JUST Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, April 30, 2003

0905

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

Ms. Maureen Doherty (Executive Director, Qulliit Nunavut Status of Women Council)

The Chair

0910

Ms. Kanayuk Salomonie (Qikiqtani Inuit Association)

Ms. Amanda Ford (Qikiqtani Inuit Association)

0915

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

0920

Ms. Kanayuk Salomonie

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Ms. Kanayuk Salomonie

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Ms. Kanayuk Salomonie

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

0925

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Kanayuk Salomonie

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

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

0930

Ms. Kanayuk Salomonie

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Kanayuk Salomonie

Mr. Richard Marceau

0935

Ms. Kanayuk Salomonie

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Kanayuk Salomonie

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Maureen Doherty

0940

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Maureen Doherty

The Chair

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

0945

The Chair

Ms. Maureen Doherty

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Maureen Doherty

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Ms. Amanda Ford

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

0950

Ms. Kanayuk Salomonie

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.)

Ms. Kanayuk Salomonie

0955

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

The Chair

Ms. Maureen Doherty

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

The Chair

1000

Ms. Amanda Ford

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Amanda Ford

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Amanda Ford

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Amanda Ford

Ms. Maureen Doherty

1005

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

The Chair

1010

The Chair

Mr. James T. Arreak (As Individual)

1015

The Chair

Ms. Allison Brewer (As Individual)

1020

1025

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Mr. James Arreak

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Mr. James Arreak

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. James Arreak

1030

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. James Arreak

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. James Arreak

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. James Arreak

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

1035

Mr. James Arreak

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. James Arreak

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. James Arreak

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Anna Brewer (As Individual)

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Anna Brewer

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Allison Brewer

1040

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. James Arreak

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. James Arreak

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. James Arreak

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. James Arreak

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

1045

Mr. James Arreak

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. James Arreak

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. James Arreak

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. James Arreak

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. James Arreak

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. James Arreak

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. James Arreak

1050

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. James Arreak

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. James Arreak

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. James Arreak

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. James Arreak

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

1055

Mr. James Arreak

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. James Arreak

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. James Arreak

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. James Arreak

1100

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

1110

The Chair

1115

Mr. Chris Grosset (As Individual)

The Chair

1120

Ms. Virginia Larsson (As Individual)

1125

The Chair

Ms. Virginia Larsson

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Prof. Bryon Doherty (As Individual)

1130

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Prof. Bryon Doherty

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Prof. Bryon Doherty

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

1135

Prof. Bryon Doherty

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Prof. Bryon Doherty

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Prof. Bryon Doherty

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Prof. Bryon Doherty

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Prof. Bryon Doherty

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Prof. Bryon Doherty

1140

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Prof. Bryon Doherty

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Virginia Larsson

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Virginia Larsson

1145

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Virginia Larsson

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Virginia Larsson

Mr. Richard Marceau

1150

Ms. Virginia Larsson

The Chair

Ms. Virginia Larsson

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Prof. Bryon Doherty

1155

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Prof. Bryon Doherty

Ms. Virginia Larsson

Prof. Bryon Doherty

1200

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

The Chair

Prof. Bryon Doherty

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Ms. Virginia Larsson

The Chair

1205

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Ms. Virginia Larsson

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Virginia Larsson

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Virginia Larsson

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Virginia Larsson

The Chair

Mr. Chris Grosset

The Chair

Prof. Bryon Doherty

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Chris Grosset

Mr. Richard Marceau

1210

Mr. Chris Grosset

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

1305

The Chair

Ms. Sky Aurora Wah-Shee (As Individual)

The Chair

Ms. Sky Aurora Wah-Shee

The Chair

Ms. Sky Aurora Wah-Shee

The Chair

Mr. Chris Wilson (As Individual)

1310

The Chair

Mr. Chris Wilson

Ms. Sky Aurora Wah-Shee

Ms. Gail Girard (As Individual)

Ms. Sky Aurora Wah-Shee

Mr. Mark O'Keefe (As Individual)

1315

Ms. Sky Aurora Wah-Shee

Mr. Jason Carpenter (As Individual)

Ms. Sky Aurora Wah-Shee

Mr. Steve Wood (As Individual)

The Chair

1320

Ms. Sky Aurora Wah-Shee

Mr. Steven Bill (As Individual)

The Chair

Ms. Sky Aurora Wah-Shee

Mr. Wayne Moore (As Individual)

1325

The Chair

Ms. Sky Aurora Wah-Shee

Ms. May Aupaloota (As Individual)

Ms. Sky Aurora Wah-Shee

The Chair

Ms. Sky Aurora Wah-Shee

Ms. Natsiapik Naqlinanig (As Individual)

Ms. Sky Aurora Wah-Shee

Ms. Elisapi Davidee (As Individual)

1330

The Chair

Ms. Elisapi Davidee

Ms. Sky Aurora Wah-Shee

Ms. Enoapik Sageatok (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Sean Doherty (As Individual)

The Chair

Ms. Sky Aurora Wah-Shee

1335

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

NUMBER 040

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, April 30, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): Order, please.

I call to order the 40th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee is resuming its study on marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions.

It's a pleasure to be here. We all feel very fortunate to be visiting Iqaluit and Nunavut today. We have members of Parliament from British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Quebec, Ontario, and best of all, New Brunswick. This will be our final hearing in our cross-Canada consultations. We'll have additional meetings in Ottawa, but this will be our final consultation taking us across the country.

From now to 10 o'clock or shortly after, we have two witnesses. I'm going to leave the pronunciation of the organizations to the witnesses, but they are represented by Maureen Doherty, Amanda Ford, and Kanayuk Salomonie.

As I think has been explained, each group is asked to make no more than a seven-minute presentation. When you have one minute left, I'm going to indicate there's one minute left, and when we're out of time I'm going to let you know. At that point, I'd like you to bring the comments to a close. That way we have the opportunity for the members of the committee to engage with the panel in questions and answers.

So without further ado, I'm going to call on Maureen Doherty. I'd like you to identify the organization.

Ms. Maureen Doherty (Executive Director, Qulliit Nunavut Status of Women Council): Uplaakut, good morning. My name is Maureen Doherty. I'm speaking today as the executive director of Qulliit Nunavut Status of Women Council.

Our president, Madeleine Qumuatuq, was planning to present on behalf of the council but was unable to be here due to weather in Pangnirtung.

I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Human Rights and Justice for this opportunity to make a submission on behalf of the council, and I welcome you to Iqaluit.

It is laudable that the Government of Canada has chosen to consult with Canadians to hear their views on marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions. It is even more laudable that you have chosen to include the views of Nunavummiut in your consultations.

The mandate of Qulliit Nunavut Status of Women Council is to advance the goal of equal participation of women in society and to promote changes in social, legal, and economic structures to that end. The council helps to develop awareness of issues affecting the status of women and promotes changes in attitudes within the community in order that women may enjoy equality of opportunity. The council recently made a submission to the standing committee of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut in regard to the proposed human rights legislation. The council recommends legislation, policies, and practices to improve the equality of opportunity for women and to improve the status of women. Our council advocates for the equality of all women in Nunavut, regardless of race, sexual orientation, religion, ability, or age.

The right to marry is a privilege that many opposite-sex couples take for granted. Marriage is a choice that opposite-sex couples can make. Many couples choose not to marry, but they do have choice. Same-sex couples in Canada do not have the right to marry their partner, nor do they have legal recognition of their committed relationships. This creates two classes of Canadians--those who can marry and those who can't. The current legislation, which defines marriage as the union of man and woman, is clearly discriminatory and outdated.

In 1927, five courageous Canadian women, now known as the Famous Five, challenged the Supreme Court of Canada to have women declared persons so they could hold seats in the Senate. They knew that the legislation prohibiting women from holding public office was unjust. Their fight for justice took them to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, England. The persons case, as it is known, was finally won in 1929. However, none of the Famous Five were later appointed to the Senate.

Today, provincial and territorial advisory councils on the status of women continue to advocate for changes to discriminatory legislation that adversely affects women. The current marriage legislation that prohibits same-sex couples from legal marriage is an example of the continued oppression of lesbians in our country. This must not be tolerated.

Qulliit Nunavut Status of Women Council recognizes that the rights of all women, including lesbians, should be protected through human rights legislation. Those rights should also include the right to have their relationships formally recognized through marriage.

Sometimes we have to do what is right in spite of the voice of opposition. The Famous Five proved to Canadian women that we should never give up, that we must fight for what is right and just. Discriminatory legislation is simply wrong and must be amended. A century ago women could not yet vote or own property in this country. Ongoing changes to the laws in our country are a responsibility of a democratic government. Changes in societal attitudes will follow, but the government must be proactive in protecting and granting equal rights to its citizens.

Same-sex couples do not need some lesser category of civil union any more than women needed a special senate. Women took their seats alongside men. Same-sex couples should have the right to marry and the laws must be amended accordingly.

Last summer I had the privilege of attending the wedding of my cousin to her same-sex partner. I was raised in a very religious family, and this event was approached with a certain amount of fear and trepidation for many of my relatives. My father, a retired Anglican priest, struggled with his love for his great-niece and his desire to support her, yet felt torn by the teachings of the church. In the end, he attended the ceremony, read a lesson from the Bible about love, and gave a wonderful grace asking Jesus to be present at our family's wedding just as he had been at the wedding in Canaan. If my 86-year-old father is any indication, I suggest to you that most Canadians are indeed quite ready to accept the marriage of gays and lesbians.

Thank you. Nakurmiik.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I now go to Ms. Salamonie and Ms. Ford, for seven minutes.

¿ (0910)

Ms. Kanayuk Salomonie (Qikiqtani Inuit Association): [Witness speaks in her native language] Thank you that the people of Nunavut were considered to be a part of this meeting. I represent the women's issues department of Qikiqtani Inuit Association. I will be reading from the written concerns from the communities regarding same sex marriages.

The church ministers marry couples because he is ordained. It is because ministers are viewed as having to show compassion for all Inuit. If they refuse to do so; they are questioned. So what happens then is that the minister of the church decides to show that compassion and marry the couple according to their wishes even if it were against his own judgement. Also now that we have a Nunavut territory, we really do have to be in support of that practice. We cannot just be aware of these things anymore; we have to learn to have better understanding. God made two human beings, he made it very clear: one man and one woman. We cannot just be aware of that fact. This topic has been talked about by ministers as well, so therefore it does not seem right. I do not agree with same-sex marriages for Inuit, we have never heard or seen it being a part of our forefathers' culture; I don't want that happening in Nunavut area. We don't want that to be okayed. We do not want it to be passed, but it will be passed; just like our old writing system was taken away and replaced by another; it will no doubt be passed because what Inuit want is of no use.

A dog that cannot talk, I feel now is much better listener than a person who can. Men should not have sex with other men; women should not have sex with other women. I believe now that dogs know better than human beings on their sexual behavior. These are the concerns of the people from Cape Dorset regarding same-sex marriages. Thank you for listening.

Ms. Amanda Ford (Qikiqtani Inuit Association): Thank you.

I'm here this morning to support people who choose to go with the same sex. I have been looking for a written submission from people who have relationships with the same sex so I can express what they think or would like changed.

The gay and lesbian people we see every day walking down the street, greeting you and me, are our friends and family members, but I find a lot of them scared to come out and say they are gay and lesbian, because friends and family members turn against them or tell them they feel it is wrong or even unacceptable. But who has the right to say it is not right or to tell someone how they should feel for another person? They are only hurting them; they are not accepting them for who they really are. We should give support to couples who are in committed relationships.

I would also like to say I have friends and relatives who are gay and lesbian, and they are wonderful people who haven't changed the way they act. They don't tell me how to live my life, but they are still there for me and are very supportive and caring. They deserve our support. Who they decide to fall in love with and share the rest of their lives with does not change who they are, but society can do a lot of damage by telling them that being in love with or caring for someone of the same sex is wrong.

In our society today, same-sex couples should be recognized and supported. In our culture, we have a lot of same-sex couples who are hiding behind closed doors. Should this be the case? They are humans and do not deserve to have to hide behind closed doors.

Same-sex couples should have the right to have their relationships recognized by the government. They should be allowed to marry and have the rights and privileges that other citizens of Canada have. It is important that this committee should make changes to the Marriage Act to recognize same-sex relationships.

¿ (0915)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I will now go to Mr. Breitkreuz for seven minutes.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much for coming before the committee this morning. It's good to be here and to hear your submissions.

Did I hear correctly that one of you advocated that church ministers should marry people even if they don't believe, in their church, that this is the right thing to do?

The Chair: To whom is the question put, Mr. Breitkreuz?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Ms. Salomonie.

The Chair: I think we need an oral answer for our record.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Do you need more explanation on the question?

The Chair: I think she indicated yes, but she didn't say it, and we need it on the record.

So we need to hear you say it.

¿ (0920)

Ms. Kanayuk Salomonie: [Witness speaks in her native language] Thank you. The way it is, is that the church ministers can marry people because they are ordained to do so. They can be viewed as people who have to show compassion to all people; and if they refuse to conduct the service they can be questioned as to whether they do have compassion. So then they, the ministers showing their love for all, will conduct a marriage even if they do not agree with it personally. That is what is written in what I read

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I think this is really the first time we've heard somebody advocate for this. The concern I would have is, do we not also have to show respect the other way around? If someone does not believe this is the right thing to do, we should not force them to do that.

Ms. Kanayuk Salomonie: [Witness speaks in her native language] I am reading from the notes of what was said in a meeting. The minister has to agree when there's going to be a wedding. He has to abide by what people want. For example, even if he did not want to he would have to. That is what was spoken of.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I need some clarification as well on the example of the dogs. I perhaps lost something in the translation. I'm trying to determine how that ties in with our discussion here.

Ms. Kanayuk Salomonie: [Witness speaks in her native language] What was said at that meeting was that dogs have better sense now than human beings. Women should not become a couple with other women; men should not become a couple with other men so therefore dogs do seem to know better than human beings. That was what was said. I feel that it's because Inuit do not approve of same sex couples that it was why it was said that.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I don't have any more questions.

¿ (0925)

The Chair: Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): To the same witness, I guess what Mr. Breitkreuz is trying to get at, and which I would certainly like to understand, is whether the witness feels that if their particular religion does not condone same-sex marriage, the clergy should be forced by law to perform it. Are you talking about a moral obligation or about a legal obligation forcing them under the law to perform a same-sex marriage?

Ms. Kanayuk Salomonie: [Witness speaks in her native language] Inuit, particularly ministers do not agree with same sex marriages. Because Inuit do not agree with that, that was why it was said because it has been taught that way by the ministers. I have not personally said that at church, but have heard it talked about in public according to Inuit laws in the Arctic. It was said that way. Thank you.

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

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will ask my questions in French.

First, I would like to thank you for being here this morning. It's a great pleasure for us.

Many times before this committee, we heard a very Euro-centered history and vision of the position or treatment of gays and lesbians over time. Ms. Salomonie mentioned that there have always been gays and lesbians, and I assume she was also talking about the Inuits. Would one of you be kind enough to explain how gays and lesbians have been treated historically and tell me if things have changed recently?

¿ (0930)

[English]

Ms. Kanayuk Salomonie: [Witness speaks in her native language] I don't know personally if there are gay and lesbian people among Inuit, but we have learned of this of southern peoples. I have never heard of any aboriginal people being either gay or lesbian...

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Am I to understand that the gay and lesbian issue is recent, that it only showed up in the last 20 years?

[English]

Ms. Kanayuk Salomonie: [Witness speaks in her native language] It was just recently we heard of lesbian couples and gay couples, and because of this new knowledge there is prejudice towards same sex couples. We Inuit have never before heard of this amongst Inuit, but have heard it from the qallunaat.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Ms. Salomonie, am I to understand from your first answer that the whole gay and lesbian issue is something relatively recent that did not exist before the contact with Whites?

¿ (0935)

[English]

Ms. Kanayuk Salomonie: [Witness speaks in her native language] There were no qallunaat (white people) in our land for a long time; though I was born after the qallunaat came, same sex was not practiced in Inuit culture. And it's because of that we are not accustomed to same sex unions. It hasn't been long since we first started hearing of it; we started hearing of same sex couples in the last 20 or 30 years.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: It's been mentioned many times before this committee that the only good way to raise children was to have them living in a family where there is a dad, a mom and children. Is this family model the only one known in Inuit culture and tradition?

[English]

Ms. Kanayuk Salomonie: [Witness speaks in her native language] That is the way we were brought up; male children were brought up to be men, female children brought up to be women; Also Inuit brought up their children on how they would be as adults, men would take a wife, women would take a husband, they would be told these things from their early childhood. I have never once heard anyone tell their child that once they grew up they would take as a partner someone who is the same sex as they are.

The Chair: Mr. Marceau, I'm going to give you both rounds at the same time, while we're configured in the way we are now. So we'll just continue.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Ms. Doherty, I would like to know what you think about what was raised by Ms. Salomonie, which is that eventually, ministers or priests could be forced to marry same-sex partners.

According to you, would it not be better to strike a balance by allowing the state and different denominations to marry same-sex partners if desired, without however making it an obligation for those who do not want to do so? This is a concern that was expressed many times before this committee.

[English]

Ms. Maureen Doherty: Thank you.

My understanding of what Ms. Salomonie was saying is that she might have concerns about ministers being put in a situation of feeling obliged to marry.

I guess I can speak personally. While I can't really speak on behalf of the council on this matter, my understanding is that changes to the legislation to recognize the legality of same-sex unions as marriages should not necessarily have implications that force the churches or religion to do the same. My father has been a minister for many, many years, and I grew up in the church. My understanding has been that religious organizations have the right to make their own rules and laws, and that changing those should not be imposed upon them. These are separate structures. I certainly know that within the Anglican Church there is a synod; I know that in other religions they have other ways. These allow religious organizations to accept and make changes as they see fit, but not to be legally bound to do so.

However, I think it's extremely important that the government, which represents all, ensure that the legislation we have in place is not discriminatory and would allow full recognition of same-sex unions. But I don't think they should be enforcing or imposing this on religious bodies. They have their own ways of shifting and changing.

¿ (0940)

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I would like to ask another question, Mr. Chairman.

The Nunavut Status of Women Council eloquently defends the right to marriage for same-sex partners. However, if I understand what you're saying, you would have no objection, if this committee decided to allow same-sex partners to marry, to including in an act an article protecting the right of ministers, churches, synagogues or mosques to refuse to marry these partners and ensuring that no legal or fiscal penalty would be imposed upon them for doing so. Is that correct?

[English]

Ms. Maureen Doherty: It may sound contradictory, but I do believe that is the case. We know there have been changes within religious organizations to accommodate women, and certainly within my own church, the Anglican Church, that has been the case. When I was born, women were not allowed to become clergy. Those changes have not been imposed by the government; they have come up within the feminist movement within the church.

I believe it's not the place of the state to determine how religion should function. It is the duty of the members of those organizations to advocate for equality for the members within those organizations.

The Chair: Merci. Thank you.

Now I go to Mrs. Jennings for seven minutes.

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

Thank you very much for your presentation. We've heard a number of arguments justifying either organizations', religious institutions', or individual personal opposition to legal recognition of same-sex marriage. I would like to very briefly explain some of the arguments that have been given to justify this opposition and I'd like to hear what each of you thinks about these arguments.

One of the arguments is that there is an inherently procreative relationship between a man and a woman and therefore the state has a responsibility to protect that relationship and the children who result from it. The same individual who put forward that argument said there is a presumption that children need a mother and a father and that preferably it should be their own biological parents.

Another is that discrimination to redress inequality of a vulnerable group does not mean that you cannot make distinctions, and distinction does not mean discrimination. One can make a distinction between different groups, and that is not synonymous to discrimination.

The last one is the complementarity of the sexes. The argument is that marriage is the only vehicle that recognizes the complementarity between the sexes. We've heard many arguments against that, but I would ask that you address those arguments that are being put forward by individuals, organizations, and religious institutions to oppose the state recognizing same-sex marriage.

I'd like a response from all three, each one in turn.

¿ (0945)

The Chair: Ms. Doherty.

Ms. Maureen Doherty: First of all, in regard to the issue of procreation. I would say the low birth rate in Canada would say that if procreation is the purpose or function of marriage, we're not doing a very good job as a country. I think that argument is really very outdated. We have certainly recognized the rights of elderly couples, couples who could not bear children, etc. That argument seems to me very weak.

I think certainly there are many gay and lesbian families that have children and are doing a wonderful job raising those children. In my 20 years of experience living in Nunavut, in this region, I've learned that family is very flexible, very extended. Family is really about a loving relationship, and I would say that it has very little to do with the gender of the couple involved.

As for the complementary aspect, I feel that really a committed, loving relationship, and the recognition of that, is what we're talking about .

I've forgotten what your third point was.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: The complementarity of the sexes, therefore marriage needs to be kept as a preserve for heterosexual couples.

Ms. Maureen Doherty: I think the same argument could have kept women from receiving the vote, could have kept women from public office, etc.--to say “except for” or to define one group as being an exception. We have to start to change our lives with the times. It's time for this piece of legislation to be changed and amended and not to be discriminatory, and to exclude a group would be discriminatory.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

The Chair: Ms. Salomonie, or Ms. Ford.

Ms. Amanda Ford: I feel really out of place here. All I wanted to present--

The Chair: You should have seen these people when they started. It's amazing.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Although I asked the question to each of you, if you don't wish to answer the question, feel comfortable not to. I have a series of other questions. In fact, Ms. Salomonie, if you don't wish to answer the question, I do have several other questions I can go to. Ms. Doherty gave a complete answer, I believe.

I'll go to another question.

Ms. Salomonie, you talked about how in the Inuit community harmony is very important. It's one of the fundamental bedrocks or foundations of your community. I wish to discuss the issue of religious freedom. A number of religious institutions have come to say that according to their dogma, their belief, homosexuality and marriage between homosexual couples cannot be condoned within their religious institutions. But because they recognize the religious freedoms of other religions that may, or do, recognize homosexuality as a legitimate normal activity, and the other religious institutions do wish to marry lesbians and gay couples, they would want the state, the government--if we change the definition of marriage to allow marriage between the same sexes--to ensure that no religious group that doesn't condone marriage between same sexes be forced to marry. That is to ensure that each group can exercise their own religious beliefs.

Would that create the harmony, for instance, within the Inuit culture that you were talking about, so that if there are Inuit whose religious beliefs would encourage recognition of marriage between same-sex couples, they would be able to do so, and other religious groups within the Inuit culture that do not recognize same-sex couples would not be forced to marry?

¿ (0950)

Ms. Kanayuk Salomonie: [Witness speaks in her native language] It has always been practiced that, for example, we all are born either male or female with a father and a mother. That is one of the reasons why some Inuit once they grow up start searching for their birth fathers or mothers; So then too a child being raised by two women only, will be aware that he/she should have a father. Same with a child who's being raised by two men only, would know that he/she should have a mother, needs a mother if gay men should a adopt a child; only a male and female can make a child. Same sex couples cannot make a child; how would that turn out? For example, children who were fathered by qallunaat have searched for years for the men who fathered them; and have questioned their mothers for answers. Have I made it clear that a child needs both a mother and father, in regards to same sex couple who would think to bring up a child together?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Macklin.

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

I see that part of the concern we have is trying to benefit from the cultural background that is being brought to the table today, and to understand from that culture whether in fact we can learn something unique. Obviously, what you've just expressed is a concern for procreation, obviously a need within your culture to carry on that culture.

Although I believe it was stated earlier that in fact there was not a specific recognition of gays and lesbians within your culture, did you see any potential concerns for those who were expressing emotional concern because in fact they pursued a heterosexual lifestyle that was not of their true emotional feeling? Have you seen examples of that within your society, within your culture?

I would put this question particularly to Ms. Salomonie.

Ms. Kanayuk Salomonie: [Witness speaks in her native language] I do not know when the same sex couples recognition started amongst Inuit. Maybe it will then be recognized after a number of years have passed. But if same sex couples marriages are to be recognized now, it is far too soon for Inuit to accept it. It has not become a part of Inuit lifestyle yet, though it is becoming to be a part amongst Inuit, for example it is greatly opposed to among Inuit communities in particular in the Nunavut area. We are in no rush to recognize same sex marriages as it is being integrated, we are going through a process of what is happening universally, but we Inuit are in no great rush. There is no doubt that it will become recognized as it is slowly becoming a part of our culture.

¿ (0955)

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Does anyone want to make a comment? Ms. Doherty.

Ms. Maureen Doherty: I also wanted to respond to that. Because of what I heard from Amanda Ford this morning, and certainly through my role with the Nunavut Status of Women Council, I certainly am aware that there are Inuit gays and lesbians in the north, some of whom have moved south to larger centres so that they can feel free to live their lives. There's a certain amount of fear and there are safety issues. I think that's what I heard expressed from Amanda this morning as well, that there are those who cannot appear today because they don't feel safe.

I think that needs to be acknowledged, and certainly part of our role at the Status of Women Council is to hear the concerns of all women, and we do get those kinds of calls. There are couples in the north, definitely, who may choose to exercise their right to marry should they be afforded that right.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Are you seeing evidence of the emotional problems or difficulties because they are forced into a mould, as I say, from a cultural perspective, that otherwise, if they were given full freedom to choose and to express themselves, would lead them to, I suppose, a better position in terms of mental health and better fitting within the society?

The Chair: Ms. Ford.

À (1000)

Ms. Amanda Ford: I was trying to get written submissions from people who go with the same sex, but they were scared to come out. Family or friends may have told them that what they are doing is wrong.

I think we have to try to put it out more to make it acceptable. I had a very hard time trying to get people to come forward.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: From your perspective, it sounds as if you're having greater difficulties with the acceptance of a homosexual lifestyle within this culture than within other cultures in our society. Is that a fair comment?

Ms. Amanda Ford: I think they're scared to come out. We know there are gays and lesbians out there, but they're scared to come out. There are a lot of people who know they are lesbians and gays, but they're scared to be open about it.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Are you submitting, then, that you believe it would be helpful for same-sex marriage to be recognized civilly in order to assist in raising the protection?

Ms. Amanda Ford: That would be a big step in making it more acceptable. That would be one way of making it acceptable.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Although not directly on topic, do you see other ways in which we, as a government, could be helping in that regard, in terms of assisting in education or other ways in which we could help advance the cause of those who are being discriminated against?

Ms. Amanda Ford: Do you want to help me?

Ms. Maureen Doherty: We were having a meeting last night on the issue of support for youth in the north. There is already a geographic isolation and sometimes a lack of a sense of support or community. Especially for young people who may be coming out, some kind of support through a help line or crisis line and support services for gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth, I think, would be very important.

À (1005)

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Thank you to the panel. I particularly appreciate our panellists who would be unfamiliar with the process. It takes a certain amount of courage to do this. I never did it until I was an MP, so I do have some admiration.

I want to thank the committee. I want to thank the technical folks for helping us deal with an added dimension to our interpretation process.

I'm going to suspend the hearings for three minutes. I'd like the next panel--I suspect you're here--to come to the table.

I thank the panel very much for the first hour of this morning's hearings.

I suspend for three minutes.

À (1005)

À (1009)

À (1010)

The Chair: I call back to order the 40th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights as we continue our study on marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions.

From now until 11 o'clock we will be hearing from two witnesses as individuals, James Arreak and Allison Brewer--and Anna. You'll forgive me, panel, for paying particular...I want to say hi to Allison and Anna, as they are expatriate Frederictonians. It's nice to see them.

So with that, I'm going to start. You know the rules. At six minutes I'll do this, and at seven minutes I'll do this. And you don't want to see what happens when it goes beyond that.

Mr. Arreak, for seven minutes, please.

Mr. James T. Arreak (As Individual): [Witness speaks in his native language]

I want to welcome this committee to Nunavut and I would also like to thank you for giving me this chance to present to you my opinions and values.

I believe I will be representing many Inuit, if not the majority, in this presentation. Inuit, particularly elders, tend to go with the flow, but not because they approve of homosexuality. Elders unfortunately [Witness speaks in his native language], meaning that a parent allows a child to have their own way, whether it's right or wrong, out of fear the child will lose their temper.

Today I will not allow the elders to be ignored, but before I introduce my premise I want to establish some things so you don't misunderstand me.

My name is James Arreak. I grew up in Pond Inlet with a loving mother and father. I finished my high school in Yellowknife and I went on to university and graduated with a commerce degree. But today I'm a pastor and also a business owner in the community. I have held a number of senior positions in both the corporate and government sectors, and I've been very active in developing some of the pillars of Nunavut.

Our territory has a long way to go to integrate the values of Inuit and there are no easy solutions, but I believe Inuit are still at a vulnerable stage.

Let me start off saying that every human being is entitled to respect and acceptance. I do think gay people are misunderstood. They have been rejected and excluded in many circles. This is perhaps the best time to extend our sincere expression of regret and reach out to them in love and acceptance.

But I must emphasize, while I'm expressing compassion, many Inuit and other leaders feel morally obligated to oppose the radical agenda of the gay rights movement. What gay rights activists are trying to push in Canada is wrong, and it must be resisted in the appropriate way.

I want you to understand that I love people whether they're black, brown, or yes, even gay. I love them and accept them. I'm here to say that the fact that we love them does not mean we accept what their lifestyle offers.

Acceptance means acknowledging what is true. It does not mean you compromise your convictions about what constitutes right and wrong. Today we need wisdom to deal with the complications of life. Wisdom is not just knowledge. Wisdom is knowing how to use knowledge, as a carver uses a tool to carve out the carving.

In some ways I have been disturbed by some of the comments that have been raised. What is right? Oh, it's only a relative term. I have been working with young people extensively for the last six years, and particularly in our young people I have seen confusion. Why? Because the concept of right and wrong has been watered down to a relative term.

À (1015)

If some people think I'm promoting hatred against homosexuals, I would ask you to think again. The question is, who is endeavouring to hurt whom? I have never thrown a rock or uttered a hateful word about homosexual people. My intent is not to hurt homosexuals or to ridicule homosexuals, but I do find myself in sharp disagreement with some of the radical elements of the movement. The efforts to redefine the family, to qualify for adoption, to promote homosexual lifestyles in schools are objectives with which I disagree. I will oppose them. Does that make me a hate-monger? I don't think so. I'm not a hate-monger.

This raises another question. Are homosexuals really disadvantaged? According to my research, gays tend to be better educated than the average person. They earn more money than most people. And when it comes to political clout, gay people have Hollywood, the press, the media, the universities, and even the judiciary enforcing the politically correct agenda. Because it's a politically correct agenda, it doesn't mean it's right.

I hope you can see that my opposition to the gay movement is not an expression of hate, but one of social justice and common sense.

I cannot sit here today and say that a homosexual activity never happened with the Inuit. It probably happens in isolated circumstances, but if all Inuit were homosexuals, I can guarantee you that I would not be here today. Inuit values prioritize survival and community life.

I believe that if the Inuit had to deal with this today, our elders would declare that homosexuality is not morally right. I have heard many elders and other Inuit say that the gay agenda is not for them. In Nunavut, Inuit values are saying that homosexuality is not appropriate.

Some probably would think that Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, IQ, makes room for homosexuality. If this is what you think, you would be misunderstanding Inuit and IQ. IQ is not about sexual orientation, it's about survival, and if we use IQ to evaluate the issue that is before us, I believe the majority of Inuit would conclude...using their own values.

So, in conclusion, I believe the majority of Inuit are not in favour of same-sex marriage and union. The Inuit need to be understood. Because most of them are quiet, it does not mean they support the issue. Many believe that marriage was created by God and not by man. In my experience, the majority of Inuit strongly believe in the word of God. The people have voluntarily chosen to believe, because obedience to the word of God brings blessings. And to alter the meaning of marriage to include same-sex relationships would mean defying the original intent of marriage.

So the Inuit do not want the homosexual agenda to be adopted.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Brewer and Ms. Brewer.

Ms. Allison Brewer (As Individual): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee members, and fellow witnesses today.

I should probably begin by introducing Anna. She is one of my three children. Another one, Will, is here in the room. I believe that only one could come to the table, and Anna lost the toss of the coin, so she is here with me. She's not going to speak as such, but she will be prepared to answer questions, I believe, afterwards.

Part of me wants to thank you for this opportunity to make this presentation here today, and I do appreciate your coming all the way to Iqaluit for this. However, the other part feels really humiliated, having to come here hat in hand, and I expect by the end of the day I will have had my fill of the reading of scripture, at least one attempt to tie crimes like pedophilia or polygamy to the issue, and a whole bunch of inferences to my being a lesser Canadian than someone who lives a heterosexual lifestyle.

My first child was born in a hospital in northern New Brunswick in 1984. The policy of the hospital at the time was that only the father of the child could visit when the baby was in the room. As I railed up and down the halls protesting that I was the father of that child my partner was holding in her arms, my brother-in-law joked that all he had to do was say he was the father and he would be granted access. It didn't seem so funny at the time, but his point was well taken. I am not in fact the father of that child, who is now just finishing his first year of university, but the validity of my relationship with him as a parent still holds, as does the validity of my former partner in her role as the parent of my birth children.

That's the reality. The myth is that we weren't the real parents of each other's children, even though we raised them from birth and they knew no other parents than ourselves. Another reality is that for 20 years my partner and I lived in a relationship that exhibited all the trappings of a marriage. We held property together, had children, and created a home that was filled with love and laughter and a nurturing environment in which to raise our family.

For years, that relationship that began in 1981 lacked any real legal recognition. We shared few of the rights and responsibilities of a heterosexual married couple, yet faced all the same challenges of child rearing and relationship building as many of our heterosexual counterparts. But over time, that changed. Canadians, through the courts and Parliament, began to recognize that all citizens are entitled to equal freedoms and that too many of their laws and institutions were fashioned in such a way as to exclude a part of the population. Canada, which has been a leader internationally in the area of human rights, has begun the process of including all its citizens.

Earlier this year, I watched a film about four black students from North Carolina who on February 1, 1960, took seats at the segregated lunch counter at F.W. Woolworth's in Greenboro, North Carolina. They were refused service and sat peacefully until the store closed. That action inspired similar sit-ins across the state, and by the end of February such protests were taking place across the south. Finally, in July, Woolworth's integrated all of its stores.

It was an inspiring film, documenting a struggle we can barely imagine today. One of the things that struck me was that while it contained its fair share of bad guys, who were openly hostile to the protesters as well as white supporters, it also contained a number of whites who, while they didn't seem to object to the presence of blacks at the lunch counter, simply sat back and drank their coffee. As I watched the film, I wasn't sure who I found more offensive, those who were openly racist or those who were merely content to take part in white privilege and not contribute one way or the other to recognizing the dignity and advancing the human rights of another human being.

À (1020)

While we have not been without our fair share of racist policies in Canada, we have not seen the widespread and blatant racial segregation to the same extent as in the Untied States. Indeed, in Canada we don't have the same violent and tumultuous history of social change, but that does not mean that we are all eating at the same lunch counter. There are some of you who partake in a social privilege that my community can only imagine. But I'm optimistic that change is in the air. If it weren't, you wouldn't be here.

I see this committee as having a dual role. One part is to protect the canary in the coal mine, the harbingers of the death of certain long-held traditions, but at the same time you are the doves who bring to us--and maybe particularly to me today--the welcome news that change is in the offing. And change doesn't mean destruction; it represents a recognition that life is not static and that we in the human race have the ability to evolve.

I've a belief that we as Canadians have a particular ability to evolve. When I started in this movement in 1979, we were simply looking for a place to dance, and for that small pleasure we had to fight. Now, some 25 years later, our right to dance is protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act, and dozens of laws have been amended to reflect that protection. Canadians, for the most part, are content that their values are not only protected but shared with those they would have at one time considered strangers in their midst.

I would like you to imagine a Canada in which interracial marriages are not only frowned upon but also not recognized by the state; where if a Jew were to marry a Catholic, they would have to register their union rather than declare themselves married; and where, were couples to choose not to have children, they would only be allowed a commitment ceremony, not the rights and responsibilities of those who choose to procreate.

Our community has never asked for special recognition in any of our negotiations with the government, nor do we ask for special recognition now. I ask you not to support the idea of registered domestic partnerships or any other recognition of same-sex unions that sets our relationships apart. I recommend that you support same-sex marriage and allow those religious institutions that are already performing ceremonies to carry on within the bounds of Canadian law.

In conclusion, I would like to congratulate you for the work you are doing through these hearings and for providing Canadians with a forum through which to express their views on marriage and same-sex unions. I expect your deliberations will be difficult, but not without the sorts of rewards that will come when one day you all realize you are part of a process that examined a fundamental social institution and made it right for all Canadians.

Thank you.

À (1025)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

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

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

I just have a brief question. I think Mr. Breitkreuz will split the time with me.

Mr. Arreak, you're on the record, and you obviously know what your position is. What would your opinion be, or could you comment on how you would feel, about the idea of a registered domestic partnership as a way of recognizing same-sex unions, although it would not be called marriage?

Mr. James Arreak: In all events, I found in my research that there is no gay gene; science cannot prove that people are born gay. Therefore, I would find it difficult to support that kind of definition.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: The partnership would essentially be a contractual arrangement where the same sex-union would essentially be given all the legal recognition, but it would not be called marriage per se.

Mr. James Arreak: My opinion, sir, is that marriage is a contract. So any contract would sum up to a marriage-like situation. That's just my opinion.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: That's fine; that's what we're here to hear.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you very much, Mr. Arreak, for appearing before this committee. I will direct my questions to you.

It's very important that we hear from Canada's aboriginal people, and it takes a lot of courage for you to come before the committee. It can be a very intimidating thing, but I assure you that we are all ordinary folks.

You made some comments that I would like you to elaborate on. One of them was that you feel that the Inuit are at a very vulnerable stage at this point. I think that a previous witness here was almost discussing something that was foreign to her culture. I wonder if you would elaborate on that statement.

Mr. James Arreak: The issue of vulnerability arises because the values of Inuit are still not established in the government and laws of this state. This is why the laws of this state need to take the time to consider what Inuit believe their values and morals to be, which need to be respected in the government. This is why I see no reason to rush in establishing legislation because of the situation.

À (1030)

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Your answers are very concise and to the point.

I think many people in the rest of Canada do not understand the culture of the Inuit. Are you aware of anything in their culture that would address the issue that we are here to deal with today?

Mr. James Arreak: In my paper, I gave you a sample of an evaluation using the IQ terms. The reason I believe the homosexual lifestyle would not be approved is based on survival. Survival is the priority; so is the community and the family. So these are the reasons I would refer you to my paper, which I used in making this evaluation of the situation based on Inuit customs and values.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you.

I think if we were to go back to our own heritage, we'd probably find common ground in that respect.

Further on in your presentation, you also said that families are very important. Could you explain to us what you mean by that and what constitutes family in the Inuit culture? Could you just give us some background.

Mr. James Arreak: The definition of family to the Inuit is the father being male and the mother being female. When the child is brought up in this combination, it brings a natural balance, which only this combination can produce. For that to be altered....I've seen some of the youth in the north who are raised by single parents, with an imbalance between the father and the mother, or between male and female parenting. That imbalance has created a lot of hurting kids and young people.

This is one of the reasons why I believe that suicide is a big problem in Nunavut.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Really? I would like you to maybe explain that to us a little more. What do you think causes the suicide rate to be so high here?

Mr. James Arreak: Suicide is caused by the young person no longer being able to deal with the situations in life. When the child is raised with a mother and father, with a male-to-female role, he's given the proper tools to deal with the facts of life and to face them. This is why I strongly believe in that.

In my own observations, there is also evidence for this. During the last six years in the north I've been heavily involved with youth, and I've tied that in with the evidence that I have from my own observations.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I'd like to thank you for coming before the committee. I think you've given us a good reflection and understanding of the Inuit culture.

Thank you very much.

À (1035)

Mr. James Arreak: You're welcome.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Marceau, you have seven minutes.

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

Thank you both for your presentations. I will start with Reverend Arreak.

You said that right and wrong were absolutes and not relative concepts. I assume you were referring to homosexuality, as this is what we are discussing today.

Your conception of right and wrong is rooted in your faith, and this honours you. However, certain pastors and ministers from denominations such as the United Church and the Unitarian Church, as well as rabbis from the liberal branch of Judaism, have come to tell us they would like to have the possibility of marrying same-sex partners because their conception of the Holy Scriptures and the Word of God allows them to do so.

Obviously, we must not forget that we are talking here of civil and not religious marriage, even though religious connotations are associated with any decision this committee could make. So I would like you to help me solve the following problem. I would like to allow Ms. Brewer, if she so desires, to have either a civil marriage, or a religious marriage in an institution that would accept to perform it, while protecting your freedom of religion, which includes the right to refuse to marry same-sex partners in your church.

According to you, how could we come to an agreement that would respect Ms. Brewer's right to equality, allowing her to marry if she so desires, and protect your freedom of religion, which is equally fundamental in our society.

[English]

Mr. James Arreak: Perhaps I could start.

If the government used legislation to enforce religious people, pastors, or clergy to marry same-sex couples, it would be violation of my freedom. But at the same time, where I have difficulty supporting this same-sex issue is because science cannot prove that people are born homosexual or with a gay gene. As a result, there is more evidence in my research to suggest that the orientation for same-sex may be a learned behaviour. There are not a lot of statistics to support the homosexual lifestyle being healthy. There is not enough evidence, or not enough of an historical record, for me to support that. This is why I find it to be radical.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: As regards the research, I have a problem understanding. Maybe you can help me.

How could a person, man or woman, choose to be part of a community that does not always accept this difference, that does not allow them to witness the birth of their child, and that, just because they walk on the street and are homosexual, could call them all kinds of names, laugh at them and submit them to bad treatment, to say the least?

If you think this is a choice, then in my opinion, it puts an end to the discussion. Allow me to simply ask you a question. If I understand what you're saying, you are opposed to any form of recognition of same-sex partners; so you're not only opposed to their marriage. In your answer to a question asked by my friend Chuck Cadman, you said you were opposed--and I wand to get this right--to any form of recognition of same-sex partners. Is that correct?

[English]

Mr. James Arreak: Thank you for your question.

That is true. I cannot support this lifestyle because of the fact that I have been able to—

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Ms. Anna Brewer, we heard at this committee that children of homosexual couples could be confused, have adaptation problems and psychological disorders, and so on.

Do you think that the fact of having had same-sex parents, even if they loved you and took care of you--you seem to be a healthy, intelligent and dynamic person--, created problems for you? I see you're now a teenager. As the daughter of a lesbian mother, are you confronted with more problems than your friends at school?

[English]

Ms. Anna Brewer (As Individual): Yes, I do feel I had more problems, but I would have had more problems if I didn't have the cool shoes or something like that. People are just going to make fun of you because of anything they can find. It didn't really matter to me whether they were making fun of my clothes or my parents or my brother.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: So your problems are the same as those of all teenagers and have nothing to do with the sexual identity of your parents. Is that correct?

[English]

Ms. Anna Brewer: No, I don't feel that it made huge problems for me; it's all just something else.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Okay. Could Ms. Brewer, the mom, give us her point of view on this?

[English]

Ms. Allison Brewer: Is that on the issue of raising children in same-sex families?

The notion of the traditional family is somewhat new to us. I don't think anyone ever argues that children need a mother and a father, or a particular strong male influence, in the house. They have sent the men to war over the years, and women have traditionally raised children, which is not to say that I think a same-sex male couple couldn't do a good job.

But Anna is so right. Many of the problems that we have faced as parents have very little to do with our being same-sex couples, but more to do with the pressures and responsibility of raising any child. I don't know. In some ways, maybe we had more support because we were two women together. I never felt that we lacked support or our children were in any way compromised by not having, as they call it, a strong male figure in the house. There are certainly lots of male role models out there for children to look at. They are certainly present in the schools, in the media, in the city where the kids grew up, and Parliament. There are lots of men in Parliament.

I think that if they suffered from anything, it's probably from what's going on here today. This isn't the first time that Anna has done this sort of thing with me or that any of my kids have. Maybe, again, it will make her stronger. I know it has given her very little tolerance for injustice, and she has been able to see injustice close up.

À (1040)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Macklin.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for appearing today.

Something that has come along part and parcel with this inquiry, and today has been indicated somewhat in the first panel, is the question of freedom of speech. Mr. Arreak, today when you appear and make the statements that you do, do you have any concerns about being branded homophobic?

Mr. James Arreak: Absolutely. The reason I stand up here is that I had an elder come to me this morning at the airport. He told me that all Inuit feel this is morally unacceptable. That is why I'm here. I've taken the risk to stand, like my fellow presenter here.

I have a friend who used to be homosexual, but he was healed from those tendencies. Today he's healthy. He has chosen to live a heterosexual lifestyle.

That is why I stand here. I feel that homosexuality can be healed. It is a learned behaviour. With the appropriate counselling and the appropriate understanding, I believe that homosexual people can be healed.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Let me pursue that a little further. I accept that you have a premise upon which you base that conclusion.

Would your conclusion be different if in fact evidence could be brought forward that this is substantially--I won't say completely--not a learned process, but rather is genetically or biologically based in some fashion? Do you think you would be able to find this more acceptable?

Mr. James Arreak: I have no problems accepting homosexual people. I accept them. I only feel regret that they've had to put up with wrong behaviour and rejection. I do understand that there are people who are born with certain tendencies. I'm not a scientist, so I cannot answer your question in its entirety.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: No, I understand.

Mr. James Arreak: I understand. I understand why some struggle with the homosexual orientation and lifestyle.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: I'm not sure that I received the answer at the end of the day. From your perspective, would your position change if in fact it was of a biological origin?

Mr. James Arreak: I would have to evaluate the situation carefully, because we need to weigh both sides here. For Inuit who stand strongly on the word of God, it would be difficult to accept, yet give this understanding to these people who need it.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: As a person who has obviously made an attempt to be at least a good observer, shall I say, of your culture, do you think it was a reasonable comment this morning when we heard that gay and lesbian behaviour is somewhat unknown to the Inuit culture, that supposing there was a biological basis for this, in fact it isn't showing up in the Inuit culture generally?

À (1045)

Mr. James Arreak: I believe that was pretty appropriate.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Is it reflective of your understanding?

Mr. James Arreak: I never knew anything about homosexual people until the white people and teachers came up north and began to reveal this knowledge to us. That was foreign to Inuit.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: So you believe it was more a failure to observe that within the society?

Mr. James Arreak: Which society?

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Within the culture of the Inuit, was it there and not recognized, or was it, as you say, that within a culture designed to survive, heterosexuality was the only way to go forward, that in fact people were “modelled” to accept nothing else? I'm just trying to understand whether or not we have a difference here in the culture itself.

Mr. James Arreak: I hope I can answer your question--

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: It's not easy. I understand.

Mr. James Arreak: --but you have to understand who people are--they are just their spirit--and what they stand for. Inuit are very laid back, kind of behind the scenes, and have just allowed these ideologies to come up north. Inuit had no say for a long time. Now, with the creation of Nunavut, Inuit are able to voice their values and what they stand for and why they have succeeded to this day.

I hope that answers your question.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Certainly.

In some first nations cultures, there have been words that were even descriptive of lesbian or gay behaviour within their society. Was there ever a word or a series of words that would have described that within the Inuit culture, or would that be totally new?

Mr. James Arreak: Not that I know of. I have not seen or heard a word.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Arreak, you must feel like you're almost under fire here, with all the questions we're giving you, but we appreciate your answers.

In listening to your responses to Mr. Macklin, it almost appears to me as if we are coming into your community and imposing a discussion on the Inuit that they would not otherwise be having. We observed yesterday in Montreal that there are 400,000 ethnic people within that community, but this is really not an issue in that community either, and they don't come forward to the committee.

My question to you is, do you feel that if Parliament passed legislation changing the definition of marriage from what it is now--a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others--this may have an effect on the Inuit; and if it has an effect on the Inuit culture, would that effect be positive or negative?

Mr. James Arreak: Let me respond this way to you. If we, as Inuit, were to take over Canada and force you to live the way we want you to live and the way we live, how would that go down with you? You wouldn't appreciate that. You wouldn't agree with some of the things in how Inuit live. So I rephrase that to you.

There's injustice in it, and this is where Parliament has to consider the different ethnic groups, and especially aboriginal people--like the Inuit.

À (1050)

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: That's a powerful answer that we as legislators, those who pass laws that all people in the country must live by, really must consider. You've done it in a very succinct, brief moment, but I underscore this as a very key argument in all this discussion.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Ms. Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you both for your presentations.

I, as well, have some questions for you, Mr. Arreak.

Because you explain that the presentation you've made is based on the values of Inuit culture, survival, families and community, and your definition, understanding, or conception of God, may I ask, on the religious side, do you belong to a particular religious denomination?

Mr. James Arreak: Yes. My roots are Anglican. Today I'm a pastor with a Full Gospel ministry.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: My roots are Anglican as well.

Are some of the views that you have expressed, in terms of homosexuality being a learned behaviour, that you cannot support this lifestyle, rooted in your religious beliefs?

Mr. James Arreak: Yes and no. My natural response is, because it's not rooted in science, how can it be supported? But at the same time, using my religious roots to make this evaluation, I cannot ignore and let this pass by our territory without voicing our opinions.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Within your religious denomination, do you allow interfaith marriage? Is someone who is not of your religious denomination allowed to marry, within your church, someone who is an Anglican, or a Roman Catholic, or a Buddhist? Do you practise that kind of religious wedding ceremony within your church?

Mr. James Arreak: That's an interesting question. I don't have that situation here in Nunavut. I have married an Anglican and a Full Gospel before, but I've never faced a situation with a Catholic, or a Hindu, or a Buddhist. That would be an interesting situation to deal with.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: But given that you have married someone of another faith within your religious denomination, it means your religious denomination dogma allows at least some interfaith weddings within that denomination, if not all.

Mr. James Arreak: Absolutely. There is an understanding in the north, mainly with religious Inuit, that whether you're Anglican or Full Gospel, you're rooted to the same beliefs. There is an understanding that these things will not divide us. We Inuit were never divided until religion came up north.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I can pretty much say the same thing of most of my ancestors, my African ancestors. The Europeans have a lot to answer for, obviously.

The Chair: Do you have a final question?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: My final question is, given that there are other religious denominations that do not permit interfaith marriage within their religious institution, and they are allowed not to marry because we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that protects religious freedom and religious belief, would you accept that it would be possible for the state to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, two persons together, and at the same time allow each religious institution and faith to determine, within their beliefs, whether they will marry or not marry, whether they, within their religious denomination, will recognize or not recognize the unions of certain people?

À (1055)

Mr. James Arreak: Could you rephrase that? That's a long question.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Okay. Right now, certain Jewish faiths will not marry non-Jews within their synagogue--not all, but some. The Roman Catholic Church will not marry, for instance, divorced people, and it does not recognize divorce, except under very limited circumstances. And they are allowed to continue practising, according to their religious dogma, because we protect the right of religious freedom, because we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So would you be able to accept, because of that, that the state legalizes same-sex marriage but, at the same time, protects your religious right not to marry within your religious denomination because it goes against your religious dogma?

Mr. James Arreak: If that was the case, if the legislation were to enact this, I would request that we as clergy be given the right not to approve that and to have them go somewhere else.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Great. Thank you.

The Chair: I'm going to follow on that point, because this has come up quite often, and I don't think anyone else is looking for the floor.

The right that you would require, as a pastor, in the Full Gospel assembly...and I'm sure there are those who will debate the point. It is at least arguable that this protection exists in the charter under freedom of religion. Do you feel that you are not adequately protected under the charter, under the provisions for freedom of religion, to refuse to marry not just people who are of the same sex but, in fact, anybody whom your religious doctrine says you don't marry? My own minister in, I would think it's fair to say, my liberal United Church has the right not to marry me, if they don't want to marry me, if they don't feel I'm ready, or whatever. Do you not feel adequate protection under the charter?

Mr. James Arreak: Can I answer you twofold? One, as an Inuk, I really sense being a minority. The Charter of Rights has walked right over us and has almost made us invisible, because we didn't know, as Inuit, that we had the right to voice our concerns. And perhaps because of our gentle nature we allowed it to.... I don't think that's going to happen forever.

From a pastor's point of view, in some ways that's a very tough question. In order for the Charter of Rights to protect me and my rights, I think you need to give that flexibility. The charter has to protect us and to assure us that you will not force us to do stuff that we don't agree with.

The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: On this point that we're discussing here, I need a clarification on the reflections that you've given. How much do the views you've presented to the committee on the aspects of Inuit culture have to do with your religious views? Are you reflecting the Inuit culture without that reflection being coloured by your religious views? You told us this morning about this elder who told you this is the wrong way to go, or words to that effect. When you talk to us about the Inuit culture, is that separate from your religious views?

Mr. James Arreak: I think not. Inuit had their views, and when religion came it was like this. The values that Inuit have now and have had in the past are and were very consistent with the views of Christianity. This is why elders naturally adopt Christianity and the values that it stands for. It stands for the things that people feel are right within their own selves. This is why I stand here, on behalf of all the Inuit who can't be here, who are isolated in the communities, and I say that the Inuit are misunderstood, yet they have this belief system that is very consistent with Christianity.

Á (1100)

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you very much. That's an interesting observation.

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

I want to thank the panel. It's an interesting observation.

This is the justice and human rights committee of Parliament. We spend an enormous amount of time talking about and debating, comparing interpretations of the charter. Whether or not we like the impact the charter has had on the country, the one thing I think we all agree on is that it is here. And, for those who would need its protection, I don't think any of us would disagree that this protection is available and it should be pursued. If some communities in the country have not been as aware or not been as comfortable, or whatever the word might be...I feel compelled, as the chair of the parliamentary Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, to avail all citizens of the protections that are inherent in it, and that would include the protection of religious freedom.

So I want to thank the panel and to invite you to find your way to the growing crowd. I would ask the next panel, during the period of a five-minute suspension, to come up and take your place.

The committee is suspended.

Á (1104)

Á (1109)

Á (1110)

The Chair: I call back to order the 40th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights as we continue to deliberate on marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions.

From now until slightly after 12 o'clock we will be hearing from Chris Grosset as an individual; Virginia Larsson as an individual; and Bryon Doherty as an individual.

I also want to take the opportunity to welcome the Grade 10 English class from Inuksuk High School. I'm sure you all came to see Anna perform. I knew I would embarrass her when I said that.

I understand you've been involved in other issues—municipal bylaws having to do with smoking, and so on. You're welcome to be here, to participate, to watch how the laws of this country are reviewed and sometimes made. I think it's a credit to the educational institution that has given you the time today and a credit to you that you are here. I know one of my kids probably would take the time and perhaps not be here.

Without further ado, I'm going to go to Chris Grosset, as an individual, for seven minutes.

By the way, at six minutes you're going to see a signal from me, and at seven minutes another signal. I think some of us even know what that means, don't we?

Go ahead, Mr. Grosset.

Á (1115)

Mr. Chris Grosset (As Individual): Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the standing committee. Thank you for coming to Iqaluit to listen to our opinions on this issue.

I believe that recognition of two people in a committed relationship through marriage is important and I believe the government should be recognizing marriage equitably between both opposite-sex and same-sex couples. I believe that granting equality to same-sex couples through marriage will not negatively affect religious institutions, which should be protected to bless unions according to the beliefs of their own congregations.

It was difficult for me to decide to come here today to speak to the standing committee, for many reasons—mainly because I was afraid on several levels. I had fears of my awareness of gay and lesbian issues being somewhat limited and perhaps not qualifying me to speak up. But I realized after thinking about the issue that this is not a gay issue; it is an issue of equality and fairness and tolerance, and it is gained through understanding, sharing, and respecting each other. I think this is an important issue to all Canadians.

I live in a small community and I'm aware that this issue is contentious among members of this community and among members of religious groups within this community. That was part of my fear about speaking up and saying that this is my opinion on this issue.

I don't believe the government and government policy should be subservient to the issues and interests of religious groups or of any one particular religious group. That's why I think it's important that, whatever decision is made from your standing committee—should we recognize same-sex union or same-sex marriage—the religious communities still be given the opportunity to bring it back to their congregations to decide whom they wish to marry.

I want to talk a little bit about what I do know, because that's a little less fearful for me. A year ago my mother married her long-time common-law partner in a civil ceremony. My mother and Ed have been together for a very long time, and I considered him my stepfather long before there was an official marriage certificate. I considered his children part of my own blended family. We are all adults and we accepted their commitment to each other before and after the marriage ceremony.

The perception of family, friends, and the community has always been that they were a married couple. But perception is not fact. They had wills and powers of attorney, so after their marriage I asked my mother, “Why, after so many years, did you decide to marry?” My stepfather is battling cancer, so that the crux of why they married was to gain the full power of legal recognition for their union, ensuring each other's ability to make decisions about the other's health and well-being, ensuring property and assets that they share as a couple, and protecting the surviving partner. We all hope for the best, but their fears of the worst contributed to their decision to marry. They had the opportunity to protect their partnership and they acted upon it.

My stance would be, don't all couples face the same fears, and don't they share the same desire to protect themselves and to provide protection of their commitment and their families?

I don't know how we can deny same-sex couples equal protection of the law. Why don't all committed couples in Canada have an option? Why is it okay to discriminate between one type of committed relationship and another? I don't understand why this inequality is continuing.

I've heard comments and read comments about why same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry. I'm just going to share with you briefly what some of those comments were and my reaction to them.

I've heard that marriage is for procreation, and I guess if that's true there are many couples in Canada who should not be allowed to marry, such as my mom and Ed, because they are beyond child-bearing age.

I've heard that marriage protects the sanctity of the family, but who is protecting the families of same-sex couples in this country?

I've heard that if marriage is allowed for same-sex unions, the institution of marriage will be threatened. I was at a wedding ceremony of a friend and had the pleasure of sitting with her uncles, who had been in a long-term committed relationship for over 40 years—probably longer than other couples at that ceremony. They were very proud and they were very supportive of my friend's marriage to her now-husband. Watching and talking with them that night, I felt the only thing they were a threat to was the dinner buffet. I don't see any evidence that there's a threat to the integrity of the institution of marriage if same-sex unions are included in the definition of marriage.

I've also heard statistics regarding why you shouldn't have same-sex marriage, such as the last Canadian census, which said that less than 0.2% of the Canadian population was in same-sex relationships. I think if we based all of our decisions on statistics, great things wouldn't be done. The population of Nunavut is less than 0.01% of the Canadian population, and beneficiaries of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement are less than 0.008% of the Canadian population, but the government saw that those were the right things to do and it made Canada a better place by recognizing those peoples' rights and their place in the country. We have a long way to go to continue that.

I hear there are many human rights issues that need to be addressed in this country. I believe that, no, you can't measure the importance of one issue versus the other. You have to measure the issues based on their urgency and the ability to change and to manage change, and the impact of that change. It seems to me that this issue of granting equality to same-sex couples is so easy to change, and in my belief it will have such a positive impact.

I think that the government already recognizes same-sex common law partnerships as equal with opposite-sex common law partnerships. If Canada is our home, I don't understand why we invite people to the door, but only some of us can go beyond the front entrance. I believe in equality for all Canadians, and I believe in including same-sex couples in marriage.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Larsson, for seven minutes.

Á (1120)

Ms. Virginia Larsson (As Individual): Ladies and gentlemen of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, thank you for your integrity to the people of Canada through this commission of justice to the democratic process.

My name is Virginia Larsson, and I am a wife and the mother of two children. I'm honoured to be here as part of history recorded in the archives of the Canadian government, to be counted as one who stands for the moral higher ground to protect the covenant of marriage, the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others. I'm also honoured to be here to speak to the newest territory of Canada, Nunavut, where the birthing of its sustainable and unique ethnicity is founded on these exclusive principles of family and marriage between one man and one woman.

In pursuit of truth and understanding the homosexual demand for redefining marriage for the recognition of same-sex unions, I found myself searching the commitments made by this Government of Canada to me, a citizen of Canada.

In the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the government “guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. The case for same-sex marriage has not been demonstrated or justified to all Canadians. Where is the democratic representation to justify the dismantling of the covenant of marriage between one man and one woman to include homosexuals?

This government also has committed to me, and all other Canadians, fundamental freedoms: freedoms of thought and religion; freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression; freedom of the press and other media of communication; and more. Freedom is absolute. I'm not a little bit free from persecution or prosecution if my freedom and my beliefs are to be challenged or taken way. Freedom is all or nothing.

In this charter, you, the government, have committed to protect my fundamental freedom through the democratic process--in this case, the definition of marriage, measured by all Canadians, not just 0.2% or 5% of the population. You, the government, have committed that you will preserve and enhance the multicultural inheritance of Canadians, which, for me and the majority of Canadians, is marriage. The traditional definition is “the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others”. Can this government tear down their own constitutional laws on demand by one small segment of society without affecting the whole charter and the country it proposes to serve? Traditional marriage is my heritage and this government has promised to serve it.

The big building block to propagate the argument of homosexual marriage to be equal with the traditional definition of marriage is to be found in section 15. I'm sure that all of you have memorized this by now, but for the sake of those who haven't, and for clarity, I will read it. The relentless hammer of the homosexual propaganda machine cries discrimination against homosexuals, so to section 15 we race:

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

The charter reads “sex”, not “sexual orientation”, as we have been led to believe. No discrimination is against homosexuals in this charter.

I am thankful, though, that the charter does provide protection against unjust interpretation by a few in power through the legislative use of the notwithstanding clause for any provinces or territories.

Speaking of legislature, I must express grave concerns about proposed government Bill 12 in Nunavut, the Human Rights Act. In part 2 of the draft, subsection 7(1), it says: “For the purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race,colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, citizenship, place of origin, creed, religion, age, disability,sex, sexual orientation”. Further to that, it says: “marital status, family status, pregnancy, lawful source of income and a conviction for which a pardon has been granted”. As an observation, sexual orientation is thirteenth on the list, before marriage and family.

Nowhere else in Canada has there been legislation that lists sexual orientation on discriminatory grounds, and this is a problem. Why? Because the Government of Canada hasn't defined sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is vaguely interpreted to identify sexual behaviour as changeable. It's a problem because we would be legislating special rights to people just because of their sexual practices. Even the homosexual community claims that the government has no business in the bedrooms of Canadians. It's a problem because it would be legislating legal status to pedophilia, pedophiles who claim protection based on a declaration of sexual orientation. It's a problem because it would handicap the application of the Criminal Code and the ability to prosecute and charge pedophiles.

I say this because sexual orientation is the foundation for homosexual identity. It is the flagship of their argument for same-sex marriage. Legislate sexual orientation into any discriminatory bill, and these proceedings may be considered irrelevant.

But I'm confident that the people of Nunavut will be vigilant to details of good and balanced lawmaking for their land and children. And it is for the children that we call on this government to be the promise-keepers of Canadian heritage.

“First do no harm” is the mandate of all medicinal solutions to illness. I would suggest to you, the government, how wise it would be to apply this principle to the marriage challenge in our society. Before we start to damage the foundation and structure of the cornerstone of our country, let's make sure there will be no harm done to our heritage, the children. Even though just recently the Netherlands and Belgium have made the erroneous inclusion of same-sex marriage, still Belgium has excluded homosexual marriages from adopting children. The Netherlands' homosexual marriages are not allowed to adopt international children, and the European Court of Justice says that in the present state of the law within communities, stable relationships between two persons of the same sex are not regarded as equivalent to marriages or stable relationships outside marriage between persons of opposite sex.

Please, tell Canadians that three years and two foreign countries is not the only measure of time to support changing the infrastructure of this society of Canada.

Á (1125)

The Chair: Ms. Larsson, I haven't been able to get your attention, but you have less than a minute left. You actually have 15 seconds, so go ahead.

Ms. Virginia Larsson: Okay. Please tell Canadians and our children that you, the government, have weighed, exhausted, and compiled at least decades of data to prove the case for a change in society that has taken generations of Canadians to build. If homosexuals want to get together and create a new institution that celebrates their love and commitment to one another, they are free to do that. Let's just not call it marriage. Let us be patient and weigh the evidence before we give the verdict of change to our children.

We, the people, challenge this government in the name of God to do your duty.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Doherty is next.

The Chair: Mr. Doherty. My apologies.

Prof. Bryon Doherty (As Individual): Good morning, and thanks very much for allowing me to speak.

My name is Bryon Doherty and I'm a teacher at Inuksuk High School, where I have taught for ten years. I do not represent the views of the teachers at Inuksuk or Inuksuk High School. I speak as an individual and as a teacher who has lived and taught in Nunavut for 20 years in a number of communities. As well, I have taught in Nigeria and in Toronto.

I am making this submission because I feel it is important that I, as a teacher, make opportunities like this available to my students and, as an educator, that I allow my students to see the processes of the government to which I and they can voice opinions that can be valued and accepted as such.

Over the years in Canada, people have voiced their concerns over issues where discrimination was very apparent, where Canadian citizens, whether they were women, gay, lesbian, or from any number of minority groups, were treated differently and unfairly. Examples abound: women's right to vote, women's right to be in the Senate, gays' right to openly join the armed forces, women to be considered persons in the parliamentary system, and many others.

Over the years, many individuals have strived, persevered, struggled against many obstacles to simply have what the vast majority of people in Canada have. I am referring to equal status, equal opportunity, and--the main thing I'm concerned about--choice. Obstacles have been, amongst others, unbending institutions and inflexible ways of thinking on the part of groups and individuals.

Any institution that has been set up by the Government of Canada for the people of Canada should be for all the people, for any group, and specifically, in this instance, we are talking about same-sex marriage. I have known couples who have been together as long as my wife and I have--20 years--and many others who have lived together for a varying number of years, twice as many as that. And many of these couples happen to be same-sex couples. There are opposite-sex couples who have lived together, and they have a choice. They can get married or simply live together, whereas same-sex couples don't have that choice.

Same-sex couples basically have the same desires, hopes, and expectations as opposite-sex couples. In some cases, they want children. They want to have children and raise them. In other cases it's simply to be legally married. The institution of marriage involves commitment, love and sharing, and I have certainly seen this in the many same-sex relationships I am aware of.

At present, the federal government is stating that only heterosexual couples may wed legally. The government defines the law and the citizens have to abide by it, but the institution of marriage should be an institution that is for all, where all have a choice to use it.

Some groups and people have suggested some form of parallel union or registered domestic partnership that would supposedly be separate but equal. But that couldn't and wouldn't be the case. It simply would not be a marriage. It would not allow same-sex couples any choice. And when it comes down to it, this is about choice. Not allowing same-sex couples to marry legally is discriminatory.

When I was thinking about this, I thought back to the 1950s, when I had a very limited diet of sitcoms, such as Father Knows Best, Ozzie and Harriet, and the like. Now, there was the typical family in Father Knows Best. Father walks in the door at the end of a hard-working day. June, wearing her apron, comes out of the kitchen, gives him a kiss, and then says, oh, we have a few problems. After June states the problems, there's the father willing to solve them, always having the answer.

Now, would a father who knows best have a solution for the issue we face now? Probably not, because we don't have what we would call a typical family the way it was 45 years ago, 20 years ago, whatever. We have commuter families, single-parent families, all sorts of families. Marriages and families are not static. Definitions for families abound, but as Elise Boulding said many years ago, “The family is both a training ground and a metaphor for the kind of society we want.”

For me, the kind of society I want is one where people are open to positive change and where everyone is accorded equal opportunity to have a choice, in this case the choice to marry and establish their own family. Marriage is a bond between two people, and in this case they could be our brothers, sisters, the family of all of us. Marriage should not be exclusive; it should be inclusive.

I'll simply finish by saying I want my students, the young people, the people of Canada, to feel that we, as people--as educators, in my case--are open and willing to make sure all Canadians have the equal rights they deserve.

Thank you.

Á (1130)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Cadman, for seven minutes.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be really brief. I know Mr. Breitkreuz has a couple of questions.

I wouldn't normally go down this road on this line of questioning, but you opened it up and I respect the fact that you're demonstrating to your students how they can come and make a difference, how they can express opinions freely in a free and democratic society. I'm just wondering about your views on this.

I'm not sure whether you're aware of the situation in Quesnel, B.C., where a school counsellor, who was well respected and had a long tenure, was suspended by the college for expressing his personally held views on gay marriage publicly through an opinion piece--not in the classroom. He was suspended.

Again, I don't normally go down this road, but you opened it up, and I'd just like your views on it.

Prof. Bryon Doherty: Speaking as an individual, I am concerned. I want to be as open as I can, and as an educator, I want my students to be the same. We discuss a lot of issues. I want them to see as many perspectives, as many sides to the issue, as they can, and as I state to them, it is up to them to make up their own minds about the issue, whatever it is, from what they have heard. I am not concerned with what people think about my view.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: That's not what I'm questioning at all, sir. I'd like your opinion on the very fact that an educator was suspended for expressing his view publicly outside of the classroom. Now, if he had been doing it in the classroom, I wouldn't have any difficulty with it, but he was expressing his own personally held views publicly and was suspended for a month--

Prof. Bryon Doherty: I would find that unacceptable.

Before I came, I did speak to my principal, vice-principal, and supervisor, and I stated I was bringing my students here and I was making a presentation. They were very receptive to that.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: This is a classroom situation, in effect, from the way you outlined it. This is an exercise for your children, so this is part of their educational process. Would you agree with that?

Á (1135)

Prof. Bryon Doherty: Yes. We try to utilize as many resources in the community as we can, people coming in, all sorts of things, so I find I want to do that.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: You've just really contradicted yourself. You said it's wrong for a teacher to put forward his view within a classroom context and now you have done that quite vehemently. Can you express an opinion, as an authority figure, without having that influence your students? Do you think you can express an opinion without that influencing your students?

Prof. Bryon Doherty: I didn't necessarily contradict myself. Chuck stated that case. I said I disagreed with what happened, that the teacher or the person was suspended for a month. I disagree with that.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: ÏBecause it was within the classroom.

Prof. Bryon Doherty: Yes. I think it depends on the community, on whether you're in Toronto, Vancouver, or in a small community. I'm in an extremely small community and I've been in small communities of 150 or 200 people. I'm not going to try to define where the point is where I cannot say something.

If the students ask me an opinion, then I will state my opinion about it very openly. We talked about it a lot. I think my students will respect that I am not trying to hoodwink them or anything like that. I've said to them, as well, that if they wish to state their opinion later, there is that opportunity.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: You won't answer my question. Can you express your opinion, as an authority figure, without having to influence your students?

Prof. Bryon Doherty: I probably am influencing them, yes, and--

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: In fact, even your interpretation of human rights is not shared by all of society. In fact, it's not even shared at this table. Yet you are putting it forward as the view that people should have.

The point I'm making is that in fact Parliament sends a signal to society about what is right and what is not right by the laws that it passes. Would you not agree that when Parliament passes laws, it sends a signal to society?

The Chair: Mr. Doherty.

I think I have to go back to the misters now. Phil took his tie off and the whole thing came apart.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Would you not agree with that? I'm limited in my time here.

Prof. Bryon Doherty: Yes, I've forgotten the question.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: When Parliament passes laws, does that not signal to society what is acceptable and what is not?

Prof. Bryon Doherty: I can't answer that as a quick type of question, because there's a number of issues there, side issues and that sort of thing. But, yes, when Parliament passes a law, then it is to be abided by all. And I did mention that, but I said in the process there is room for change, as we've seen over the years. Because Parliament passes a law does not mean it is right or the perfect thing for that time, nor does it mean it's the perfect thing for 20 years or 40 years down the way.

So we have to be flexible in our thinking, and our institutions have to be flexible, in that there is ongoing information always coming in. We have to be able to evaluate that, discuss it, and come up with--

Á (1140)

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I can't figure out if it's a yes or a no.

Prof. Bryon Doherty: I'm being a politician.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: You choose not to answer.

Do I have time for one more question?

The Chair: No.

Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the witnesses for taking the time to share their opinions with us.

I will start by saying that if, when I was in 10^th grade, my teacher had come to express a point of view before this committee, I would probably have adopted the opposite opinion as a result.

I have a few questions to ask you, Ms. Larrson. First, you said that for same-sex partners, a new arrangement or form of union can be created, providing it's not marriage. Is that what you said?

[English]

Ms. Virginia Larsson: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Okay. Would the rights and obligations be more or less the same as in a marriage, but without it being a marriage?

[English]

Ms. Virginia Larsson: I think anything that was designed along the lines of the documents would have to be very clear, and I think it would have to be constructed properly. Based on what that was, we could look at it and see if it was valid to protect marriage, as we know it, as the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.

Á (1145)

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I don't want to put words in your mouth, but this new form of union for same-sex partners would include more or less the same rights and obligations as marriage, without being marriage.

[English]

Ms. Virginia Larsson: As I said, maybe not as clearly as I would like to have, I couldn't agree to a hypothetical document. If you could give me definitions, then I could look at that and consider it.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Okay. I'll give you an example. In Quebec, for more than one year now, there has been what we call civil union; i.e. two same-sex or opposite-sex partners can go before a notary or other officer and record their civil union.

When we look at marriage on the one hand, and civil union on the other, we can see it's the same thing, except that one is called marriage, and the other is called civil union, and that marriage only applies to opposite-sex partners.

Would something like this be acceptable to you?

[English]

Ms. Virginia Larsson: My experience with legislation has been that the devil is in the details. I'm specifically addressing the Charter Compliance Act, Bill 34, in Manitoba, where in establishing this legislation there was continual reference to the declaration of commitment used by common-law couples to validate their commitment so that they could be considered as parents for adoption. Through the course of my investigation of what this declaration of commitment had to do with the Charter Compliance Act for same-sex adoptions, to allow homosexuals, gays, lesbians, and transgendered people to adopt, I was told that once the bill was passed, the words “one man and one woman”, which were used in this declaration of commitment, would be removed to allow any person, or any kind of words, to be used in this document, now renamed the declaration of commitment. It was a small building block that very few people knew about, and I'm sure if the population of Manitoba had known about this, that declarations in legislation were going to be changed, they would have reconsidered not voicing their opinions about it.

I would say that we have to be very careful about how we use words.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I would just like to clarify something. You said earlier that in the various human rights charters, sexual orientation is not part of any list of grounds of discrimination. In Quebec, sexual orientation has been included in illegal grounds of discrimination since 1977. I thought it was important that you know this.

You spoke of the importance not to cause harm to children. Yesterday, we had a very interesting professor from the Université du Québec à Montréal, Ms. Julien, who has been studying children in a homosexual context since 1987, i.e. for more than 15 years now. She taught in Denver, she wrote in several psychology journals, and she came to tell us very clearly that there were no data that might suggest that children living in a homosexual context have more adjustment, behaviour and sexual identity problems than children living in a heterosexual context.

You suggest that a child living in a homosexual environment has problems. Do you have studies and scientific reports to support that statement?

Á (1150)

[English]

Ms. Virginia Larsson: I have two points in answer to your question. One, it would be nice to know, as you've already shown me facts that have corrected my understanding of legislation in Quebec, when exactly these studies took place. Was it 20 years, 30 years? When did it happen, just recently? I think that's very important, because as I mentioned in my brief, we need to use a proper measuring stick of time.

A generation is a good measuring stick. We can ask the kids. We can find out. We've really thrown around a lot of statistics and studies over the last 30 years that really we never had before this. I would ask this question and say that I think we need to revisit that.

Secondly, your question was, do I have any evidence? I would submit to you a testimony of a young girl who grew up in a confusing manner, based on her abuse by a same-sex lesbian.

Where I will draw this line of why it can be detrimental to a child is the construction of the family unit that we know, a mother and a father. Through time, we've seen that a mother is comforting, she's nurturing, and there is no sexual rendering towards the daughter. That's not just what have seen. There is an understanding principle that eventually sexuality as we know it and as has been proven traditionally, over time, though maybe some would disagree, has been one man and one woman. That's what we aspire to, that's what we hold to, that's what we teach, and that's what history proves.

But what happened when this girl was violated by a same-sex person is that it caused confusion in the manner in which she identified her mother to be nurturing each time she reached out for affection, to be covering each time she held her.

The Chair: Could you bring this to a conclusion. It's a seven-minute round and you're at nine and a half minutes. All these kids are looking at their watches. They know I'm screwing up here.

Ms. Virginia Larsson: Good. Then they're all paying attention to me, too.

So what I would say is that we do not have any evidence to show differently, and I know of many testimonies in this light that would throw confusion into a child before they have the choice or the chance to make that, to draw any conclusion differently.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Macklin.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Thank you, Chair, and thank you, witnesses, for being a very interesting panel.

I would like to first put a few questions to you, Mr. Doherty. In particular, how do you teach the evaluation of issues? Do you have a particular style of teaching in terms of evaluating issues that you use within the classroom, a Socratic method, or how do you go about teaching your students to examine issues?

Prof. Bryon Doherty: The answer to that question would be quite long.

In my method of teaching I like to get my students in groupings. I like to get them to look at issues. So we'll state the issue, we'll look at some of the background. For example, we followed fairly closely--and this is my English class, my drama class--the war in Iraq. We looked at a lot of different statements from both sides on that. I asked them to bring in information to share, to discuss. The evaluating of that is much more difficult than simply giving them an objective or multiple choice test or that sort of thing. I spend an awful lot of time in the evenings deciding how I'll be able to evaluate it. It is very difficult.

I give my students assignments where I'm looking for not their viewpoint, but how they do express it and how well, and how they can back it up. That's one of the things I really do promote, and if you were to ask any of the students, I think they would probably, hopefully, say the same thing, that I'm not looking for the right fact, or that they agree with me, but that they are certainly as aware as they can be. There's an awful lot of media out there, and it's very difficult to get as much information as we actually do need to make the most precise, accurate, and definitive answers.

I don't want to get into evaluating, but I spend a lot of time querying it, and sometimes it's just talking with the student, sometimes it's doing a test, sometimes it's just watching them and how they discuss with others in their group. So I use a number of ways of evaluating overall.

Á (1155)

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Today, for example, we have Ms. Larsson, who is coming forward and making a passionate plea for more time in terms of looking at and evaluating this issue. We have you making a statement that you are open to positive change.

I'd like to bring forward one other quote, and I know since we've often quoted this individual, Professor Cere of McGill, it would only be fitting on our last foray to also go back and possibly reflect on this. I'd like you to then respond to Ms. Larsson's position and also to the position of Dr. Cere, who says:

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

Legal tampering with core features of marriage has social repercussions...

I'll leave out a sentence and then go on to say:

In our own recent experience, the liberalization of divorce laws did have significant outcomes for spouses and children that we are only just beginning to assess.

As a person now who's being asked to evaluate and look at other perspectives, how do you respond to Professor Cere and to Ms. Larsson in terms of their concern and your expressed interest in finding room for positive change?

Prof. Bryon Doherty: That's a wonderful question. One thing I'd say to answer the professor, and you talked about that, is that I'd probably have to and want to sit down to analyze it a little more. You read it for me, and it's fairly long and it's fairly detailed. There are a lot of complexities in there.

I'll just go to Virginia Larsson's comments. Obviously when I do go back to class, the students are going to want to talk about this. Probably I will get them doing it as a class and in small groups. We will discuss. What the outcome of that will be I don't know. I do drama. When I do drama, I never know what the outcome necessarily will be and what stuff we will come up with.

As I stated, my feeling is that I want a choice. I don't want people to be on the fringe. Ms. Larsson's comments state that we have to keep the status quo concerning the family and marriage. That negates people and their views, and that is not what I want as an individual.

And it's not what I profess as a teacher. I want things to be not exclusive but inclusive. We can talk about the varying definitions of family, marriage—all sorts of things. I suppose we don't have enough time here to expand on that too much. I'd simply say it's a very open question. I would be open to discuss that with my students, with fellow staff, with any groups, and with Ms. Larsson.

Ms. Virginia Larsson: Okay, I'll be there.

Prof. Bryon Doherty: If Ms. Larsson wished to come to the class, certainly.

Â (1200)

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: As parliamentarians we have to look at the question of societal change, and since you have students here, obviously we have to take very seriously the repercussions of what may happen.

I believe it was Professor Allen who appeared before us and talked directly on this issue of divorce and unforeseen social consequences. It is his thesis that in fact despite our best intentions and best reflections prior to making amendments to the Divorce Act, many of the repercussions that occurred were not anticipated at the time. Since we already have other countries in this world going through this process of, if you wish, experimentation, would it not be prudent to at least take some time?

I guess this is the argument that Ms. Larsson makes toward a precautionary approach and looking for some empirical data that would support this social change, since it may be very important to our core.

The Chair: Mr. Doherty, and then Mr. Cadman.

Prof. Bryon Doherty: The only thing I'd say about that very quickly is that in a lot of heterosexual families, I don't see everything working out all that well. I've seen many cases of same-sex couples with children where things, from what I can see, have worked out quite well. Ms. Larsson mentioned one case. Well, I'm sure any of us here can mention 1,000 cases concerning heterosexual families. Just because it's heterosexual—male-female—does not mean it's going to work out. We know that.

The Chair: Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you, Chair.

Just before we go to Mr. Breitkreuz, I want to clarify something for the record, and especially for the students, if they're going to be discussing this.

The teacher I talked about earlier in Quesnel, B.C., who was suspended, expressed views publicly that were contrary to yours, Mr. Doherty. That's my point. You probably would not have been suspended for doing what you're doing, but because he expressed views that were contrary to what yours are, the political correctness active in B.C. right now wound up having him suspended. I just want to make that clear.

The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I neglected to thank you all for coming before the committee as I became so engrossed in the issue. So I want to thank you for that.

How we frame a debate--and I think this is important in the classroom or in Parliament--really is key to the conclusions we're going to reach. How we frame that debate, the questions we ask, are key to the answers we're going to get.

Ms. Larsson, you spent a lot of your presentation saying that this is a rights issue. But my question, and a key question that we have to examine, is this. Do we not also have to ask, if this change is made where we redefine marriage, whether we would have to try to determine what that impact would be on society?

I think you mentioned as well that in the Netherlands they restrict same-sex couples from adopting children. They must have had a reason for doing that. In Canada we probably could not restrict that. With our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we couldn't do that. Do you feel we should also be looking at the impact this would have on the rest of society, and not just look at it as a rights issue?

The Chair: Ms. Larsson, I have two more speakers. We're past noon. Please just make your answer brief.

Then we'll go to Mrs. Jennings and Mr. Marceau.

Ms. Virginia Larsson: At the very least, I think we should. We need to take time to weigh and measure more than just the rights issue. The reason I brought up the rights issue is that it is the baseline for all the arguments for doing this whole listening-post, the whole same-sex question for marriage. It's all about rights. That's what I've been hearing. That's what I've listened to. That's why I based a lot of what I said on that, because if we're going to do it for one part, we should do it for the whole.

When I investigated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms...I believe they would have constructed that in priority, so that's why I addressed it in priority. Yes, we do need to take time to weigh it.

I might also just say that as to the Netherlands and Belgium, Belgium just did same-sex this year, and the Netherlands just three years ago. Does that qualify for a measurement for children's development?

The Chair: Thank you.

Mrs. Jennings.

Â (1205)

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Very briefly, a question. As you all know, the case is now before the courts. Ultimately, if Parliament does not render a decision on whether or not we are going to modify or amend the definition of marriage under the Marriage Act, the courts will make a determination. The Superior Court of Canada will make a determination.

We have had representations before us to say that should, for instance, the Supreme Court of Canada make a determination that excluding same-sex couples from marriage is discrimination but that it meets the test of section 1 and therefore it's fine to discriminate in that particular area, Parliament should invoke the notwithstanding clause. I would like to know what each one of you feels about that. Briefly, yes or no.

The Chair: Very briefly.

Ms. Virginia Larsson: First of all, I believe haste makes waste. I don't believe we need to be in such a hurry about something that's the structure of our nation.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I'm going to interrupt you, Ms. Larsson.

Ms. Virginia Larsson: Well, you asked me a question.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I simply asked, if the Supreme Court of Canada--

Ms. Virginia Larsson: My point--

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Would you be in favour of invoking the notwithstanding clause in order to exclude and continue to discriminate against same-sex couples in not allowing them to marry? Would you be in favour of that?

Ms. Virginia Larsson: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Grosset.

Mr. Chris Grosset: No.

The Chair: Mr. Doherty.

Prof. Bryon Doherty: No.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I would like to ask a question to Mr. Grosset, who delivered a very eloquent presentation. Mr. Grosset, I'm sure some of your friends or family members are heterosexuals. Among the heterosexuals around you, do you know any who said that if same-sex partners ever had the right to marry, they themselves would stop marrying , would stop being heterosexuals, would stop having children?

[English]

Mr. Chris Grosset: No.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Some people say that the impact on society would be significant, and that all this needs to be carefully considered. They say this with dramatic tones in their voices, as if the world were going to stop spinning . In a nutshell , what would you say to these people who predict serious and tragic consequences if same-sex partners ever have the right to marry?

Â (1210)

[English]

Mr. Chris Grosset: I don't know that I could tell them anything. I would ask them questions. I would ask them if they had their facts right and whether they were confusing the issue of redefining marriage with other issues. I think some of the things we've heard here today show that some of the arguments against redefining marriage to be inclusive are being confused with other issues. For example, pedophilia came up here; I think that's a different issue.

I wouldn't give them an answer to say why you should be recognizing that redefining marriage is not going to harm the family. I would just ask them to state to me their facts and I would make sure they had their facts correct.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I want to thank the panel very much.

Before everybody starts to make their way to the door.... I feel like a school teacher. Can everybody hear me? I want to explain what's going to happen, given that your teacher felt he should invite you here. Here's what's going to happen.

I think you've heard reference to the courts. Decisions were taken in Canada that were inconsistent, which has caused us as a parliamentary committee to look at the question of same-sex marriage. The Government of Canada's Department of Justice asked us to look at this and gave us a white paper to frame our consideration. We had a whole bunch of hearings with experts and other people in Ottawa. Then we went to Vancouver, Edmonton, Moose Jaw—that's another story—Steinbach, Toronto, Sudbury, Montreal, Halifax, Sussex in New Brunswick, and Iqaluit. So you're right up there with Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto, and Iqaluit. Do you see how it just flows right along?

Now what happens is that the committee will report to the government, probably in June. If you've been listening closely, you will recognize that the challenge to the chair to get a report out of this group is going to be...a challenge. In any case, we'll report to the government in June.

The government has 150 days to respond to our report. If they decided they were going to do something that would require changing legislation, then the legislation would come back to this committee, and we would go through something like this all over again with the legislation. In the event that the government doesn't have to make a change—if they decide to go with the status quo—then that won't necessarily happen, although the committee still gets to reflect on the response of the government to our report in any case.

That's what's going to happen. You're going to hear about this because it's the kind of issue that gets quite a bit of attention. You're in on it. You've invested in it. Pay attention and tell your teacher what you think about it, and I'm sure your teacher is going to feel very free to tell us. I will see to it, as chair, that sufficient copies of the report are sent to Mr. Doherty so that you'll all get a copy of the report when the time comes, because you were part of the process of the Parliament of Canada today.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: On a point of order, perhaps I could just add one thing, Mr. Chairman.

Because this is a democratic country, you can write to me as a member of Parliament and express your views to me.

An hon. member: Just to Garry; I don't want any.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: No, you're a member of Parliament—and for myself, I welcome it. Some of your comments may end up in a speech, but it would also affect how we vote on this issue. As has been outlined, it's not the end of it. Legislation will then come forward, and this will be voted on.

You are a key part of this. If you feel so inclined, you can write to me.

The Chair: And what brings order to democracy is that the chairman gets the final word.

We're going to be back at 1 o'clock. What we're going to do at 1 o'clock will also be interesting. I don't know that it's so interesting that you're not going to have to back to school, but at 1 o'clock we have 17 people who wish to make two-minute statements before the committee. We weren't able to accommodate everybody, and some people don't like the formality of this process but want to put their views on this subject on the record. So at 1 o'clock we'll reconvene here to do that.

Again, I thank you all for coming.

I suspend until 1 o'clock.

Â (1211)

· (1302)

· (1305)

The Chair: I call back to order the 40th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights as we continue in our deliberations on marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions.

As I explained before the break, now we are about to engage in a part of these consultations that has been quite successful across the country. More people have wished to contribute to this exercise than we have been able to accommodate in the conventional way, and some people are frankly not as comfortable participating in the more formal way. We have a stand-up microphone, and we have 18 people who have asked to be given the opportunity to speak for two minutes.

Since there are 18 people, going over by two minutes 18 times would put us well over our time. Consequently, I'm going to be very strict about the time. I will call time at the two-minute mark, and one sentence will be left to complete your thoughts, but that's all. Then I will be bringing down the gavel with authority.

Sky is going to help me, because I looked at the list, and it didn't come quickly to me how to pronounce many of these names. Rather than struggle with it and perhaps insult someone, I am going to read off the first three names, and as soon as the first one finishes, we will read three from then on.

The first three names are as follows.

Ms. Sky Aurora Wah-Shee (As Individual): Ms. Sky Aurora Wah-Shee, Reverend Mike Gardner, May Aupaloota, Thomsasee Naqlinanig.

The Chair: Did everyone hear that? The first one is Reverend Mike Gardner. He is not here. May Aupaloota is not here. Thomsasee Naqlinanig is not here.

Ms. Sky Aurora Wah-Shee: The next three people we have are Natsiapik Naqlinanig, Jayka Pitseolak, and Sammy Qaumariak.

Not here? Keep going.

Enoapik Sageatok, Reverend Daniel Aupalu, Elisapi Davidee.

The Chair: Keep going.

Ms. Sky Aurora Wah-Shee: Chris Wilson.

The Chair: Chris? Bingo.

Chris Wilson is actually number 10. We will continue to go down the list. I understand that some of these people are probably just not back yet. When we finish, we'll come back to the top to make sure we haven't just missed somebody because they did not get here at 1 o'clock.

The next three.

Ms. Sky Aurora Wah-Shee: Gail Girard, Mark O'Keefe, Jason Carpenter.

The Chair: Please introduce yourselves. You have two minutes, and I intend to be very firm.

Mr. Chris Wilson (As Individual): Yes, sir. Thank you very much.

My name is Chris Wilson. I am a city councillor. I have no reservations in speaking on this matter from my elected position. Although I can't speak for all of council specifically to the issue of same-sex marriages, I can welcome the panel to our city and thank you very much for including our community in this discussion.

When I became aware that the standing committee might bypass us because of a lack of participation, I felt a sense of irony. Nunavummiutall too often feel that our concerns and our voices are not heard by the federal government and the rest of Canada. We are expected to do our part, pay our taxes, obey Canadian laws, and live our lives, yet we have to struggle to obtain the same level of recognition, rights, and control over our own affairs.

Yes, it's a big leap I'm making here, but the parallel with all minority groups on any issue is a desire to have access, rights, recognition, and protection under the law, the same as the greater majority. The issue of same-sex marriage for couples is no exception.

Originally I thought same-sex marriage was really a simple matter. I felt that if same-sex couples wished to be married and wanted to run the gauntlet of divorce and custody battles, with which as both a child and an adult I am all too painfully familiar, well then, welcome to my world. But in reading through the discussion paper, I realized that the impact is more profound upon the definition of marriage, the legal consequences, and religion—much more than I had realized. I had prepared several drafts for my comments this morning, but decided to focus solely on inclusivity.

As a white and, as it so happens, heterosexual male, I have all the choices our society can offer me—choices it does not offer other Canadians. This astonishes me, as I am no more Canadian, based on the sex of the person with whom I choose to spend my life, than anyone else. No, some of my best friends aren't gay; nor are any of my family members that I am aware of—and I stress “aware of”. I cannot imagine living with discrimination or fighting the ignorance of the larger society around me just because of my sexual preference.

I can't dispute the impact marriage has in this society, but given the divorce rate and the fact that our society hasn't collapsed, I doubt very much that there will be any significant negative impact from equalizing same-sex marriages.

· (1310)

The Chair: Can you finish it up?

Mr. Chris Wilson: On the contrary, I feel that the recognition of same-sex marriages will benefit our society tremendously.

Thank you very much.

Ms. Sky Aurora Wah-Shee: Gail Girard.

Ms. Gail Girard (As Individual): I'm Gail Girard. I'm very nervous to be here. I didn't really make a big, old speech or anything like that. I just jotted down a couple of notes while I was eating my Caesar salad next door.

I came out about three years ago. I was eighteen years old, and it was tough for me, but I'm really glad I didn't have to grow up thirty or forty years ago. I can't imagine coming out in those times.

Things seem to be much easier nowadays; however, it always surprises me how ignorant some people can be. To deny two people the right to marry is unacceptable, as far as I'm concerned. We as a society shouldn't be able to dictate who you want to spend the rest of your life with—not only to spend the rest of your life with, but to have it recognized in the eyes of the law and have us as Canadians allow others to live their lives as they please.

I, for one, hope to have the privilege one day to get married.

Thanks.

Ms. Sky Aurora Wah-Shee: Mark O'Keefe.

Mr. Mark O'Keefe (As Individual): My name is Mark O'Keefe and I've lived here in Iqaluit for the last eight years.

I just wanted to say that I'm in support of the traditional family, a man and a wife being married together. I really believe that the world operates because of absolutes. I believe there are principles that keep the world working. There are physical principles such as gravity and certain things that, if they are violated, lead to drastic consequences.

I believe also that there are moral absolutes, and when we violate those moral absolutes there are going to be great consequences. I really believe that marriage for a man and a woman, right across the whole gamut, in every country and in every nation and in every sector of creation, is very natural—it's totally natural—and it's the way it was planned and designed.

I believe the traditional family is the building block of all society and of every society. I know of no society that was ever built on same-sex marriage, but I know of many societies that have been destroyed by same-sex marriages from the top and from the inside out, such as the Greek and the Roman empires.

I want to also say that it's usually the last blatant sexual immorality, where we throw off all the guards against that type of living, that is the last step of a good, stable society on its way down.

I just wanted to share those views. I also wanted to share that there's a difference between respect for a person—and I think we must always hold in respect other people regardless of what their views or behaviours are—and acceptance of a behaviour that goes against our personal beliefs.

Thank you very much.

· (1315)

Ms. Sky Aurora Wah-Shee: Jason Carpenter.

Mr. Jason Carpenter (As Individual): My name is Jason Carpenter, and I'm a believer in the traditional family. I believe healthy families are the key to a healthy Canada. I believe that healthy families are necessary for boys and girls to develop into healthy, well-rounded men and women.

And yes, I believe there are differences between boys and girls, men and women. In fact, I believe men and women have different strengths and weaknesses. For this reason, I believe that when they are joined together, they complement each other and form a wonderfully complete single unit. I believe this unit is the basis of a healthy family.

Mr. Chair, the Canadian concept of marriage is born out of the country's Christian roots and therefore is based on biblical ideals, as was most of our nation's social framework. Today some are trying to redefine the Canadian concepts of marriage and family in hopes, I hope, of making it better. In light of the numerous historical perversions and abuses within the traditional marriage relationship, this task is rather noble.

However, Mr. Chair, let me lend this analogy. If you were given a construction plan that was perfect in design and detail, but you were given faulty, cheap materials to build the structure, the result would be a faulty and unsafe structure. However, if you tried to correct the problem by redesigning your plans instead of seeking better construction materials, you'd be foolish, because the plan is right; it's perfect. The problem is the components, not the design. So too the problem with marriage is not the design; it is that unhealthy people in the past have married and then distorted and perverted it.

Therefore, Mr. Chair, I urge you and this committee to hold firm on the concept of marriage as being “one man and one woman”. I urge you to promote the ideal and not alter it.

Why do I think the ideal is one man and one woman? It is because, Mr. Chair, boys will not learn how to be good healthy men by having two mommies, and women will not learn how to be good healthy women by having two daddies. Men learn to be good men from good men, and women learn to be good women from good women. Likewise, men and women learn best how to recognize, communicate effectively, and interact appropriately with the opposite sex while watching healthy opposite-sex parents. For this reason, I believe we need to reaffirm the importance, value, and permanence of traditional marriage.

Thank you.

Ms. Sky Aurora Wah-Shee: Steve Wood.

Mr. Steve Wood (As Individual): I thank you for the opportunity to address the committee today.

I myself stand in favour of the traditional family and traditional values. I am here as a father, first of all, of seven children. I have a wife, and we have an excellent relationship. One of the things we try to do as a family is teach our children to be good citizens. Part of being a good citizen is understanding what that means.

In reality, sexuality has become foremost in our society, and we have a society of rampant sexual abuse all throughout different fora.

Children are highly susceptible to influence. One of the reasons I stand against the change of marriage as it stands today is because of the influence factor. Normal heterosexual marriages propagate themselves through natural means. Homosexual and lesbian relationships can never propagate themselves through natural means. They can only do it through influence.

As we see today, there is much influence throughout society—in the media, books, and different things—trying to change the concept of marriage and of raising healthy children to be good citizens and good Canadians, through influence.

This is a major thing. Moral decay comes through influence. In Hitler's Germany, the whole society was changed by influence, by teaching a certain thing and saying this is right, this is right, and this is right. The whole nation was led astray. I draw a parallel with that.

In this parliamentary committee we will fail—and will be responsible before Canada—if we fail to come up with a strong mandate to keep the family strong in Canada.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

· (1320)

Ms. Sky Aurora Wah-Shee: Steven Bill.

Mr. Steven Bill (As Individual): Hello. I have lived in Nunavut for almost 10 years and have done most of my schooling here, grade 7 to 12. I'm now going into my fourth year of post-secondary education in Alberta.

What I have to say pertains to Nunavut only, as I was under the assumption earlier today that the whole agenda was to decide for Nunavut residents, but I think there is pertinence to this anyway.

My appeal to the committee today is to listen to the voices of the elders. Not living up here, you perhaps do not understand the extremely important role that the voice of the elders holds.

One pivotal and essential reason for the establishment of Nunavut four years ago was to maintain and in fact endorse and encourage the Inuit traditions and value system. Inuit have fought hard for this, and they continue to do so. We live in a very tradition-based culture. This is a definitive element in Nunavut and a very important one that cannot be lost or neglected.

Of course, in order for our society to fully embrace traditional values, contemporary Inuit have appealed to the voice of elders. This is the main link Inuit have to the culture and to the wisdom of ages past.

The bottom line is that if Nunavut wants to attain its goals and maintain its Inuit heritage and appeal to its past as a means to direct its future, it's absolutely necessary that it listens to the voice of the elderly, without question. To deny this is to deny the very foundations from which Nunavut is founded.

So I ask your committee that in considering this issue today, your first and foremost consideration be to give an attentive ear to that which the elders have pleaded. Our religious perspectives aside, all emotional appeals and any other determining factors aside, listen to what Inuit elders have said and follow accordingly. Today the voice of the elders has spoken quite clearly on this topic.

I can't speak for all, but I can assure that this democratic territory called Nunavut, for the vast majority--I hope, I think--would fully support an appeal to the elders on this issue.

I thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Sky Aurora Wah-Shee: Sean Doherty. He is not here.

Wayne Moore.

Mr. Wayne Moore (As Individual): Good afternoon. I'm a pastor here in Iqaluit, in Nunavut. I'd just like to appeal to you on God's behalf. I believe the Bible teaches that the way marriage is now is the way God has ordained it, as I believe we have heard from some of the people here today already, and I would not like to see it changed. I would also not like to see myself in the position I'm in, being forced into performing marriages that I don't agree with. So I would ask the committee today to consider that in their decision-making process.

That's all I have to say.

· (1325)

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Sky Aurora Wah-Shee: Reverend Mike Gardner. May Aupaloota.

Ms. May Aupaloota (As Individual): [Witness speaks in her native language] I'm sorry for being late, I was at another meeting. I am a married woman with grown children. I would like to make an input on the topic of discussion today, but as I just walked in I'm not quite prepared yet, so I will speak up when I need to. That is all for now.

Ms. Sky Aurora Wah-Shee: Thomsasee Naqlinanig.

A witness: [Witness speaks in her native language]

The Chair: Give him our best wishes.

Ms. Sky Aurora Wah-Shee: Natsiapik Naqlinanig.

Ms. Natsiapik Naqlinanig (As Individual): [Witness speaks in her native language] Thank you. I have quite a few things to say of what I know, I would like to impart to you of my views on the subject but as we are given only a few minutes to speak and am not used to making a statement with government present I feel uncomfortable. I would like to speak about some things that I came here to say. I was brought up with both a mother and a father with quite a number of siblings; but now there are only myself and my sister left. I am married with grown children and numerous grandchildren. And though I do have many relatives, none of them have same sex partners. We were taught by the ministers that a man and woman should be a couple, and that is the way they are taught by ministers today. This has always been Inuit law that a man and woman be a couple; and though we are elders now we still know that that is the right way. I have a lot of things that would be helpful to you on how to conduct your lives morally, but I cannot; so may God help you to make the right decision regarding the topic; we are here only because of Jesus. Thank you.

Ms. Sky Aurora Wah-Shee: Jayka Pitseolak. Sammy Qaumariak. Enoapik Sageatok. Reverend Daniel Aupalu. Elisapi Davidee.

Ms. Elisapi Davidee (As Individual): Nakurmiik. Welcome to Iqaluit, to all of you.

I'd just like to point out, too, that it's unfortunate that some of our elders might not know where to go, because we don't have any sign that directs them in their language and they don't speak English. Frobisher is kind of a faraway place to be for some of them.

I have lived in Iqaluit for several years now. I remember my first few years of living in an environment that allowed you to be a child, play as a child, be happy as a child. I remember my father being a father: a provider, adviser, protector, strong leader, weather forecaster, hunter, teacher, fixer of many things, and much more. I also remember my mother being a mother: loving, caring, guiding, showing, nurturing, teaching, receiving, sewing, and so much more, too.

If it were not for the survival strength of our fathers and grandfathers, many of us would not be here today. Our fathers are the providers. They're physical strong and know and endure weather conditions that are beyond you and me. They have the provider and hunter instinct. They will go to any length to provide for the family in this harsh environment in which we live.

The mother, though, in Inuit society is equal in importance to the father: the mother, the home, the receiver, distributor, and welcomer of the food that is brought home by the father. The mother also cares for the skins, which are turned into clothing, as the father needs this clothing to continue to provide in our harsh weather.

The father cannot be a good provider without the help of the mother. Both the parents play equally important roles in the Inuit family--and please do not be misled otherwise.

The qualities that my parents brought and taught us is something I will never forget. I often reflect on them in order to survive many things today, and I know this is also true for many other people.

· (1330)

The Chair: Time.

Ms. Elisapi Davidee: As a concerned citizen and as a mother, I urge you to support the traditional family marriage.

Thank you.

Ms. Sky Aurora Wah-Shee: Enoapik Sageatok.

Ms. Enoapik Sageatok (As Individual): [Witness speaks in her native language] We had gotten a phone call to voice our opinions on the topic of same sex marriages, and I have something to say to that. It isn't the way of Inuit to have same sex marriages. I think that maybe it has always been a lifestyle of qallunaat. I have a grandchild who is being raised by a gay couple. He is the child of my daughter Leetia who died of AIDS. He has grown to be quite a big boy now, being raised by a gay couple with great care. I have no objection to people opposing same sex marriages because they cannot make babies together. But also if they treat each other with respect and love, it is alright. The gay couple who have adopted my grandchild treat each other with respect and set a good example for him. In the beginning I wanted custody of my grandson when my daughter died, but was told that they could not give him up anymore, so I was advised that it would be better if I let them have the custody. That gay couple have always made sure that my grandson knows who I am and treat me with respect. And for that I am now grateful that they are raising my grandson, that they are a couple. It is obviously allowed in their culture. They are not together only for the sex part, they are together because they genuinely care for each other. The reason why marriages happen is because of love, not just for sex. So because we were asked to speak on the subject of same sex marriages I came to voice mine. I do not feel that Inuit should not have same sex marriages because it isn't Inuit way since time began. Thank you that I was able to voice my opinion on that subject. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Sean Doherty.

Mr. Sean Doherty (As Individual): I'm for recognizing same-sex marriages. I think in the eyes of the law people are considered equal regardless of gender, and gender has no bearing. If you look at marriages, the gender of the two people involved should also have no bearing in the eyes of the law. The things that are important in a marriage are love and understanding--they are very important--and gender is not something that's important.

If you have a man and a woman who are married, and then suddenly the woman becomes a man, then it will be two men--or two women. Still, their souls are in love, and it doesn't change the marriage or the fact that they are two people who care about each other and want to have life together.

If you take two straight people or two gay people who have been living together for 20 years, and one of them dies, the gay couple should have the same rights as the straight couple, because both couples care about each other a lot and have shared their lives together, and that should be recognized.

This really isn't an issue about public opinion. It's an issue about what's right and what's wrong. The government should go for what's right even if the majority is against it. There are a lot of young people today who are for same-sex marriages. If the government waits for everybody to be for same-sex marriage, it's not going to happen. If they had waited for all the men to vote for women to be allowed to vote, it wouldn't have happened. If they had waited for all the white people in South Africa to decide to let black people to vote, it wouldn't have happened.

I think it should be based on what's morally right, and that has to be same-sex marriages. The inclusion of people in straight people's rights is not going to hurt anybody. I think allowing same-sex marriages to happen is not going to hurt straight people at all.

The Chair: Finally, we have Sky Aurora Wah-Shee.

While Sky finds her way to the microphone, I'd like to thank her for her assistance in helping me with some of the names that were unfamiliar to me.

But that doesn't give you any more than two minutes.

Ms. Sky Aurora Wah-Shee: Okay. I just wanted to let everybody know that I am not gay, but my girlfriend is.

My name is Sky Aurora Wah-Shee and I'd like to start off by thanking in advance all who helped this hearing be possible today. This is definitely a stepping stone for gays and lesbians as a whole. I just wanted to make a brief comment here, speaking as a resident of Nunavut.

When the Government of Nunavut was created in 1999, the phrase that was seen on a lot of posters, “for the people, by the people”, was the slogan we heard a lot. We--being the people--are speaking up today, and we can only conclude that upon being heard, it will hold true that the Government of Nunavut is exactly what they claim to be: for the people, by the people.

Thank you.

· (1335)

The Chair: I thank you, and I thank everyone for this exercise in democracy. I'm very glad the parliamentary committee found its way to Iqaluit. It has been helpful to our deliberations. I think there's something correct in the fact that, in reverse perhaps, this is the place we would end our journey.

Now we will go back to try to sort our way through the various interventions we received. I encourage you, as I did the students this morning, to follow our work and contact members of Parliament or the clerk to receive copies of the report.

With that, I'm going to adjourn the meeting and thank everyone for their support. Since this is the last spot in our consultations out of Ottawa, let me pay particular tribute to the professionals who support our work. That includes everyone who will be travelling on our Bearskin Airlines charter tonight. They know who they are. I have to say I've been here 10 years and I have not worked with anyone better. These are very dedicated professional people, and I think the citizens of Canada, and today the citizens of Canada who live in Nunavut, are well served by our public service. I thank them.

The meeting is adjourned.