against his religious principles and his ordination, etc. But I would welcome that becoming an express protection if that would mean that more traditional religious communities would be more open to same-sex marriage.

Of course, that is very different from the position that some traditional religious communities are taking, that the very fact that there would be same-sex marriage recognized by the state--not by their church, not by their clergymen, but by others--would taint religious marriages. I think that is a position that would be untenable under the charter.

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

Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

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

Professor Weinrib, two of the four options outlined in the consultation document of the Department of Justice raise a problem in terms of distribution of jurisdictions and I wonder if you would agree with the following reasoning.

One of the options being proposed is that of a civil union. I am of the opinion that civil union is a provincial jurisdiction since, under section 91, Parliament has jurisdiction only for marriage and divorce and, under section 92, provinces have jurisdiction in the area of property and civil rights.

The second option would be to leave marriage entirely up to the churches and to have the state withdraw totally from this area.

But since, as you mentioned yourself, provinces have the power to solemnize marriage, in other words to designate who may officiate at marriages or to appoint registrars, this option must also be rejected because of the separation of powers under sections 91 and 92.

Therefore, constitutionally, because of the separation of powers, the committee can only look at same-sex marriage. It can only take position for or against same-sex marriage.

You say that prohibiting same-sex couples from getting married is a violation of section 15 of the Charter on equality rights, and cannot be justified under section 1 of the Charter which deals with what is acceptable in a free and democratic society.

So do you agree that in terms of the Constitution, the only thing this committee can recommend is to allow same-sex marriages?

º (1605)

[English]

Prof. Lorraine Weinrib: This is the kind of question one expects from a judge, not from a parliamentarian.

º (1610)

Mr. Richard Marceau: I'm working on it.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Prof. Lorraine Weinrib: I agree with you that the range of public policy options open to Parliament, unless it uses the legislative override, is not as wide as the mandate given to this committee.

Civil union, in my view, would fall to the provinces, and there may well be problems. Maybe some of you saw the article in the New York Times a week ago Sunday, which said that a problem had come up with the Vermont civil union legislation. It allows people to have the civil union arrangement, but to dissolve the civil union you have to be resident in the state for a year. There have been terrible situations. In one very sad case, a terminally ill person didn't have the lifespan to go and take up residence in Vermont. And other people who have lived their lives somewhere else, who are in these unions, can't get out of them when they want to.

So I think there are complications, first of all, in having such an important institution operate at the provincial level, where there can be slight differences in the arrangements made and the complications that arise in people's lives. I think that is why, in their wisdom, the Fathers of Confederation put marriage at the national level, to have one form of intimate conjugal family structure in Canada. So I think this does leave parliamentarians at the federal level restricted in terms of that option.

I think it would be very sad to abandon marriage altogether. Marriage is a wonderful, resilient institution that affirms so many charter values. It sounds very old-fashioned to say, but it is an institution that allows people to flourish in their personal lives, to be supported by a partner, to have the long-term intimacy and familiarity of living your life with someone who loves you.

I've been in a wonderful marriage for 33 years. I have three children. I think this is a wonderful institution. To abandon that institution because some people think it will be tainted by enlarging it to include people whose sexuality has been disdained, for reasons that we no longer consider valid as public policy, doesn't make any sense to me.

It's open to you to do that, but it's like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It's an overcorrection. It just doesn't seem like a good policy step at all.

And then, I think you're quite right; in terms of my legal view of the arguments in the cases, the federal government lawyers, whom I respect very highly--they are superb, highly trained, dedicated, committed lawyers, and they've been given wonderful resources to litigate the same-sex marriage cases--are going to lose, I think. Actually, I think the whole reason this committee was created is that there is an anticipation that this will happen, and there is the hope that at the federal level, the Parliament of Canada can seize upon the charter responsibilities it has, as I mentioned at the beginning of my presentation, and work out what the next step is without waiting for the courts to make a final decision on the question of constitutionality.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Mr. Gray, you wanted to say something.

Mr. Ron Gray: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I know you don't want this hearing to become a debate between the panellists, but there are two statements Professor Weinrib has made that I really must challenge.

First, she has twice now said that we now understand homosexuality to be normal. And yet, in 1973, when the American Psychiatric Association at its convention in San Francisco, under threats of duress that included threats of physical violence, dropped homosexuality from its diagnostic and statistical manual, a state chapter of the APA subsequently did a survey of all practising psychiatrists in North America. Of those who responded, 69%, almost 70%, said they still considered homosexuality to be a treatable psychopathology.

She also said, in her excoriation of the slippery slope argument, that the argument of abuse that might be found in incest or polygamy does not apply in homosexuality. And yet, from the research I did preparing to come to this committee, I found a Boston gay and lesbian website that said a survey of their people showed that 25% consistently complained of abuse from their partner.

So those two statements should not be allowed to just slide by unchallenged. The fact is, the reason we're here is precisely because Canadian society has not accepted homosexuality as normal and natural. It is unnatural. It is unhealthy.

There is now research not only from the Omega institute but also published in the Canadian medical journal last year, confirmed by a study at the University of Chicago, that shows that male homosexuals have a lifespan or life expectancy that is 20 to 35 years less than the average for males in Canada. This is not a healthy lifestyle.

We are talking about the kind of picture we will paint to our children if we brand it, as Professor Weinrib does, as normal, natural, and acceptable. We may invite them to become involved in a lifestyle that will shorten their lifestyles.

Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, who teaches psychiatry at Yale, is past president of the C.G. Jung psychological institute. He has written in his book that homosexuality is a behavioural addiction whose closest analogue is alcoholism. We do not have drunk pride days; we should not have gay pride days.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney: Perhaps just a quick question to Mr. Duffy.

You gave us a rather strong statement against homosexuality. How many homosexuals do you know personally?

Mr. Jim Duffy: Personally, I've met, or I know, two... beside me; I've spoken to both of them.

º (1615)

Mr. John Maloney: On what basis do you make the strong accusations you did make, based on the knowledge of those two individuals?

Mr. Jim Duffy: Which strong accusations are you referring to?

Mr. John Maloney: I don't choose to repeat them, sir. I just refer to your speech.

Mr. Jim Duffy: Okay.

Not once in my presentation did I challenge or say anything detrimental against a person--

Mr. John Maloney: No, and I'm not saying you did.

Mr. Jim Duffy: --and I don't intend to say anything detrimental against a person who has homosexual tendencies. What I do say is that I object to the homosexual act, which I think is abnormal and unnatural.

As I said to the people I do know who are homosexual, I came to this country in 1973, knowing that this country of Canada was formed under the Judeo-Christian mentality, and I love that mentality. I enjoyed Canada when I first came, but over the last 30 years the morality of thinking in Canada has dipped so low it's unnatural.

The teachings in school with regard to the homosexual movement are unacceptable to me, totally unacceptable.

Mr. John Maloney: Thank you, sir.

I don't think I have any more questions.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I want to be sure I understand what Mr. Gray stated earlier.

I know you were here when I put this question to a previous panelist. Are you saying that if same-sex marriage was permitted, people in general would have the feeling that it has become part of the menu and that some would decide to become homosexuals just because same-sex marriage is now being allowed? I do not want to put words into your mouth, I just want to be sure I understand what you say.

Mr. Ron Gray: I believe so. Years ago, I read one of the first studies on homosexuality in the United States. It said that the percentage of homosexuals in the population was around 1.75%. Recently, I read another study that said that the percentage of homosexuals is now 2.5%.

So I believe that the attention given to homosexuality has made it more popular among young people.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you.

My last question is for Mr. Duffy or Mr. Gray. Do I understand from your presentations that you are not only opposed to same-sex marriage but also against any form of recognition or regulation by the state of same-sex unions, whether they be called marriage, civil union or national registry? Is this what I should conclude from your presentations?

[English]

Mr. Jim Duffy: What I'm going to let you understand is that there's no such a thing as a homosexual marriage. Marriage is an institution of a man and a woman, which procreates, which brings the next generation into this world. With a homosexual union, there can be no future.

That's what we're trying to bring across today, that there's no future in a homosexual union. They can't procreate their species, their people, but we do. The heterosexual couple of a man and a woman brings children into the world, and that's the future of Canada.

[Translation]

Mr. Ron Gray: Yes, you are right. I believe Christians are the only true friends of homosexuals. We want to grant them freedom. The activists only want to keep them in their slavery.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): With the indulgence of the committee, I'd just like to direct one question to Professor Weinrib.

This has to do with Mr. Brown's presentation here yesterday and your interpretation of the persons case. I wanted to get your comments on his brief.

He summarizes the reasoning of Lord Sankey of the Privy Council, that:

...the object of the [British North America] Act, viz., to provide a constitution for Canada...;

That the word “person” is ambiguous and may include members of either sex;

That in some sections in the Act above referred to which show that in some cases the word “person” must include females;

That in some sections the words “male person” is expressly used....

And to the provisions of the Interpretation Act, he says:

Their Lordships have come to the conclusion that the word “persons”...includes both of the male and female sex, and that, therefore, the question propounded...

Mr. Brown's point out of this is that the actual reading of the Edwards case reveals that the Privy Council decided the case not by going outside the text of the BNA but by staying within the natural limits of the written text to include that constitution, when read as a whole.

My question to you, Professor Weinrib, is that the persons case appears to be argued by some, yourself included, that the Constitution is the living tree, that it's not static, not frozen in time, and that with new understandings we can take constitutional words, such as “marriage” and such as “persons”, and maybe expand them as we see fit, if you will, according to our own lights.

So I'd be interested in your comments on Mr. Brown's analysis.

º (1620)

Prof. Lorraine Weinrib: Thank you.

I don't want to suggest that the Privy Council's set of reasons in the persons case is a full authority for the kind of problem we have now, because of course we're not actually dealing with a statute here. We're dealing with a common law rule, a judge-made rule about heterosexuality and homosexuality in terms of eligibility for marriage.

The point I wanted to make is that the Supreme Court of Canada was very clear in the persons case that the meaning of persons, the idea that it was only men who participated in public life, was fixed in the BNA Act. The Privy Council rejected that. The Privy Council, it's true, went on to different forms of argument and compared the word “persons” in different parts of the statute and that kind of thing. So I think what I'm taking from the persons case is that the Privy Council rejected the Supreme Court of Canada's view that there was in a sense a historical, statutory definition of the word “persons” that would prevail, frozen for all time.

But let me take this more broadly. The whole interpretation of the British North America Act and of other constitutional instruments we have, that are older than the charter and that had to operate long after they were drafted, is that we look at the words in a very general, expansive way. We don't pin them down. Otherwise, courts simply could not work with these texts as constitutional texts.

I mean, our courts have had to deal with who has the lead foot of jurisdiction over aeronautics, and uranium, and all sorts of other substances and devices and inventions and social relationships that simply didn't exist in 1867. So we constantly look at the language of an old constitutional text as what we call “open-textured”, as having a generality and an openness to interpretation.

These aren't grocery lists. These aren't recipes. The language of constitutions is interpreted as having life beyond the fixed denotation of the words at the time of their drafting. And in Canada this is the general mode of interpretation of constitutional instruments, in contrast, in stark contrast, to the way some members of the American Supreme Court interpret the American Constitution.

The socially conservative judges of the American Supreme Court are very attached to this frozen type of interpretation, that there's a historically fixed meaning. While there are a number of reasons for the attractiveness of this approach to these socially conservative judges, one of the reasons is that you're much more likely to have socially conservative results if you interpret the words as they were understood in the late 1700s.

So I think it is important to remember that this frozen-meaning approach to interpretation of a charter has its own political spin on it. You're much more likely to get socially conservative results if you approach this.... You're also going to create a constitutional framework that will be unable to meet any of the challenges of modern Canada.

The words of the British North America Act, if they are generally interpreted in the way that it's proposed to interpret the word “marriage”, would create a constitutional straitjacket on this country that would produce a constitutional crisis time and time again. It would require constant amendment of these instruments, which are designed not to be constitutionally amended.

º (1625)

We know the difficulties of using the amending formula politically. That's one problem. As well, you simply can't keep these instruments up to date. These instruments are intended to stand stable for a long time, and to live through their interpretation.

So I strongly caution you against this idea of fixed meaning. It is a Pandora's box. It is. I think most importantly, it is a mode of interpretation that even the Attorney General of Canada has rejected, even though it is an argument that would be favourable to the position they want sustained in the litigation.

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

I want to thank all the panellists for their contribution to informing our deliberations here.

That ends the formal panel part of our day. However, as you know, we have way more numbers of people who want to speak to the committee than we can possibly accommodate. One of the means by which we can accommodate those people is through two-minute statements.

I will suspend for the next two or three minutes while the stand-up mike is set up. I'd ask that Catherine Yu, Christopher McIntosh, Tony Mandl, and David Mitges make their way towards the microphone.

Thank you.

º (1625)

º (1627)

º (1630)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Order.

During this part of the presentation, each individual gets a two-minute time slot. Because there are so many, I'm going to be absolutely ruthless about the two minutes. Please keep an eye on me so that I can tell you when to wind it up. If you keep on going, after awhile I'll have the mike cut off.

We're going to start with Katherine Yu. If Christopher McIntosh, Tony Mandl, and David Mitges could make themselves readily available, I'd appreciate it.

Katherine Yu.

Ms. Katherine Yu (As Individual): Thank you.

Thanks for this privilege. I represent the Toronto Chinese Evangelical Ministerial Fellowship, which consists of at least 150 workers ministering to at least 30,000 people in the larger Toronto area.

As I sat through most of these hearings, I was deeply touched. I feel for the people who are gays and lesbians. However, that doesn't change the truth. As God Jesus said, he is the truth. God is love, and God is just.

I would like to address the issue in three aspects. First of all, Christians affirm the equality of all human beings, as the Bible tells us all are created in the image of God. The God who gave us equality is the same God who ordains marriage and condemns homosexuality, even though he loves the people. Our position on the issue can be seen in the same light as that of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.

As Chinese Canadians, in Chinese culture, we define marriage as being between two different genders, and we believe our culture should be honoured in this multicultural society.

As civilians, in order to make society a better one, not just in the short run but also in the long run, we urge the committee to seriously weigh the positive and negative aspects indicated among the various research done on both heterosexual marriage and homosexual unions. Those are not just statistical numbers. They represent people, even though we can't see them.

In conclusion, on behalf of my group, I urge you to do what is right. All things can be acceptable, but not all things are beneficial. Legislation can't be all things to all, as marriage can't be all things to all.

We are here because we care. Thank you, and God bless you all.

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

Christopher McIntosh.

Dr. Christopher McIntosh (As Individual): Hi, my name is Dr. Christopher McIntosh, and I'm a physician doing specialty training in psychiatry at the University of Toronto.

I was intending only to observe these proceedings, but I was disturbed by the testimony of several witnesses opposed to the extension of marriage to same-sex couples. Some of these witnesses used medical arguments in their testimony, including rates of sexually transmitted diseases and purported psychological damage to children. Given that none of these witnesses claimed any medical or psychological credentials, I hope you will give their arguments the weight they deserve.

I would like to speak to what I believe is the real medical issue at stake here. Doctors and other mental health professionals such as myself continue to see patients suffering from depression because they feel unable to come out to their families, friends, and colleagues because of continued social stigma against homosexuality.

Despite the many gains in same-sex benefits and human rights legislation, we continue to see the devastating effects of discrimination on the self-esteem of our lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered patients. Some have argued that the benefits of freedom for same-sex couples to marry would be purely symbolic. I submit that there would be tangible benefits for same-sex couples in the freedom to marry, because it would reach out to those Canadians who are struggling with discrimination and say, “We as a society value your dignity as a person and your relationships.”

In my professional medical opinion, the ability to live a free and fulfilling life is essential to good mental health. The removal of unreasonable restrictions on that ability is not only just but also good public health policy.

Thank you.

º (1635)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Tony Mandl, David Mitges, and Ulma Lee.

Mr. Tony l Mandl (As Individual): I'd like to thank the committee for travelling across this country and listening to people like me express our opinions.

I was a little bit appalled with respect to some of the comments about the Holocaust and that type of thing. I am the son of a Holocaust survivor, and certainly my ancestors, my family, suffered greatly under regimes that certainly don't consider anything with respect to equality provisions or equality rights.

My family background and some of the things my family went through; my own personal experiences; my witnessing in 1982, as an adolescent, the Queen bringing the constitutional document to this country and Pierre Trudeau sitting down to sign it; this country adopting a charter in connection with that event--all propelled me to go to law school.

Certainly the recent debate over same-sex marriages got me a little concerned, particularly when the committee has been set up to in fact question or examine whether or not we should accept and respect a court's decisions upholding equality provisions that are now enshrined in our charter.

I've lobbied my MP, I've written to the Minister of Justice, and I've submitted a report to this committee as well.

I just want to emphasize that human rights should never be open to popular opinion. It really does negate the very existence and importance of the charter, and the equality provisions in particular. The same-sex marriage debate is first and foremost a fight for the charter. It was a Liberal government that in fact imposed on this country the equality provisions of the charter.

I don't believe minority rights should in fact be debated. I think it's quite clear that equality provisions should apply to all Canadians. There is a danger if in fact we begin to question the validity and the sanctity of those provisions within our Constitution.

Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): David Mitges, Ulma Lee, and Marcus Logan.

Mr. David Mitges (As Individual): Hi, my name is David Mitges, and I'm a professional engineer. My partner and I have been together for 12 years, and we would like the right to marry.

One of my personal heroes is Mr. Justice Cory, formerly of the Supreme Court of Canada. To help in your deliberations, I would like to read you excerpts from his decision in Vriend v. Alberta:

The rights enshrined in s. 15(1) of the Charter are fundamental to Canada. They reflect the fondest dreams, the highest hopes and finest aspirations of Canadian society.

The concept and principle of equality is almost intuitively understood and cherished by all. It is easy to praise these concepts as providing the foundation for a just society which permits every individual to live in dignity and in harmony with all. The difficulty lies in giving real effect to equality.

And this is your current task:

Difficult as the goal of equality may be it is worth the arduous struggle to attain....It is easy to say that everyone who is “just like us” is entitled to equality

Being here yesterday, and hearing all these tyranny of the majority arguments, that “it's only 0.5% or 2% of couples”, made me pretty sad. Everyone finds it more difficult to say that those who are different from us in some way should have the same equality rights that we enjoy.

As Mr. Cory said:

Yet so soon as we say any enumerated or analogous group is less deserving and unworthy of equal protection and benefit of the law all minorities and all of Canadian society are demeaned. It is so deceptively simple and so devastatingly injurious to say that those who are handicapped or of a different race, or religion, or colour or sexual orientation are less worthy. Yet, if any enumerated or analogous group is denied the equality provided by s. 15 then the equality of every other minority group is threatened. That equality is guaranteed by our constitution. If equality rights for minorities had been recognized, the all too frequent tragedies of history might have been avoided.

º (1640)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Final sentence, please.

Mr. David Mitges: Justice Cory also said:

It can never be forgotten that discrimination is the antithesis of equality and that it is the recognition of equality which will foster the dignity of every individual.

Thank you.

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

Ulma Lee, Marcus Logan, and Kathy Vance.

Ms. Ulma Lee (As Individual): My name is Ulma Lee, representing Korean churches in Toronto. We have about 70,000 Koreans living in Ontario. As soon as we heard about Bill C-250 last summer, we immediately started gathering petitions. In two Sundays we had about 2,000 names, and we sent the petitions to Ottawa through the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.

We also sent letters to forty MPs--

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Ms. Lee, is your representation about same-sex marriage, or marriage and same-sex unions, or is about Bill C-250? Because we're not dealing with Bill C-250 at the present time.

Ms. Ulma Lee: We are against the passing of Bill C-250.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): I understand that, but are your representations about marriage and the same-sex union, which is the study of this particular group?

Ms. Ulma Lee: We are against Bill C-250....

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Okay. Well, thank you very much. We appreciate that. This is a committee to deal with marriage and same-sex unions. We're not dealing with Bill C-250 presently.

Ms. Ulma Lee: We can say, though, that they're the same thing.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): No, they're not the same thing.

Ms. Ulma Lee: All Korean churches are against same-sex marriage.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Okay, thank you.

Ms. Ulma Lee: Even Korean United churches--less than one-tenth--all gather together and pay for newspaper advertisements against same-sex marriage. It is against the Bible, so our Korean churches are against it.

One hundred years ago Canada sent missionaries to Korea, and about 40% of Korea is now Christian. We became a Christian country, and most Korean immigrants are Christians. They think Canada is a Christian country and they bring their children here to be educated. If this bill is passed, it would be a bigger still culture shock for Korean Christians here.

Koreans' biggest fear is that if their children become homosexuals, their bloodline will be cut. That is a practical warning, because we live three generations in the same house now. We want this country to keep its precious traditions, founded and developed by Christian principles.

God bless Canada.

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

Marcus Logan, Kathy Vance, and Glen Pelshea.

Mr. Logan.

Mr. Marcus Logan (As Individual): Thanks for letting us all be here with some comments today. I can tell you, it certainly strengthens the gay community's resolve for our equality.

I'm here today as co-chair of the Halton Anti-Homophobia Committee. We've drafted a position letter for you, which you will all be getting. I'd like to read it to you.

As a group, we are writing to express our support for extending equal marriage and legal recognition to same-sex unions. The Halton Anti-Homophobia Committee is an educational and benevolent committee made up of various committee members from the region of Halton in Ontario, including Burlington, Oakville, Milton, and Halton Hills.

We are proud to welcome and include a spectrum of community members of homosexual, heterosexual, and other sexual orientations. We also work closely with and have representation from the Halton Regional Police, the Halton Regional Health Department, the Halton Board of Education, and other community support, safety, and education organizations.

Many members of both our group and the extended community we serve have been involved in long-term same-sex unions, and wish to be afforded the same rights, privileges, duties, traditions, and recognitions of any other loving opposite-sex couples.

Our community includes same-sex-parented families, and our children deserve to grow up knowing that Canada considers all families as valid and as equal as any other. Not to do so is blatant discrimination and disrespect targeted to the gay community and their children.

We do not want you to consider a separate but equal status. We consider that segregationalism, and degrading. We want you to support, recommend, and vote for equal status, fully extending the right to legal marriage to same-sex couples in Canada. We ask this because we believe marriage a modern institution of love and commitment recognized by our government, our faith communities, and our society—

º (1645)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Mr. Logan, are you...

Mr. Marcus Logan: That's fine.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thanks very much.

Kathy Vance, Glen Pelshea, Brian Cohen.

Ms. Kathy Vance (As Individual): Hello. Thank you for being here. I really appreciate your attendance. I'm not being facetious; I really appreciate it.

I had no idea I would be here talking to you today. I had a shower this morning and came in to support a 15-year-old boy who wanted to talk to you at 8:30 this morning. I was just so proud, I had to come back and say hello. I didn't know so many people would be here, or I wouldn't be.

I'm 53 years old. I consider myself a really good Canadian and a good person. I come from seven generations of Canadians who have loved this country too.

I'll be very clear about what I'd like to see from you at the end of all your deliberations. I've been in a 25-year monogamous same-sex partnership, and we're really happy. We really love each other. So I'm not here seeking consent for that relationship, because we have it already. What I am seeking from you is the ability to say the words that a lot of people in Canada hear at some time in their lives: “I love you. Will you marry me?”

I'm not able to hear those words, and I'm not able to speak those words in this country, and I would like to have the right to do so.

Thank you.

[Applause from the audience]

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

Glen Pelshea, Brian Cohen, Stace Lum-Yip.

Mr. Glen Pelshea (As Individual): Good afternoon. My name is Glen Pelshea. I'm a counsellor and health consultant, and I've been working in the queer community for over 20 years.

I would like to offer the committee a little bit of theory documentation afterwards, if you'd like it.

The issue of same-sex marriage is to me a social equality and justice issue that affects the health of individuals, their families, and their communities. Healthy individuals and couples create healthy communities and raise healthy children.

The long-term harm of being treated as less valuable, and the oppression of that, based upon falsehoods or untruths, leads to the internalization of these false beliefs by the individuals affected by these beliefs and by those communities. Internalized homophobia is the root cause of individual and community health concerns such as AIDS.

Until we change the rules and laws of society that lead individuals to believe they are unworthy and not as equal, we as a society are responsible for the harm caused by those rules. This is why we need to change the laws governing this issue. It's a matter of the health and well-being of our citizens and of our society.

Thank you.

º (1650)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): If there is anything you wish to submit, you can submit it through the clerk. Thanks.

Brian Cohen, Stace Lum-Yip, and Renée King.

Mr. Cohen.

Mr. Brian Cohen (As Individual): Hello. My name is Brian Cohen. I'm a lawyer in private practice here in Toronto.

More than 15 years ago, I came out as a gay person to my family, to my friends, and to everyone else in my life, including, in my religious life, to my rabbi at a traditional Orthodox synagogue in Ottawa.

I have three points I would like to convey to the committee. The first is that religion is not the enemy of same-sex civil marriage. Being a religious person is entirely consistent with endorsing civil laws that permit civil marriage for same-sex couples.

This committee is only considering civil marriage, and none of the four proposals before you purport to coerce any church or religious group into marrying same-sex couples. Freedom of religion is preserved, especially in proposal two, which is the one that I would advocate.

The second point is that same-sex civil marriage is more than symbolic. As the speaker before me mentioned, the most odious effect of the present discriminatory civil marriage laws is that it tells non-gay people that gay people are less worthy, and in so doing gives licence to and excuses anti-gay behaviour in schools, at work, and in all aspects of society. People are gay-bashed. Gay youth take their own lives, as the physician who spoke earlier mentioned, and families are shamed and ruined by the status quo.

The third and most important point I would like to leave this committee with is to encourage you to be a leader. Canada has a long and very proud reputation of addressing injustice. Be at the forefront of human rights and not at the rearguard. Leave a legacy of respect and equality in your wake. History will thank you for it.

Thank you.

[Applause from the audience]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thank you. And the chair thanks you for being right on two minutes.

Stace Lum-Yip, Renée King, and Chris Phibbs.

Mr. Stace Lum-Yip (As Individual): Hi. Thanks for the opportunity to speak.

I just want to say first of all that I took a couple of days of vacation from work to sit in on these public hearings, just because I have an interest in it. I'm not part of a group or an organization, and I'm certainly not an advocate. I don't generally stand up in front of large groups.

That said, I did feel the need to speak after listening to the proceedings over the past two days. I did write some notes, and I'll kind of go through them.

Over the past couple of days I've heard arguments from mostly religious-based groups on why it is acceptable to discriminate against same-sex persons on this issue. For me, none have been compelling, and I'd like to say a few things to these groups. I do respectfully disagree.

First of all, I'm proud to be a young gay man. It hasn't been the easiest thing, but it's who I am, and I have come to accept that. I have begun to build a pride, and to be proud of who I am. I am proud of the life I've been given, and the life I intend to create.

I'm in my twenties, and like all people my age, when I meet up with my friends who are also in their twenties, university buddies straight and gay, we talk about our futures. We talk about our dreams. We talk about our passions. We talk about what life is going to be like for us as we start new jobs and step out into this world.

My straight friends talk about marriage, and it just upsets me. I don't understand why I also can't dream of being married one day, finding the man of my dreams, falling in love, being loved, and asking the question, “Will you marry me?”

That I cannot accept, and I will not.

I did want to say something to religious institutions. What I've heard over the past two days is fear, and I'm sorry you are so afraid. You are afraid of the effect of this change on your religious teachings. You're afraid of the future, but you can't change progress.

Young people will not accept traditions and viewpoints of religious teachings that are discriminatory against their friends. Young people are coming out today. Religious service is becoming less relevant for my generation. Attendance is decreasing because of that. It's just not cool to be stuck in the past and to not accept the relationships of your friends around you. It's a shame that you cannot move forward and draw young people in to your service, as you need to, to support your service for the future. So I ask you, think of what you need to do to draw young people in so that you will be able to support your religious institutions.

In closing, very quickly--

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): You're stretching the point here.

Mr. Stace Lum-Yip: I just want to say, on behalf of young people who are looking to the future and are ready to build a life, don't allow discrimination to deny such an important part of our lives. Let us love and be loved, and let us grow up to build a life that includes marriage if we choose. My generation will accept nothing less.

[Applause from the audience]

º (1655)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Renée King, Chris Phibbs, Eric Stephenson.

Ms. Renée King (As Individual): Thank you for this opportunity to speak. I'm here today in spite of how very nervous I am. I am not a public speaker, but this issue is very important to me.

I'm here today to represent my own family and the families in a group I founded, called Alternative Moms Canada. We are a group of same-sex-oriented parents, co-parents, step-parents, and foster parents. Other such support groups exist all across Canada, in every province.

We created these groups to provide support, resources, and validity for our families in a society that does not recognize our families as equal. We are involved in loving, long-term, committed relationships with our same-sex partners. We are raising our nation's children to be happy, healthy, well-rounded, secure, open-minded, and tolerant of the various forms of diversity existing in our society. Our families are healthy and stable.

We come from all ethnic, cultural, and religious backgrounds. We work in all types of professions. We are active, contributing, tax-paying members of this society. We are no different from the rest of Canadians with the exception of our sexual orientation, and yet we are not afforded the same right to marry by our government.

Marriage should be about love, commitment, and building a life together as a family. These are not qualities inherent to heterosexual people. These are human qualities. Anything less than full legal marriage denotes us as second-class citizens. We are not second-class citizens.

As a woman, there once was a time when I was not permitted to vote in this country. That has since changed, and rightfully so. My partner is a woman of colour. There was once a time when interracial marriage was not permitted. That has changed, and rightfully so. It is now time for the Canadian government to recognize the current definition of marriage for what it is, and that is discrimination, and to amend the definition to include same-sex relationships.

I had never before in my life wanted to be married before I met my current partner, and it saddens me deeply to know that I cannot, for I would marry her in a heartbeat if I had the right to do so.

Thank you.

[Applause from the audience]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Chris Phibbs, Eric Stephenson, Van Tran-Adams, and Matthew Tran-Adams.

Okay, I'll go to Eric Stephenson.

[Translation]

Mr. Eric Stephenson (As Individual): I will speak to you as a Franco-Ontarian and a gay person living in Toronto.

I will try to establish the linkage between linguistic minorities, and specifically my Francophone community in Ontario, and sexual minorities, i.e. lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders to show how the theory of linguistic minority communities according to the spirit of the Canadian Constitution can be applied to the issue at hand.

The Canadian Constitution, and more specifically the Canadian Charter of Rights and Liberties, protects linguistic minority rights in Canada. Since passage of the Constitution Act and the Charter in 1982 a legislative theory regarding the situation of linguistic minority communities in Canada has developed. In short, this theory says that the most fragile minority communities will have a better chance to develop their institutions under a set legislative framework.

Since the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Liberties, Francophone minority communities in Canada have legislative tools to establish their own institutions that allow them to develop side-by-side with the majority community. Here are a few examples: the development, mandate and programming of TFO, the network of Franco-Ontarian colleges and the Franco-Saskatchewanian community assembly.

I will now argue that the constitutional principles that define the rights and privileges of Francophone minorities in Canada can also be extended to sexual minorities in this country.

Parliament needs to extend to the gay minority the same rights as to the heterosexual majority. I believe there already exists a precedent for this in the legislative framework that was set up for linguistic minorities. The Canadian Constitution provides linguistic minorities the tools to develop their own institutions. I maintain that this should also be extended to the sexual minority. Thank you.

» (1700)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Merci.

Van Tran-Adams, Matthew Tran-Adams, and Peter Skaliks.

Mr. Van Tran-Adams (As Individual): Hi. It's an honour for me to present my point of view today. I didn't really plan to, but my partner here, who I've been with for the last three years, convinced me. Hearing what I have, I've become more convinced that I should speak.

I haven't made a very well-drafted speech, but here are the major points I wanted to make.

First, I think the Government of Canada has the moral obligation to eradicate ignorance on the part of the various subgroups within society, whether they are religious or hate-based groups.

In terms of monogamy, gay marriage encourages and promotes it. So for anyone who is conservative--and I myself am considered to be a conservative person--if you believe in monogamy, then you should really support gay marriage.

On the point of church and state separation, we don't want to go back to the Middle Ages. Time goes forward, not backwards. By preventing gay people from getting married, you cannot fix the breakdown of straight marriages. The state cannot discriminate against its citizens based on association, and I believe gay marriage is part of freedom of association.

On the point of culture, my Vietnamese ancestors in the 16th century used to persecute white people who came there to trade. So our culture has evolved very much, and certainly I don't want to go back to that era.

On the point of the church, first they told us the earth was flat, and then, when Galileo said that the sun revolved around the earth, they imprisoned him. They pardoned him 500 years later. I don't want to wait for another 500 years.

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

Matthew Tran-Adams

Mr. Matthew Tran-Adams (As Individual): I just want to make two quick points.

First, I believe rights lead to responsibility. Over the last decade or so we've gained very many rights as gay people, and I believe we should take responsibility for those rights. The responsibility in this case would be marriage. You want me to be responsible as a gay person. Sure, okay--give me the rights. I want to be responsible. So I think that's very important. Rights and responsibilities go together.

I just heard some of the MPs voice concerns about how gay marriage would affect society; I think you were interested within the social policy context. I just want to say, I'm an educator within the Toronto District School Board, and I work in a secondary school setting. At the secondary schools in Toronto we have an anti-homophobia policy. They expect us to teach it within every subject, and that's what I do.

There have been situations where I have come across people who have very different perspectives from me, whether they be religious or whatnot, and I believe it's their right to have those beliefs. If you believe I'm going to go to hell because I'm gay, that's your belief, and you're entitled to that belief. So even though I have had those differences in belief with students and other staff members, I've been able to build strong relationships with them.

Within a social policy context, then, I think this is quite possible. I'm proud to be Canadian, and I think that's what “Canadian” is.

Thank you

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thank you very much.

Peter Skaliks, David Rayside, Jawed Akhter.

Mr. Skaliks.

Mr. Peter Skaliks (As Individual): Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I just have a couple or three thoughts.

One of the other panellists pointed out that this was a moral issue--namely, one of equality. I figure, well, being a state taxpayer, among millions of others helping to pay the state's expenses, it annoys me greatly when certain things that I pay for are simply not available but are only for a privileged group. I don't think there should be any privileged groups, particularly in a modern democratic state.

As far as impact on churches, as has been pointed out by a number of people, there are no obligations on the churches. Nobody is saying you have to marry anybody. They don't have to marry anybody now. The pastor can use any one of a hundred different reasons to refuse to marry you, and presumably that will not change. What's being asked for is the ability to go to city hall or some other government office, for which we all pay, and have somebody give you a rubber stamp at a modest cost, as opposed to having to make a whole crew of lawyers rich to get the legal protection that somebody else gets for $35 or $40.

For those people who have their hang-ups on the subject of sexual orientation, they are in fact entitled to their superstitions. What they are not entitled to is to force those superstitions on me and others. I have the same rights they do.

Thank you.

» (1705)

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

David Rayside, Jawed Akhter, and Sherry De Novo.

Mr. David Rayside (As Individual): Thank you. I am a political scientist and associate chair of the political science department at the University of Toronto. I am a gay man, but I'm speaking as a social scientist to one point in particular that I think has arisen.

There are some who quite legitimately raise questions and urge you to radically rethink marriage and to radically rethink how the law treats conjugal relationships. If you choose not to go that route, I think what you should know is that the support for marriage among gays and lesbians is overwhelming, by the way, in both Canada and the United States. It's overwhelming even among those--sometimes especially among those--who themselves have no intention of marrying but who recognize the symbolic value of this and the second-class status implied in creating a parallel regime.

There is absolutely no social science evidence to suggest that the creation of a civil union regime in Vermont, a union civile regime in Quebec, or a domestic partnership regime in Nova Scotia diminishes by one fraction the support for marriage itself because of the symbolic loadings upon that.

So I urge upon you only the point that you should not imagine that there will be substantial support among gays and lesbians themselves for creating a parallel regime.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Jawed Akhter and Sherry De Novo.

Mr. Jawed Akhter (As Individual): Thank you very much for giving me a chance to speak. My name is Jawed Akhter and I work as a counsellor in social services.

I'm a proudly gay, Muslim, and south Asian Canadian. I have suffered for that, being gay, Muslim, and a south Asian person of colour in Pakistan and also in Canada.

Today I am here to talk about gay marriage. In my opinion, marriage is a union of two lovers, and love has no borders. Anyone can fall in love with anyone, regardless of race, gender, religion, colour, creed, and sexual orientation. We cannot control and plan feelings of love, as love is natural, and a beautiful gift of God. Love just happens.

To make feelings of true love and togetherness solid and known, people get married. No one can dictate love and marriage, and no one has a right to do so. Things only get worse when people start putting certain humans in certain boxes and give them labels, causing total exclusion from society.

Gays and lesbians have suffered so horribly because they are denied this basic human right. If they were given this basic right, trust me, our gay community would be a lot different from today. Now we are forced to do things to be seen as different, and that sometimes actually look weird to straight people.

No matter how true and deep our love relationships are, because they cannot be recognized they suffer and suffocate, and most of the time collapse. As a society, we are responsible for this huge hurt. The same happened in the past when most of the time black people were not allowed to marry whites.

When we deny a basic human right to certain people, it only creates terror, hatred, and loss. We are living in modern times. If, as Canadians, we are proud to say that we believe in equality and fairness, then why are we still depriving normal human beings of their basic right to marry and live a happy life? Why are we treating our very own Canadians with double standards just because they are different?

The majority is always afraid of the minority, of change, and of something different. Let us be inclusive and empower each other by treating every human soul the same way and by granting same basic rights to everyone.

» (1710)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Mr. Akhter, time is almost up.

Mr. Jawed Akhter: This is my last sentence.

Fear is the biggest enemy of equality and advancement. Let us release the fear factor, overcome our fears, and say yes to gay marriage. Let us make our Canada a real bastion of freedom and equality for all human beings.

Thank you.

[Applause from the audience]

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

Ms. Sherry De Novo.

The Reverend Sherry De Novo (As Individual): Thank you. It's actually Reverend Doctor Sherry De Novo.

I stand here as a proud member of the United Church of Canada, a church with over three million members and adherents. It's the largest Protestant denomination in Canada, put into effect by an order of Canada in 1925.

Our church includes within it many Korean congregations. My assistant is a Korean, and many of our members are Chinese, Korean, and multi-ethnic.

I also stand here as the person who performed the first legal same-sex marriage in Canada. I'm very proud of that, and so is our congregation proud of that. This was by marrying a same-sex couple by bans--a mistake, of course, but we think it was an act of God by the Registrar General's office in Thunder Bay.

We felt that we were called to perform this marriage. This is a loving, productive couple. We are a largely heterosexual congregation with a growing Sunday school. We have upwards of 100 children on Sundays, most of them from heterosexual couples, many of them from gay and lesbian couples, all playing happily together. That's what heaven looks like.

I want to say something else. You've heard a lot of nonsense about what's in the Bible. I'm a theologian by trade. The largest theology press in the States that theologians look to is Pilgrim Press. They have 17 titles now supporting gay and lesbian marriage. What you're hearing from when you're hearing from Christians is a very small portion of Christians who actually don't read their Bible very well. Jesus said absolutely nothing against homosexuality. Paul did, but he also said women shouldn't speak in church, and he supported slavery.

So I would suggest that people go back to their Bibles and actually read them. I'm always happy to debate biblical lore with anybody who would like to take the time to do so.

Thank you.

[Applause from the audience]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): God moves in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform.

Now, just to show that we are a terribly inclusive and democratic organization, yesterday we read out the names of some people who weren't here, and today we're going to give them one last chance. The names are: Tanya Gulliver, Kathryn Baker-Reed, Jeffrey Luscombe, Stacy Douglas, Diane Phipps, Steven Jackson, Brian Levitt, Noel Nera, Cait Glasson, Mark Davies, Anastazja Pustowka, and Allison Kemper.

None of those folks are here? Okay.

I want to thank all of you for being here. This is as much an endurance contest as anything else. I know that many of you have been here all day, and I really want to thank you for being here and informing our debate.

I also want to acknowledge the contribution of our staff. Probably very few of you realize the work they put in to making this function, but we've gone from Vancouver to Edmonton to Moose Jaw to Steinbach...

I was just going to say, we went off the road in Moose Jaw, but that wasn't the staff's fault.

So we went from Halifax to Sussex, New Brunswick, to Sudbury, to two days in Toronto. After a two-week break we'll be back on the road to Montreal and Iqaluit. It's all due to the very capable assistance we get from these folks who set up and tear down on a daily basis. So I want to thank our staff and the contribution they make for us all.

Again, thank you, and we appreciate your contribution.

We are adjourned.

[Applause from the audience]