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

Thursday, February 6, 2003

0905

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

Me Marie-France Bureau (Member of the Board, Table de concertation des lesbiennes et des gais du Québec)

0910

Me Jacques Papy (Member of the Board, Table de concertation des lesbiennes et des gais du Québec)

Me Marie-France Bureau

0915

The Chair

Mr. Richard Hudon (Association of Christian Families)

0920

0925

The Chair

Ms. Monica Perazzo (Coordinator, Lesbian Mothers Association of Quebec)

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone (Coordinator, Lesbian Mothers Association of Quebec)

0930

0935

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

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

Mr. Richard Hudon

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Richard Hudon

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Richard Hudon

Mr. Richard Marceau

0940

Mr. Richard Hudon

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Richard Hudon

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Richard Hudon

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Richard Hudon

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Richard Hudon

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Richard Hudon

Mr. Richard Marceau

0945

Me Marie-France Bureau

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP)

0950

Mr. Richard Hudon

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Richard Hudon

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Richard Hudon

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Richard Hudon

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Richard Hudon

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Richard Hudon

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Richard Hudon

0955

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Richard Hudon

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Richard Hudon

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Richard Hudon

The Chair

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

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.)

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Me Marie-France Bureau

1000

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Me Marie-France Bureau

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Ms. Monica Perazzo

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

1005

Me Jacques Papy

Me Marie-France Bureau

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

1010

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone

Mr. John McKay

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone

Mr. John McKay

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone

Mr. John McKay

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone

Mr. John McKay

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Svend Robinson

1015

Mr. Richard Hudon

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Richard Hudon

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Richard Hudon

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Richard Hudon

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Richard Hudon

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Richard Hudon

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Richard Hudon

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Richard Hudon

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Me Marie-France Bureau

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Me Marie-France Bureau

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Me Marie-France Bureau

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Me Marie-France Bureau

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Me Marie-France Bureau

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Me Marie-France Bureau

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Me Marie-France Bureau

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Mr. Richard Hudon

1020

Mr. Pat O'Brien

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Me Jacques Papy

The Chair

Me Jacques Papy

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.)

Me Marie-France Bureau

1025

Mr. John Maloney

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone

Mr. John Maloney

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone

Mr. John Maloney

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ)

1030

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

Me Marie-France Bureau

The Chair

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

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone

Mr. Derek Lee

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone

Mr. Derek Lee

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone

Mr. Derek Lee

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone

Mr. Derek Lee

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone

1035

Mr. Derek Lee

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. Richard Hudon

The Chair

Mr. Richard Hudon

The Chair

Mr. Richard Hudon

The Chair

Mr. Richard Hudon

1040

The Chair

Mr. Richard Hudon

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone

Mr. Richard Hudon

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone

Mr. Vic Toews

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone

Mr. Vic Toews

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone

Mr. Vic Toews

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone

Mr. Vic Toews

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone

Me Marie-France Bureau

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

1045

Me Jacques Papy

Mr. John McKay

Me Jacques Papy

Mr. John McKay

Me Jacques Papy

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

1050

Mr. Richard Hudon

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

Ms. Monica Perazzo

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien

1055

The Chair

Ms. Monica Perazzo

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Ms. Monica Perazzo

The Chair

Mr. Richard Hudon

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Monica Perazzo

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone

Ms. Monica Perazzo

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone

The Chair

Me Marie-France Bureau

Me Jacques Papy

The Chair

Me Marie-France Bureau

The Chair

Ms. Monica Perazzo

The Chair

1100

Mr. Richard Hudon

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

NUMBER 014

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, February 6, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): I call to order the 14th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we're doing a study on marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions.

Today we have a panel of three sets of witnesses: from the Table de concertation des gais et lesbiennes du Québec, Madame Marie-France Bureau and Monsieur Jacques Papy; from Christian Families, Mr. Richard Hudon; and from Lesbian Mothers Association, Monica Perrazo and Gabriel Pinkstone.

I think you've been asked if you could do your opening comments inside of ten minutes. I'll signal in some fashion if things get out of hand, but we'd like to keep you inside of that so that we can spend more time going back and forth with members of the committee.

To go directly to it, I'm going to go in the order presented in my ordre du jour, so the first presentation would be by the Table de concertation des gais et lesbiennes du Québec.

[Translation]

Me Marie-France Bureau (Member of the Board, Table de concertation des lesbiennes et des gais du Québec): Thank you for this invitation to appear before this standing committee in order to participate in these consultations.

My name is Marie-France Bureau. I am a lawyer and have been a member of the Quebec Bar Association since 1997. I am also a member of the Board of Directors of the Table de concertation des lesbiennes et des gais du Québec. Today, I am accompanied by my colleague, Jacques Papy, who is also a member of the Quebec Bar Association and a member of the board of directors of our organization.

The Table de concertation des lesbiennes et des gais du Québec, which has been in existence now for nearly 10 years, is an organization bringing together all gay and lesbian organizations in Quebec, representing more than 60 community organizations advocating the rights of gays and lesbians.

Access to marriage is a concern and a major demand of Quebec's lesbian and gay communities and has been an important priority for our organization. Indeed, our organization was responsible for establishing a broad coalition comprising various organizations of civil society, including Quebec's major unions, the Fédération des femmes du Québec and many gay and lesbian advocacy organizations. This coalition is called the Coalition québécoise pour la reconnaissance des conjoints et conjointes de même sexe (Quebec Coalition for the Recognition of Same Sex Partners) and, along with other organizations, was an intervener in the Hendricks/Leboeuf case which is before the Quebec Superior Court. This case is currently being appealed. The coalition has also participated very actively in the public consultations on the Loi instituant l'union civile et établissant des nouvelles règles de filiation au Québec (Law instituting the civil union and establishing new filiation rules in Quebec).

Our presentation today will be focusing primarily on two things. Initially, my colleague will outline the reasons why it is unacceptable, for legal and constitutional reasons, to establish a status that is parallel to marriage or to maintain the status quo. He will also explain why this is unacceptable in terms of equality within Canadian society. Secondly, I will outline why we feel that the preferred option is to broaden marriage to include same-sex partners and how this solution will be to the advantage of all Canadians. I will therefore turn the floor over to my colleague who will explain our first point, and following our two presentations, we would be happy to answer your questions in English or French.

¿ (0910)

Me Jacques Papy (Member of the Board, Table de concertation des lesbiennes et des gais du Québec): Mr. Chairman, the organization that we represent is strongly opposed to establishing a federal registry. In our opinion, this would be an unfortunate initiative for three different reasons that are legal, practical and, most importantly, symbolic in nature.

The constitutional law of our country is complex, particularly as it pertains to the division of power. Although it may appear that it is the federal government that is officially responsible for setting up such a registry, in reality, the nature and purpose of such a registry makes it fall under provincial jurisdiction. The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada on this issue has always tended to indicate that such a registry would certainly be considered as being unconstitutional.

In practical terms, aside from the fact that this would create complicated legislative confusion, this registry would require close cooperation from the various provincial and federal governments. The recent history of our institutions has demonstrated how fragile such initiatives are.

Finally, as far as the symbolic aspect is concerned, should the registry be open to everyone, without any gender distinction, discrimination would persist since same-sex couples would still be deprived of one option available to heterosexual couples, namely, they can still marry. If the registry did not include heterosexual couples, the ramifications would be even more unacceptable because then we would be establishing a system of segregation, on official and public registration of Canadian homosexuals. We feel that we are better doing nothing rather than creating a new federal institution consecrating our status as well as that of our children as second-class citizens.

The proposal that the state not define marriage is not feasible either. This is a matter that goes well beyond the right to equality and dignity. It involves the division of power between the various public authorities, the scope of the prescriptive power of religious authorities in the public domain and the definition of secularism in a democratic state.

In addition, this debate causes a shift in the discourse toward alternative ways of recognizing relationships that involve economic interdependence, a matter that was raised by the Law Reform Commission, for example. In our opinion, such a position today, in the context of this committee, is completely unacceptable. We support the dominant marital model of the couple as a basic social unit for the purpose of raising and protecting our children and providing for the welfare of its members and the community in general.

Our spouses and our children deserve the same protection and social recognition as other families. Viewing our families as mere economic interdependence relationships is the worst form of discrimination, a negation of our existence, namely, a refusal to see who we really are.

Thank you.

Me Marie-France Bureau: I would like to deal with the proposal requesting Parliament to widen the definition of marriage to include same-sex spouses, which, in our opinion, clearly appears to be the option that best corresponds to the principles of equality, freedom of choice and religion, and which best satisfies the constitutional requirements of a democratic and pluralistic society.

Aside from equality considerations, which are quite clear—the Supreme Court has ruled on the issue— this solution will enable the state to play its secular role in regulating marriage in a manner that complies with contemporary Canadian values. Marriage as a secular institution should be accessible to all Canadians, without any gender discrimination. Indeed, the role of the state with respect to marriage is to facilitate the organization of private relationships between individuals. This provides a stable legal framework for regulating both the economic and emotional interdependence between adults. It is now clear that the desire to unite, the will to live together in accordance with a stable legal framework, with all of the symbolism and public rituals, have nothing to do with sexual orientation.

It has been acknowledged, both here and in most western countries, that there is no reason now to maintain a hierarchy of sexual orientations, of various types of stable conjugal unions. Of course, when the question of marriage is raised, people get upset and say that this is an institution which, by its very nature, consecrates the monogamous heterosexual union. The religious influence colours the debate on marriage even further, in a secular and lay society. However, we must realize that the institution has evolved and continues to do so, and that it has been transformed over time. Just think about divorce, shared parenting responsibilities, the freedom to reproduce, the sharing of the family estate, etc. So it is clear that marriage is an institution with rules that are not cast in stone.

However, discrimination which has existed for such a long time and the attachment to certain traditions can make the exclusion of gays and lesbians from marriage seem to be natural, as something that is self-explanatory. This exclusion and this discrimination were made to seem natural, but this is a slippery slope.

This is obviously an emotional question, and some religious groups are reluctant to change their concept of marriage. We must remember that marriage between individuals of the same sex in no way interferes with freedom of religion. This point has no doubt been made to you many times. Because of the principle of freedom of religion, religious dominations will always be able to choose whether or not to celebrate certain unions.

To conclude, I would like to point out that the report of the Law Commission of Canada, Beyond conjugality, that you have certainly all had time to read, states that one of the clear conclusions with respect to marriage is that if governments are to maintain this institution referred to as “marriage”, they cannot do so in this discriminatory manner. After all the years of research and consultations throughout the country, I believe that this issue is clear.

I would also like to point out that the Table de concertation des lesbiennes et des gais du Québec has identified advantages that would apply to all Quebec citizens should the definition of marriage be amended. I would refer you to pages 13, 14 and 15 of our brief, which deal with this matter. The advantages for gays and lesbians are quite clear. There are also clear advantages for the children. Benefits to Canada, to the state, include the promotion of intra-family solidarity, the empowerment and solidarity of couples and families and certainly a reduced social burden for the state. The uniformity and harmonization of legislation on a national scale are in keeping with the interests of the state. This would naturally also reduce conflicting legislation and the many legal challenges dealing with the recognition of homosexual conjugality and the status of homosexuals as parents, thereby increasing social cohesion and confirming Canada as a leader in the area of human rights protection. We should point out that Belgium took action on this issue last week.

Thank you.

¿ (0915)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Hudon.

Mr. Richard Hudon (Association of Christian Families): Well, let me straight away state the obvious purpose for my being here today. The Association of Christian Families is for the status quo. In fact, we are for strengthening of the status quo. My old Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines marriage as “the social institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding...a family”.

In French, the Quillet Flammarion defines marriage as “l'union légitime d'un homme et d'une femme” or, in English, the legitimate union of a man and a woman. Can this be expressed any more clearly?

Since you have already received the legal definition of marriage, I will not dwell on it, but merely evoke the fact that it legally defines the relationship in a combination of both of the above statements expressed in legal terminology.

Why ever would anyone want to change this perfectly sane definition to make it agree with the desires of some infinitesimal percentage of our population, approximately 0.02%? Acquiescence to homosexual activist demands to include them in a definition of marriage is nothing short of insanity. It's an aberration, as bad as legalizing death by abortion.

Marriage is a perfectly good institution just the way it is. The best we can do is strengthen it. As it stands, some tax laws are anti-family; some institutions are tearing at the fabric of marriage and corrupting it; so-called common-law unions being granted the privileges of matrimony are defacing it and making a mockery of matrimonial law. These need to change, not marriage law.

Marriage may be on the decline, but it's far from dead yet. Marriage is still the preferred modus operandi of the family. Check out the research done by the Vanier Institute, by REAL Women of Canada, and by Human Life International. Statistics bemoan the increase in the divorce rate and the prevalence of “shacking up”, to use a common word, leading to the disintegration of the social order.

Marriage is still the most common form of arrangement for the formation of a family—and I want to stress this idea of the formation of the family; without marriage you can't form a proper family—surpassing those data that are used only to promote abhorrent forms of arrangements for living together.

I maintain that it behooves us as a society not only to maintain the status quo but to strengthen it. There have been numerous studies done that show that children raised even in a dysfunctional family are still better off than in so-called single-parent families or in living arrangements that perpetuate fornication of any kind. Thus if we maintain or strengthen the status quo, working with it to even and only assist in upholding the status quo on marriage, we will be a better society for it.

However, if we persist in fooling around and experimenting with the marriage institution, we are doomed to perish as a society. Only in the family sanctioned by matrimony and reinforced in its goodness can we continue to prosper socially and financially. I'm sure you remember the old adage: “If it ain't broke, don't fix it.”

Even adolescents and pre-pubescent children realize that marriage and the family are of supreme importance in our society. Proof, you ask? Here it is. Do you recall the big foofaraw about UNICEF and Elections Canada teaming up to do a survey of children's rights among school children in Canada in 1999? It seems they were trying to prove that the family, and thereby married life, was of the lowest priority to children. They were proven wrong, and we've never heard any further. They cowered in silence at their lack of success.

Did you know that among all the rights that were given to them to vote on, the right of living in a family obtained the greatest number of votes? Why am I not surprised at the deafening silence of the opponents of marriage and the family? Why were the results hushed up?

¿ (0920)

In our society, as in past ages, marriage and the family have always prevailed to strengthen a nation. For our edification, I quote the delegate from Iran, addressing the Convocation of World Leaders in New York in January 2001, who said that the family is the basic unit of society where, we all agree, ethical, moral, and human values are inculcated in our children, and where they learn to be responsible adults.

The family is indeed the basic unit of society, and marriage has always been the way to ensure that families are generated from and within themselves. From within marriage come faithful heroes, holy people, courageous men and women.

Now, there has been a hue and cry from homosexual activists for a marriage law that would marry one man to another. What a preposterous proposition. Let's not make the mistake of acquiescing to such a ridiculous demand. Two men buggering and fellating each other cannot beget any progeny out of their aberrant sexual practices. If we dare to change the institution of matrimony and legally corrupt it, we shall see the further corruption of our society as well.

Law educates, and permission to do other than what is natural has brought down whole civilizations. A man and woman are created to complement each other, even if things are not always rosy when they exercise their complementarity in the matrimonial bed. However, it's the best that we have, and any attempt to dither with it is bound to fail. Change the law to allow for homosexual marriages and you connive with the destruction of our civilization. Prophetic? If you wish. Shocking? I hope so.

Here's my final comment on behalf of the Association of Christian Families. If we are to change the law, let us ameliorate it, not corrupt it for the sake of a relatively minuscule number of activist homosexuals.

Thank you.

¿ (0925)

The Chair: To Ms. Perazzo and Ms. Pinkstone, please.

[Translation]

Ms. Monica Perazzo (Coordinator, Lesbian Mothers Association of Quebec):

Good morning and thank you for inviting us to appear before you today. We represent the Lesbian Mothers' Association of Quebec. We are here on behalf of more than 200 families living in Quebec.

My name is Monica Perazzo. My partner and I have been together for nine years. We are both members of the Board of directors of the Lesbian Mothers' Association of Quebec.

I would like to remind you of our association's position, that is, its support for the proposal to put an end to discrimination in the Marriage Act and, therefore, to include same-sex couples along with couples of the opposite sex.

Marriage is important to us because it is a ritual. Through marriage, our union and our love is recognized by the state and by our community; marriage also allows us to pledge allegiance to one another, to express our rights and our duties to the state and to our community. It is a public act that would lift our unions and our love out of silence and shame. A state-recognized public marriage would provide the same symbolic and legal support enjoyed by heterosexual couples.

Gabriel and I have been emotionally and financially dependent on one another for nine years now, but our union has been thwarted by the current Marriage Act and is the subject of discrimination. What's more, we hope to have children soon and we can only imagine the discrimination they will face within society, but particularly at school. We can see them coming back from school, having been told that their family is not normal or that they themselves are abnormal because they have two mothers instead of one mother and one father. We would be able to tell them that what they heard is wrong, that they are as equal as everyone else, as normal as all the others, because we are married just as are all of the other parents and there is no reason for anyone to discriminate and for them to continue to fear the violence that is the result of homophobic discrimination.

Access to marriage helps to eradicate the discrimination experienced by our families, our children and by each one of us. We would become full-fledged Canadian citizens rather than second-class citizens, which is how we feel now. Gabriel will continue.

[English]

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone (Coordinator, Lesbian Mothers Association of Quebec): As Monica mentioned, the Lesbian Mothers Association recommends that the Canadian government retain only the proposition that would involve granting access to marriage to gay and lesbian couples. This is not just for the symbolic reasons Monica mentioned. There are practical repercussions as well. In the current situation our rights and responsibilities as couples and as parents vary widely from province to province and often have to be sought through the courts. Rules on adoption, for example, vary widely, as does the status of non-biological parents. In Quebec we're fortunate to have had since 2002 access to the status of civil union, which grants us the same rights and responsibilities as married couples, without, of course, the social recognition that Monica has discussed. But as soon we cross a border, this status vanishes, as do the protections gained for our children. Some other provinces have similar institutions, but again the details vary widely.

Gays and lesbians and their families must currently rely on the political courage of provincial governments. Rights, however, should not be subject to the changing tides of provincial politics, nor should we in theory need to rely on the political courage of the federal government. We're talking about rights. Granting access to marriage would send a very potent message to the provinces that discrimination against homosexuals is unacceptable. It would be very difficult in this context for the provinces not to correct their own laws to eradicate such discrimination.

Why are we against the other propositions? Marriage is a very powerful social symbol, the highest level of conjugal status available. Denying access to that status to same-sex couples is a signal that our relationships are not worthy of such a status. What could possibly justify such a situation? Nothing but blatant discrimination. I am not less committed, less loving, or less responsible than my brother or sister-in-law. Why does my relationship have a second-class status? Why am I excluded from the same choices? Why are my children less protected than other Canadian children? Why are they less protected than their own cousins? Many heterosexuals choose not to marry. They have that choice, regardless of their suitability as spouses or parents. I do not have that choice.

Marriage is a tremendously important social symbol with a long history. Some people would say this is a reason it should not be changed. This is terribly flawed reasoning. By the same logic, women should not have been granted the vote and slavery would still be legal. Society has moved on. A basic right remains a basic right. Sometimes we have to wait for a society to catch up.

That we are discriminated against is not a reason to side with the discriminator. It is a reason to eradicate the discrimination itself. That we are discriminated against does not justify reinforcing an inferior status, particularly one that is based on perception and not reality. On the contrary, the fact that we do experience such discrimination both socially and legally is the reason the government should once and for all remove this barrier to equal treatment. If we do not uphold our own charter, then what is it worth?

Some members of our society strongly believe in continuing this discrimination. However, the volume of their voices does not justify that belief, any more than a group of racists would be right simply because they were loud. This is not a matter of surveys or religious beliefs. Canada is a secular democracy, not a popularity contest. This is a matter of rights and discrimination.

In theory, under the charter I have access to the same choices, status, and social recognition as other Canadians. In real life this is unfortunately not the case. I, my partner, and my future children all suffer from a second-class status.

It is inconceivable to me that the Canadian government would consider retaining the status quo or installing a separate regime for same-sex couples. Both of these options would do nothing to address the discrimination we experience daily and, worse, would serve only to reinforce the notion that we are inferior and therefore unworthy of an equal status.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Law Commission of Canada, as well as the courts of Ontario and Quebec have all stated that there is no justification for maintaining the current distinction. It is now up to the government to change the situation rather than leaving it to the legal process to resolve.

¿ (0930)

It's important to note also that giving access to marriage to gays and lesbians changes nothing for heterosexuals. It does not take anything away from any other citizen, nor does it infringe on any of their freedoms. On the other hand, continuing to deny same-sex couples this right deliberately entrenches a discrimination.

What would access to marriage for gays and lesbians do? It would end legal discrimination against same-sex couples, a discrimination supposedly already prohibited by our own charter. It would give us access to the same choices of conjugal status as heterosexuals and, therefore, the same freedom of choice as other Canadians.

It would send a potent message about the validity and equality of our relationships and families. It would provide uniform rights and protections for same-sex couples and their families across Canada, providing them with equality as citizens. It would be a powerful symbol that homophobia and the discrimination it engenders are not acceptable in Canada.

Despite the emotional reactions such a debate can create, this is not an unresolvable problem. It's extremely simple. Under the charter, gays and lesbians have the same rights as any other Canadian. The current exclusion for marriage is directly contrary to this principle. The Canadian government has only one choice: allow same-sex couples to marry. Any other solution enshrines an unjustifiable discrimination.

Thank you.

¿ (0935)

The Chair: Thank you all for your presentations.

I'll now turn to Mr. Toews for seven minutes.

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

I think we've seen today a stark example of the contrasting views we have in Canada regarding the institution of marriage. The issue is based on different moral and other assumptions each of us brings to the consideration of this question. I don't think my questions of the witnesses are going to change that in any significant or insignificant way.

Ultimately, Parliament is going to have to determine this issue in accordance with what we hear and what each of us as parliamentarians personally believes. This is not a legal issue for the courts to determine; rather, it's a matter that we are going to have to determine.

At this point, from what I've heard today, we can only listen to the various groups and make the appropriate determinations. Accordingly, I don't think I have any questions at this time that would assist the committee's deliberations.

The Chair: Is there anyone else on the Alliance side?

Monsieur Marceau is next for seven minutes, sept minutes.

[Translation]

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

Thank you very much for your interesting presentations. These are always delicate issues. I must say that I do not agree with my colleague Vic Toews, from the Canadian Alliance, who states that this is not a legal issue; I believe that it is fundamentally legal. I will begin with Mr. Hudon.

Mr. Hudon, are you married?

Mr. Richard Hudon: Yes, sir.

Mr. Richard Marceau: I am also married, to a woman.

If Ms. Perazzo and Ms. Pinkstone had the right to marry, would that in any way affect your marriage to your wife?

Mr. Richard Hudon: My immediate response would be that it would not affect our union, but it could have an effect on society in terms of the stability that is lost outside a so-called normal marriage.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Do you not believe that in allowing two homosexuals to marry, we would, on the contrary, be adding stability? By marrying, they would be entering into a fairly specific legal contract that would be the same throughout the entire country. It seems to me then, that instead of lessening stability we will be adding to it.

Mr. Richard Hudon: Not at all. It is a corruption of the state of matrimony. Marriage was established for two people of the opposite sex. It goes back way before Christianity was established. Why is that? Because we were given the possibility, through this particular union, to start a family with two people of different sexes, a demonstration of the stability of the union. Man and woman were created to complement one another. Woman was not created for another woman to complement. Man was not created to make another man complete.

Mr. Richard Marceau: I imagine it is because you are a representative of Christian families that you think it is a gift from God.

¿ (0940)

Mr. Richard Hudon: Of course.

Mr. Richard Marceau: I am a Catholic. I am not sure you are, maybe that is not relevant. The Catholic Church does not allow divorce. The state, that is, the lay government, said that it was not obligated to apply the standards of any particular religion when it comes to divorce. The state has never tried to force the Catholic Church to marry divorced people.

I have another example. Women cannot be ordained as Catholic priests. The state has never forced the Catholic Church to ordain women priests even though, for all intents and purposes, it is a type of discrimination.

In allowing homosexuals and lesbians to marry... I am trying to understand how that could take anything away from you, Mr. Hudon, as a married heterosexual, or how that could weaken society rather than strengthen it.

Mr. Richard Hudon: That's a very long question, but discrimination is a necessity in our society. Will we put a murderer in jail or will we let him go free? We need to exercise discrimination. You cannot let a murderer go free in our society.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Just a minute. Are you comparing a homosexual to a murderer?

Mr. Richard Hudon: No, I haven't finished. What I mean is that marriage was devised in order to create a family, in order to have children. There is a very special way of conceiving children that two women cannot use; they need a man. That is what biology tells us.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Procreation is an important point. It if is the basis of a marriage, then what do we say about the woman who is infertile or a woman who can no longer conceive children? If the aim of marriage is procreation, should we prevent those women from marrying?

Mr. Richard Hudon: There is no answer to that question. it is a stupid question.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Why?

Mr. Richard Hudon: Because if either the woman or the man is infertile, a married couple can still adopt a child.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Yes, but then what would prevent women or men from adopting a child?

I might point out that I am asking my questions with a great deal of deference, and I did not in any way comment on your responses. I didn't say that they were intelligent or stupid. I would ask you to show some respect for the members and to act accordingly.

Mr. Richard Hudon: I would say that the fact that the state does not interfere in religious matters is a good thing; it is a type of discrimination. If the church, in the past, interfered in the affairs of the state, it is because the state was weak. Now, we have a strong state and a strong church. We have to learn to live together. As you said, we have to respect one another. If the civil state allows certain things that religion or God prohibit... I am also a Catholic, a real one. I don't know if you are a real Catholic. I believe in everything that the Church teaches. That is very important. The moral tenets of the Catholic religion are infallible.

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

Ms. Bureau and Mr. Papy, certain groups said that we were afraid that homosexual organizations—this is the question that was asked—are forced or trying to force churches to marry homosexual couples.

If we decided to go ahead with homosexual marriage, would you be comfortable with this committee recommending that a section similar to section 367 of the Quebec Civil Code be included in a law stipulating that the state or a religious minister could not be compelled to marry people if that goes against the beliefs of his own religion? I do not think that this is necessary, given the protection afforded freedom of religion under article 2 of the Charter, but if we were to make such a suggestion, would you be comfortable with it?

¿ (0945)

Me Marie-France Bureau: Absolutely. Given that we do have a plurality of religions, that does not pose any problem for me. I also believe that this is not necessary with respect to the Charter. I do believe that the right that one has to not be subjected to this discrimination and religious rights can coexist, and they do coexist very well. Indeed, there are many conflicts in a pluralistic society. There are different points of view and, generally speaking, conflicts are often resolved in favour of the freedom of religion to the detriment of the right not to be subject to this discrimination, for gays and lesbians. One has only to think of various cases pertaining to education, etc., that have been brought before the Supreme Court of Canada. We could easily repeat, as was done in the Civil Code when the civil union legislation was adopted, that no religious minister can be compelled to celebrate such unions against his or her will. I think that that may reassure everybody and no one in the various gay and lesbian communities would have any objection with that.

Civil marriage, in a secular society, would be eligible to everybody and this would contribute to the religious plurality and societal plurality, to diversity in general, because I think that marriage and celebration of marriage can be expressed in as many ways as there are Canadians and groups in Canada. This state does not control marriage or the celebration of marriage. I think that it is up to all Canadians to define what marriage means to them. A couple may choose to be married in a civil or legal fashion and simply go to City Hall in order to get married. Another couple may feel that this is something that is deeply religious, spiritual, and the ceremony will take place in a church, synagogue, in front of the congregation. For others, this could simply be a ceremony before friends presided over by a state official. I think that there are all kinds of ways to get married, and that is what is so wonderful about this idea of changing marriage.

The state has a secular role to play, an obligation to ensure that there is a certain amount of moral minimalism, because we are in the public domain and we must make compromises as citizens to ensure that all Canadians have access to the same protection, the same rights.

Does that prevent people from living their private, spiritual, religious and love life in their own way? No, quite the opposite. Moreover, we can see that marriage is almost becoming obsolete now. In Quebec, 30 p. 100 of the population is living common-law. Perhaps because the institution is suffering from necrosis. The institution has changed. When people say that the institution has remained unchanged since the beginning of Christianity, that makes me smile a bit. Just think about the past 30 years, the paternal authority... The mother, in the absence of the father, could not make any decision whatsoever with respect to her children. Could we conceive of that being the case now? Could we imagine a situation where the husband has control all of the assets and his wife becomes incompetent, a minor? We can no longer imagine such a scenario. The institution has changed profoundly, and I believe that we must continue changing it so that Canadians will continue believing in it. Consequently, including same-sex spouses could help to make marriage less aggressive, to get rid of all of the excess baggage that many people no longer want to carry around.

[English]

The Chair: Merci.

Mr. Robinson is next for seven minutes.

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You will understand that I've listened to the witnesses with care and, at times, a sense of pain and anger.

[Translation]

I would like to thank all the witnesses we heard this morning.

[English]

I want to say I agree fundamentally with Mr. Toews--and that's not often the case--that we have been presented with two really starkly different visions this morning. I wish that every Canadian had the opportunity to listen and to witness what we've witnessed this morning on this issue, because I am absolutely confident that if that were the case there would be an overwhelming sentiment in favour of recognition of the right of gay and lesbian people to marry. The contrast between the dignity, the eloquence, and the respect of the witnesses from the Table de concertation des gais et lesbiennes du Québec and L'Association des mères lesbiennes du Québec and the vitriolic, hateful diatribe of the Association of Christian Families is really quite remarkable.

My goodness, you demonstrated those Christian values this morning, Mr. Hudon.

I was brought back to almost 18 years ago when the very first parliamentary committee looked at the issue of equality for gays and lesbians. I sat on that committee. There were seven of us: five Conservatives and one Liberal--a woman from Quebec named Sheila Finestone--and me. We were in Burnaby. The very first witness was a group of lesbian mothers. They brought photographs of their families and the committee was stunned.

I think Philip Rosen may even have been at those hearings, if I'm not mistaken. And he will remember that. It was an extraordinary moment, because some members of the committee didn't realize that lesbians had children, that there were lesbian families.

When I hear Mr. Hudon, for example, saying, well, you know, it takes a man to create a family, well, I say to Mr. Hudon, with great respect, you're wrong. A turkey baster will do just fine.

Next week I'll be presenting a bill, as I've presented for many years on Valentine's Day, to recognize the right of gay and lesbian people to marry, along with my colleague, appuyé par mon collègue, Réal Ménard, député ouvertement gai comme moi.

And I want to echo the comments of my friend Mr. Marceau. This doesn't threaten your marriage in any way, Mr. Hudon. You say that marriage is about procreation, as well. I have seen no evidence suggesting that if I, as a gay man, were allowed to marry my partner, Max--we haven't decided that we would marry even if we had that option, but we want to have that choice--if we had that option and if other gay people had that option, heterosexual couples would suddenly start having fewer children.

I want to ask Mr. Hudon this question. Is there any evidence to suggest that heterosexual couples would suddenly start having fewer children? My God, we've allowed them to marry; we'd better stop having kids. I really don't think so.

And perhaps we're going to agree fundamentally to disagree, but I appeal to Mr. Hudon to recognize that surely we should be celebrating the diversity of families in this country. My family is just as valuable and just as strong.... I've shown my Christmas card before, with my family--with my partner, Max, our goddaughter, Mireta, and her little dinosaur friend. That's our family, and recognizing that family doesn't hurt you.

I also want to point out that I think Madame Bureau made this point very powerfully. Mr. Hudon talked about how the heterosexual family has been there for a thousand years and heterosexual marriage has been there for a thousand years, and we can't change it. Until very recently, one of the defining characteristics of marriage was that within the institution of marriage women could be raped, because women were the sexual property of their husbands. That's part of what marriage was all about for thousands of years, Mr. Hudon--your conception of marriage.

Were we wrong in changing that law? Yes or no?

¿ (0950)

Mr. Richard Hudon: The only response that you deserve, first of all, is that you are lacking in Christian charity by dragging me into your circle of homosexuality, which I abhor, and it does not require me to answer, because it's not answerable. It does still take a man and a woman to make a child. Where does the semen come from? From the semen of a turkey? Excuse me!

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'm asking you now, were we wrong in changing the definition of marriage to respect the right of women not to be raped within the institution of marriage? That had been the case for thousands of years.

Mr. Richard Hudon: Your question does not deserve an answer.

Mr. Svend Robinson: So you're not prepared to answer the question?

Mr. Richard Hudon: Not at all.

Mr. Svend Robinson: So the institution of marriage should not have been changed to respect the right of women not to be raped within the institution, because that had been the case for thousands of years.

Mr. Richard Hudon: Rape in the marriage is exceptional. Studies have shown it. What more do you want?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Would you like to elaborate on that?

Mr. Richard Hudon: There's no need. It's part of our society. Man has not always oppressed women. Civil authority has oppressed women by not granting them the right to vote—not a man: civil law—and we're trying to change that law again here today to do the opposite: to corrupt marriage.

Mr. Svend Robinson: And I assume—

Mr. Richard Hudon: And.... Let me finish.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Certainly. Go ahead.

Mr. Richard Hudon: Thank you. And by corrupting marriage, what I mean is that we are going to have a society that has all kinds of problems. You will have a child who has up to three mothers or up to three fathers, if you're going to use artificial insemination. I don't know if you've looked at those particular options.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Let me just ask this. The point was made earlier, I believe, that Quebec is the province that has the highest number of common-law unions in the country—something like 30%, I believe it is. Recent statistics show that.

I take it, given your evidence, Mr. Hudon, that you are strongly opposed to any recognition of common-law relationships.

Mr. Richard Hudon: Absolutely; it's an aberration.

¿ (0955)

Mr. Svend Robinson: Correct. And you would take away all of the benefits that have been extended?

Mr. Richard Hudon: No, I would not. All they need is to be recognized as living together and carry on. They need help? Society is there to help. Even religion is there to help. The Catholic faith has always helped the downtrodden, those who are having problems, homosexuals—it doesn't matter. The Catholic faith helps whoever needs help, and it doesn't matter that you are a homosexual. If you are in need and the only person around is a Catholic, he has a duty to help you.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Like Archbishop Law in Boston, for example?

Mr. Richard Hudon: Those are exceptions.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Oh, those are exceptions.

Mr. Richard Hudon: Yes, sir. Allow me. You are taking one case out of context and applying it to the whole of a religion. This is a tactic that is diabolical. This is a tactic you use to bring down what is logical and sane.

The Chair: We're going to go to Mr. O'Brien for seven minutes.

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

I don't want to be flippant, but I thought I was at the agriculture committee for a minute when we were talking about turkeys and turkey basters and everything else.

I'm not going to comment on today's witnesses, but I am going to say I've talked to a great number of people on both sides of this argument, here in Ottawa and in my riding, and I've encountered spokespeople on both sides who were very polite and eloquent and others who were very rude and simplistic—on both sides of the argument, and I think that needs to maybe be said, Mr. Chairman. That has been my experience, anyway.

I have a couple of comments and a couple of questions. I'm not a lawyer and I don't profess any legal expertise, but—

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): You can't say that in this committee.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: You can't say that? But I do know some history, and I know that in the past the courts in democratic countries have upheld such things as slavery and various forms of discrimination. So I wonder about an appeal to the courts being the last bastion of reason on any question, quite frankly. I'm sure the lawyers here know that you don't have to look very far from Canada to find democratic countries where slavery was upheld by the highest courts.

The comment was made, I think both ways, about the.... I hear some contradictions, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to explore a little bit.

First of all, I agree this is not first and foremost a question of numbers. I disagree with Mr. Hudon on the infinitesimal number of people wanting so-called same-sex marriage, which I'll be quite up front on and say that to me it's an oxymoron. I have no desire to hide that view; I've stated it publicly many times in my own riding. So I would need to be convinced.

But it's not a question of the small number or the volume of voices, as one of the other witnesses put it. That doesn't justify discrimination. But then, we did hear people say—I think it is Madame Bureau I'm pretty much quoting—that we need to keep pace with what Canadians currently believe. If you mean this in terms of the question of possibly changing the definition of marriage, I can only speak for my own riding. I've gone out of my way to seek the views of my constituents many times on this. It's absolutely overwhelmingly opposed to changing the definition of marriage.

I'd like to ask you about that. If we're to keep pace with what Canadians currently believe, why are we here at all, holding these hearings? I would submit to you that it's pretty clear that Canadians are overwhelmingly opposed—at least my constituents—to changing this definition.

Me Marie-France Bureau: First of all, I would say that depends on the riding and the region of Canada, for sure, but secondly, I would say it's not a question of how popular it is. A lot of the reforms we made, in terms of racial minorities and women, were not popular and there was an overwhelming majority against that. Often the most privileged and those who have power are opposed to extending benefits or privileges to the less favoured, and I think it's not a good justification.

À (1000)

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I understand that, but I quoted you. I wrote it down very carefully: “keep pace with what Canadians currently believe.” I think you have contradicted yourself. If we're to keep pace with what Canadians currently believe, I submit to you that the chairman should bang his gavel, and we'll all go home and say the status quo will continue.

Me Marie-France Bureau: But that's not what I meant. I meant what Canadians believe and what they want to see in marriage, not only the fact that gays and lesbians should be admitted, because it might not be popular, but the problem is that if marriage stays fixed and doesn't change, fewer and fewer Canadians will be interested in it. That's why the Supreme Court is now assimilating de facto unions to marriage.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you for that. Frankly, with respect, I don't think it was one of your stronger arguments, because if we keep pace with what Canadians currently believe, we would simply stop the hearings, go home, and continue the definition of marriage as it is.

I'd like to ask Monica a question.

You made a comment that I found very interesting--again, this is a direct quote--the concern about your children possibly being taunted because the family “is not normal because they have two mothers.”

As a teacher, not a lawyer, I'm pretty sympathetic on cruelties you sometimes see from children to other children that may be unintended--or intended--but is still very hurtful. How does changing the definition of marriage prevent that kind of taunting from happening? If you were allowed to be so-called “married”, how does that change the reality that your children would have two mothers and be subject to taunting? I don't see the logic there. Can you help me?

Ms. Monica Perazzo: What I'm appealing to is the symbolism of marriage and the equality that it would give us. When I say that kids are kids, and kids of gay and lesbian families would suffer discrimination at school and outside of school, and when I use the words that they could be told their family is not normal, that is “normal” from the view of discrimination. It's being able to tell our kids, listen, your friends at school don't understand, or don't know, or are afraid of difference, or whatever, in that sense, but in fact we are actually recognized by Canada, by our law, by our community, that your family has the same value as your friends' families.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: If I might interject, I understood that was where you were going, but what you actually said was very interesting. That's why I took note of it and wrote it down.

Your point was that because your children would have two mothers, they would be subject to taunting. What I submit to you is that nothing any court or government would do would change the reality that your children would have two mothers. Nothing would change that reality. Is that not true?

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone: May I comment?

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Yes, please.

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone: You see, we're just like an old married couple.

The difference is that, for example, when a black child is teased, there is a clear message from the government, from our civil society, that racism is not acceptable. What our children will suffer and what our friends' children already suffer is that when our children are taunted like that, there is no backup from the state. There is our charter, and then there is no follow-through. So in theory, our children have the same rights as other Canadian children, but the government hasn't followed through.

I agree when you say it's not something for the courts to decide. It is something for the government to decide.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. O'Brien.

Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

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

One of the issues is the problem of recognition. Ms. Perazzo or Ms. Pinkstone referred to the problems of civil union in Quebec and the fact that once people leave Quebec, there is no longer the same protection. The same problem occurs on a larger scale, that is at the international level.

I would like to have your opinion on the legal complications that may arise as a result of the recognition of homosexual marriage in Canada and the possible effects at the international level. Ms. Pinkstone mentioned that she was Australian. If one day she decides to return to Australia with her spouse, Ms. Perazzo, that could cause certain problems. From the legal point of view, what do you think of this problem?

À (1005)

Me Jacques Papy: You raised the issue of the portability of a civil union regime, even if it is only a matter of moving to another province. Even by staying in Canada, people could realize the difficulties this might involve. Scandinavian countries, for example, have agreed to recognize the validity of their respective civil union regimes, thus ensuring their portability within Scandinavia.

As far as marriage is concerned, the situation varies from one country to another depending on the international application of private law within individual countries. Concretely, it means the following. If same-sex marriage is recognized in Canada and Canadian same-sex spouses wish to have their union recognized in Belgium, there will be no problem since Belgium now recognizes this institution. The same applies to the Netherlands.

Let us now consider the recognition of such marriages in France. The issue of the international application of French private law will depend on the nature of the claim made the spouses. For example, whereas polygamous marriages are prohibited in France, a polygamous marriage that was validly entered into abroad may nonetheless have certain recognized effects within France. These would be subsidiary effects. There would not be full recognition of the marriage but a certain type of recognition. So I would say that Canadian spouses married in this way could receive a certain number of benefits. I am thinking, by analogy with polygamous marriages, of entitlement to social security and the various social benefits that would result.

As far as Australia is concerned, I am not familiar with international private law in Australia. I cannot give you an answer other than to say that it varies from one country to another.

Me Marie-France Bureau: I would say that a marriage between persons of the same sex in Canada would have a good chance of being recognized in Vermont where there is a civil union identical to marriage, and certainly in the Scandinavian countries and other European countries. In my view, there is an increasing number of countries that recognize the institution. As countries adopt similar laws in the future, there will be increasing portability.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Marceau.

Mr. McKay, three minutes.

Mr. John McKay: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to read an exchange between a writer named Kurtz and another writer named Rauch--it is a response by Kurtz to an article called Love and Marriage.

The subtitle of the article says, “Marriage needs a man and a woman. And, an amendment”:

It is true that marriage itself, and not merely women and children, domesticates men.

--I think the point of his article is that marriage, how shall we say, circumscribes male sexuality--

But my point is that marriage is only able to do so by building upon the underlying dynamic of male-female sexuality.

--in other words, no marriage without male-female sexuality; it's a contradiction in terms, if you will--

Marriage does indeed invoke public expectations of fidelity and mutual support through ritual gestures like weddings. But wedding or no, the public will not condemn a man who sleeps around on another man, or who fails to support his male partner financially. A wedding embodies and reinforces already existing public sentiments about a man's responsibilities to a woman; it cannot create such sentiments out of thin air.

And then it goes on further to say that:

...gay marriage is a surpassingly radical attack on the very foundations of marriage itself. It detaches marriage from the distinctive dynamics of heterosexual sexuality, divorces marriage from its intimate connection to the rearing of children, and opens the way to the replacement of marriage by a series of infinitely flexible contractual arrangements

I'm interested in your comments on that. Your essential argument is that this is a matter of rights, of recognition of equality. I think the counter-argument is that it's not a matter of rights; rather, that the very essence of marriage is heterosexual sex.

À (1010)

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone: I didn't hear the question. Was it directed at us?

Mr. John McKay: To the whole panel.

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone: Well, I think it's important to disassociate the notion of family from a man, a woman, and their children in a married situation.

I'm not going to go into the statistics because I'm not a expert, but we know in Quebec that 30% of couples don't get married. We know there are many single-parent families in Quebec. I think it's something like 25%. There are divorced families, blended families, many, many different kinds of families.

In other cultures--

Mr. John McKay: Excuse me for a moment--

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone: Please just let me finish the idea.

There are many different kinds of families. So even within a heterosexual context, it's completely absurd to say that there's only one kind of family.

It's also absurd to think that denying marriage to homosexuals stops them having families. We already have families. What we have are families who don't have the same rights as other Canadian families. We have children who don't have the same rights as other Canadian children. They don't have the same protections if one of their parents dies or if their parents split up.

So what we're trying to do is actually bolster their family. We're trying to ensure that our families are looked after as well, because they will exist; they will continue to exist.

Mr. John McKay: But with the greatest respect, this is not an argument about family. This is an argument about marriage.

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone: Yes, and marriage is a huge social--

Mr. John McKay: And you and I will agree that there are a variety of forms of family in our society, and an increasing number, and possibly legitimately so. But the argument is about what marriage is.

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone: Your own quotation stated that marriage is intimately related to raising a family.

When you meet someone, when you fall in love, gay, straight, whatever, there's this series of things people imagine. You fall in love. You start going out. You commit. Maybe you buy a house. And then what do you do? You have kids. That's what people do. That's what we do too.

When Mr. Hudon talks about the destruction of society, I don't know what he imagines I do. I go to the supermarket. I worry about my mom getting old, you know? I plan my retirement and think, gosh, have I got enough time to save up? We are the same.

I don't love my partner less. I don't want children less than my brother or my sister-in-law does. We are the same. We live the same lives, just without the same protections, without the same rights.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Pinkstone.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thanks very much. And thank you for that eloquent affirmation of our lives and the fact that our lives in some cases are quite mundane. We deal with many of the same conflicts and issues and challenges as other families do.

I was listening with astonishment to my friend Mr. McKay's question and this notion that, well, look, the glue that keeps heterosexual marriage together--I don't think I'm mischaracterizing what he says--is heterosexual sex. Heterosexual sexuality is--

Mr. John McKay: Svend, it has nothing to do with that.

Mr. Svend Robinson: But that's what keeps marriage together, he says. Right? It's heterosexual sex that keeps marriage together. That's the definition.

Well, for the life of me, I don't understand.... Maybe I'm missing something, but gay people also engage in sexuality. Sexuality is a good thing. It's a healthy thing. It's a beautiful thing. And if, as part of this celebration of our sexuality, we want to have our relationships recognized, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. I think that's a good thing. To say “You can't engage in heterosexual sexuality, so you can't marry” I don't think takes us very far in this debate.

I wanted to get some clarification again from Mr. Hudon. I take it your position--and I don't want to mischaracterize it--would be that any sexuality outside of marriage is a sin and is not acceptable. Is that correct?

À (1015)

Mr. Richard Hudon: It's more than a sin. It devalues your life and my life.

Mr. Svend Robinson: And you fundamentally disagree with the right of gay people and lesbians to marry. So I take your position from that to be that gay people and lesbians should never, ever have sexual relations?

Mr. Richard Hudon: They can choose to have whatever they have, but not have it recognized by the law as legitimate.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Should it be a crime?

Mr. Richard Hudon: I wouldn't say criminal. You can have all the sex you want with anybody you want. You can have sex with animals if you want. I'm not going to stop you.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Well, that's a criminal offence, Mr. Hudon.

Mr. Richard Hudon: Why is it?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Are you saying the law against bestiality should be repealed?

Mr. Richard Hudon: You're putting words in my mouth. I don't like that.

Mr. Svend Robinson: They were your own words, Mr. Hudon. I'm trying to understand.

Basically your position is, then, that because any sexuality outside marriage is worse than a sin, in your words--I forget exactly what it was--presumably the law should reflect that.

Mr. Richard Hudon: Those are your words, not mine.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Well, I'm asking you.

Mr. Richard Hudon: The laws don't need to reflect anything about marriage other than the marriage itself--not that some things are illegal in terms of relationships. The only possible relationship that exists that can create children involves the sperm of a man and the ovary of a woman.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Right. Why is marriage necessary to have the sperm of a man?

Mr. Richard Hudon: Marriage is not necessary, but it is there to protect the family, once it is conceived and brought into being.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hudon and Mr. Robinson.

Mr. O'Brien is next for three minutes.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to ask Madam Bureau about changing the law. Why don't we just make it wide open? What if I want to have five wives, or my wife would like to have five husbands or a ménage à trois? What's wrong with me having one wife and one husband? It's a serious question. If we're going to open it up, why don't we just totally open it up? Is that really what you're advocating?

Me Marie-France Bureau: No. In this forum I think the debate is whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. That is the format of the debate. This is an important question,because there's serious discrimination.

However, there are certainly other questions that will be asked, not by gays and lesbians but by society in general.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Well, I'm just asking one. I'm asking a serious question.

Me Marie-France Bureau: I know. I understood your question and I'm answering with total sincerity.

I think the question in this forum is whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. Of course I'm advocating for this. That was very clear from my arguments. All of the questions our society debates...more profound and more serious maybe than this one. If there are questions about allowing more than one person or allowing non-conjugal relationships, it's been debated at the Law Commission of Canada. It was ordered by the Honourable Anne McLellan, former Minister of Justice, to consider what we were doing with conjugality and interdependency between adults.

These are good questions, but I think everybody should be allowed on the boat--straight and gay--because such discrimination based on sexual orientation is not allowed in our country under our Constitution. If everybody has--

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I don't like to interrupt you, but you are going to use up all my time. I would still like a direct answer to a direct question.

Me Marie-France Bureau: That's not the debate right now.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: So you're not prepared to answer it. That's fine.

Me Marie-France Bureau: I am answering it. I think it's outside of this debate.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I respect your right to not answer the question.

Mr. Svend Robinson: She answered it.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I don't think, with all due respect, you answered it.

Me Marie-France Bureau: I'm not advocating for that.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: My question was whether I should be allowed to have a husband and wife or five wives, under Canadian law? Is it your view that should be allowed?

Me Marie-France Bureau: I didn't study that question. I'm not here for that today.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Okay, so you choose not to answer. Thank you.

Me Marie-France Bureau: I'm answering what I'm answering.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Okay, I understand.

I don't think this is a matter of discrimination against gays and lesbians, frankly. I think it's a matter of special protection for the married couple, as currently defined in Canadian law, and the traditional family. That's my personal view. I respect that others have other views.

Mr. Hudon, what's your reaction to the fact that the family as we know it, or the married couple as we know it now, is deserving of special protection?

Mr. Richard Hudon: It's deserving of special protection because in a normal marriage those who are fecund eventually end up with children. They need protection from the environment, from pedophiles, from crazy people who would run them down just because they happen to be children in the road. And it has happened. Some people are crazy. But these children deserve our protection from the law, and the parents deserve to be backed by the legislature, and not by the courts, to protect their children because they are married.

I think it's a very important question that you have asked, and I cannot answer it adequately because I'm not quite prepared yet.

À (1020)

Mr. Pat O'Brien: That's fine.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Three minutes is not much time but...

First of all, I would like to mention that we heard from Statistics Canada to the effect that the traditional family, that is a man and woman and children, now constitutes a minority in Canada. The model family of the 50s is now a minority. In other words, when we talk about normality, we can base our remarks on specific studies, as was noted last week. I think it is important to take this into consideration in the present debate.

I would also like to mention that in spite of my friendship and respect for John McKay, I cannot accept his argument that by essence, a marriage is between a man and a woman.

If I remember correctly, those were the words he used. I am not a theologian so it is difficult for me to define the notion of essence. However I am a jurist and a legislator. That is why the kinds of social organization that I am familiar with and that I study are necessarily legal ones.

So, with the greatest of respect for people who because of their religious beliefs do not accept homosexual marriages—and they are fully entitled to their opinion—the Justice Committee must not rely on theology to determine the essence of marriage. It is incumbent upon us to take a stand as legislators.

We must decide whether or not we accept marriage between persons of the same sex. This is a legal issue. In this respect, let me remind the committee that apparently all the courts that have studied the matter, in British Colombia, in Ontario and Quebec in particular, are of the opinion that because of section 15, opposition to the principle would go against the right to equality. We must therefore determine whether this discrimination can be justified in a free and democratic society; I am referring here to article 1 of the Charter.

It is a legal question that we must deal with and in my opinion, if the members of the Justice Committee depart from this principle, there is a danger that we may become involved in considerations over which we have no influence. I certainly would not like to find myself legislating on religion or something similar.

Mr. Chairman, this is more a comment than a question. Someone may wish to express an opinion. Please excuse my editorial comment.

Me Jacques Papy: Yes, I have a few words to say.

[English]

The Chair: Try to keep it brief. That was a long question.

Me Jacques Papy: It's going to be really brief.

[Translation]

I would like to clarify that it is not solely a question of law. The values that are advocated by our state, dignity and equality, also come into play.

The law is first and foremost an instrument of mediation to which we have recourse when there are diverging values among the different groups making up our country. Our position is not a purely legal one, it is also based on present-day Canadian values.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much. Merci.

We'll have lots of chances, Mr. Hudon. I want to make sure everybody gets their questions in.

Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Madame Bureau, you indicated that marriage was becoming obsolete. You also indicated that marriage had as many different forms perhaps as there were couples in the celebration of that union. Is there an inconsistency between those statements and your burning desire to have the state recognize same-sex unions as marriage?

Me Marie-France Bureau: I didn't say that marriage was obsolete, but if we don't want it to become that, we need to keep the institution in tune with the values of Canada and where we're at. That's what I meant.

Second, giving gays and lesbians access to the institution won't destroy society or civilization; it will contribute to making it a very equal and modern institution. I don't think that would make heterosexuals run from it; on the contrary, I think it would make it less patriarchal and religious. I'm talking about civil marriage. I don't think it's the role of a secular state to define marriage.

With respect to Mr. McKay, by essence of being a heterosexual institution based on heterosexual sex, these are religious dictates, not secular values. The role of the state in the regulation of marriage and interdependence between adults is to protect the family and those who are vulnerable--children. Interdependence has nothing to do with sexual orientation. I don't think it's the role of the state.

In other matters the state doesn't consider sexual orientation. For example, the state has recognized that if there are social or fiscal benefits granted to de facto couples they should be awarded equally. What's the difference when it comes to marriage?

À (1025)

Mr. John Maloney: Here is a question for Ms. Pinkstone, perhaps, rather than Ms. Perazzo.

You indicate one of the reasons for wanting to marry is to avoid discrimination against your children, using the schoolyard example of children. Do the children of heterosexual couples who are unmarried experience the same type of discrimination? What is the difference between the two?

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone: They may do. In fact, I wanted to actually bring that point up, because Mr. O'Brien talked about marriage providing a special protection for the children of married couples.

I come back again to the fact that there are many kinds of families. Our families suffer because homosexuality is still something that is discriminated against; homophobia is very present.

Mr. John Maloney: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone: Children whose skin is a different colour will also suffer. That does not mean we suddenly think that racism is justifiable. I'm not going to not have children because they might suffer from homophobia, in the same way as you would not expect a black couple to not have children to avoid future suffering they might have in the schoolyard because they're black.

Mr. John Maloney: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone: Children will always tease children. What I can give them is a stable family environment where they feel loved, where they have good self-esteem, where everything is clear to them, where I'm not ashamed of what I am, where I'm not ashamed of my family, I'm not ashamed of my love for them, my love for my partner, the reason I wanted them, our family unit.

What I can give them is that confidence. What I would like, as a Canadian, is to be backed up by the government. Why should married straight people's children have special protection? Why shouldn't, as you say, unmarried straight people's children be protected?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Maloney.

Monsieur Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): If I may, Mr. Chairman...

À (1030)

The Chair: You have three minutes, Mr. Ménard.

[English]

It's not your birthday.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I realize that you think that I am sometimes not very original, Mr. Chairman.

Having being in contact with the Table, with your organization, for several years now, I would like to say how important your contributions have been and how serious a risk there is of getting lost when we deal with this kind of subject. At the same time, we have to be sensitive to values in general. I realize that as a member of Parliament, I sometimes have to remind people of certain things. But what I think is important is to explain why we want to get married.

The reason why we wish to get married is consistent with values that are widely spread in Quebec and Canadian society, namely the right to equality. It has nothing to do with polygamy or any other type of sexual practice or allegiance to a certain style of marital life. If there were one citizen in Canada who wanted to get married with a same-sex partner, it would be the legislator's duty to look after this and it is even more true when we consider the numbers involved.

So my question is, how can you convince those people who are not yet convinced? We realize that this is a process and that everyone's view reflects their experience so far. That is what politics has to deal with. The fundamental reasons why people wish to engage in a kind of explicit recognition of marriage are closely linked to the issue of citizenship. How can we present this issue in order to convince our colleagues?

Me Marie-France Bureau: With all due respect for Mr. O'Brien, I would say that the fact that marriage enjoys special protection, that we maintain privileges for a category of the population, is something that perplexes me. Affording privileges because someone belongs to a particular gender, has a specific skin colour or any other type of ethnic characteristic or because one belongs to the nobility is something that was abolished some 200 years ago in western society, ever since the Revolution. In Canada, with the Charter, and advances made in the area of human rights, I am finding it increasingly more difficult to understand why such privileges are being maintained. Personal allegiance, religious convictions, or a belief that marriage is by its nature either this or that, that is all well and good, because I believe that there is room for diversity in Canada. There is tremendous diversity, and as far as everything else is concerned, I agree with this, I believe in it. In all other aspects of life, we accept that there is a diversity of opinion, whether moral or religious. But maintaining privileges for a certain category of the population implies that something is being taken away from others. Mr. MacKay said that the essence of marriage itself is heterosexual sex, to quote him precisely.

O.K., if that is the way you see it, no problem. But this definition does not belong to the state and cannot belong to a democratic and free state. Consequently, I am asking you all the following question: what justifies excluding gays and lesbians from a category of the population, from ordinary, upstanding citizens? What justifies their exclusion from an institution that is so fundamental in a free and democratic society?

[English]

The Chair: Now I'll go to Mr. Lee.

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

I don't think we adequately completed canvassing this issue of prejudice toward children of single parents or couples of whatever description.

Ms. Pinkstone, you alleged there was some discrimination, but I don't think we managed to hit the nail on the head. Can you describe again, so I can understand, what the prejudice toward children is, children of single parents or children of couples, whether they're gay, lesbian, or heterosexual?

You alleged this earlier, but didn't manage to convince me of any particular type of discrimination related to--

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone: You don't think children get teased because of their family situations?

Mr. Derek Lee: Children may be teased for the clothes they wear, how they wear their hair, what they eat. I don't know. That's not what's at issue. Could you please relate the issue of same-sex couples or heterosexual couples to the prejudice you say is out there, which you are suggesting we could rectify by changing what “marriage” is.

Please help me out here.

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone: We agree on 95% of what you're saying. Kids will always be teased about something. The difference is some things are backed up by the state and some things are not. When the child is teased because they're black, behind all of that is the state saying racism is unacceptable. When a child is teased because their parents are gay, which actually has nothing to do with them as people--you don't choose your parents--there's no backup from the state, despite the charter.

Mr. Derek Lee: I have to differ with you. We have lots of human rights statutes that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, just as we prohibit discrimination on the basis of race or national origin.

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone: I think we're getting lost in the details a bit.

Mr. Derek Lee: No, I don't think we are. I want to get to those details. I'm just asking for you to be precise. There is state backup for what you alleged was an apparent discrimination in our society. What others are there?

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone: There is some state backup. What there isn't is recognition of our families as equal.

Sure, the charter exists, but what that means concretely in everyday life is that if I want to take my child--whom I have chosen to have with my partner of nine years because we love each other and want to make a family like everybody else--to visit their own grandmother in Australia, but it happens to be my partner who has borne the child, I have problems just going across the border. We might have been together for 20 years.

So you can say to me that I have state backup, but it doesn't exist in the practicalities of everyday life. The fact that it doesn't exist means that our relationships are still seen as second class--our love is less, our wanting to have children is less, our wanting to be a family unit seems less--because we're not afforded the same special protections as the “real” relationship.

Mr. Derek Lee: But, in fairness, you appear to be foisting upon children the vagaries of the parents' own sexuality. Your child, my child, or anybody's child is equal wherever they go around here, whether they're crossing a border or whatever.

At this point, you've made an attempt to explain, but I just don't see the nexus between the definition of “marriage” and the alleged discrimination in relation to children that you say is out there. If you think about something, please let me know later.

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone: If you don't see the relationship between marriage and family, then you haven't been listening to what everyone's been saying. Most of the arguments are about protecting some idea that we have about what a real family is.

À (1035)

Mr. Derek Lee: What is a real marriage?

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone: Mostly we say it's about having children.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay, my time has unfortunately expired.

The Chair: We still have 20 minutes to get the other questions in, but I'd like to put a question myself to Mr. Hudon.

I'm trying to characterize or understand the resistance to the idea that same-sex couples could be married. I've identified that many people believe that same-sex couples shouldn't be married because they are opposed to the act, the notion, and they cite religious reasons and so on. I assume this is your position, Mr. Hudon, that the homosexual act is in itself contrary to your beliefs. I understand that.

Is that a fair characterization?

Mr. Richard Hudon: It's almost there. I would add that the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation, as Mr. Pierre Trudeau famously stated many years ago.

By attempting to give the right to be married to those who are not heterosexual, it becomes.... What was that word we used? I'm sorry, I have an illness that prevents me from speaking properly all of the time. We say you can do all you want in your relationship but don't call it marriage.

The Chair: I don't mean to pick on you particularly, but you're here with this position. There are those who would argue that the reason this shouldn't happen is that the act of homosexual sex in and of itself is wrong. But the state has already taken a position on that, and that is not its position. So that would be one piece of resistance, if I can refer to it in that way.

The second one is that it would impose on religion the need to sanctify marriage. You don't believe that if this is passed the Catholic church is going to have to marry gays even if it doesn't want to.

Mr. Richard Hudon: That's correct. The church will never do that.

The Chair: So the imposition on religious freedom doesn't hold.

Mr. Richard Hudon: If the government wanted the church to bless marriages that are not heterosexual, that would be interfering in the freedom of religion.

The Chair: So that argument doesn't work either.

Mr. Richard Hudon: It's out the door.

À (1040)

The Chair: Then the argument is that marriage should be held aside because it is religious and so on. My mother is religious. My church is probably the largest Protestant denomination in the country, and I'm guessing that when they come here they're going to say that this is okay. I'm having a hard time with that argument in a secular way. If you're going to say that this is a religious thing and therefore we shouldn't do it, whose religion do you pick?

Mr. Richard Hudon: I'll answer you this way. One of the things we do that's not quite correct in analyzing and trying to extricate different things is that we try to put a little box of one thing here and another little box there, but marriage is the whole thing. We say that marriage is only this. It isn't only that. It's all of the things we have discussed here. Homosexual sex does not fit in any of these boxes. It's outside.

I think I'm detecting a lot of heterophobia from people here. People talk about homophobia. I would present to you the new word, “heterophobia”, which definitely exists. Why are they fighting heterosexuals so much? There must be some heterophobia somewhere.

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone: We're not. We just want to join in.

Mr. Richard Hudon: But you can't join. It's not normal.

The Chair: Mr. Toews.

Mr. Vic Toews: I have a very narrow question, and it's related specifically to that legal issue of crossing the border, as Ms. Pinkstone said, to Australia or the United States. I was a little puzzled by that. How does changing the definition of marriage in Canada change international law or law in other countries? Why wouldn't some civil law or civil registry work just as well in order to facilitate border crossings? If Canada's laws recognize some type of legal relationship between a child and a person--and I don't care whether they're homosexual or heterosexual--how does marriage in any way solve that issue?

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone: Marriage doesn't solve that exact issue at all.

Mr. Vic Toews: Okay. That's all I--

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone: Marriage gives a social recognition to our relationships. Anything else that solves the issue without giving us marriage and therefore without putting pressure on the provinces to fix the other problems is--

Mr. Vic Toews: All right. I just wanted--

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone: Just let me finish the sentence, please.

Mr. Vic Toews: I was puzzled by that example. But it's a bigger issue.

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone: Yes, you said that. You didn't let me finish.

Mr. Vic Toews: Okay, it's a bigger issue.

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone: The symbolic power of marriage is what says that our relationships are equal to other relationships, and from that will come all of the other.... I can fix all of those problems by spending a bunch of money and going to a lawyer. I shouldn't have to. My relationship is not worth any less than a straight person's. I should have the same choices.

Me Marie-France Bureau: I have a brief comment.

For sure, the questions of affiliation and parent-child relationships are the jurisdiction of the provinces. But I think the comment of Ms. Pinkstone was in answer to Mr. Lee and it was just examples of how there is a difference between gay relationships and other types of conjugal unions in terms of the state backing. So I think the answer was put out of context.

But it is true that if you say children of same-sex couples are recognized just as much as other couples, it means parenting laws should be equal and then the conjugal choices that are open to all Canadians should be open to every family. So in that sense of course there is still discrimination, and the proof is there are still a lot of files before the courts in terms of parenting rights and conjugal unions.

So I think it was put out of context, but for sure, if marriage was recognized, I think it would provide more stability and uniformity of application of legislation across the country.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: I want to go back to this issue that basically marriage needs a man and woman to be a marriage. Respectfully, I'd suggest this isn't an argument about families and the various ways of raising families. I'd concede quite readily that over the course of the last 20 or 30 years, for better or worse, Canadians are raising their families in a variety of different ways, probably the most disturbing of which is the lone-parent families, which are becoming more and more common. I would even suggest that it's not necessarily about rights. And the religious argument is, frankly, a bit of a mixed bag. There are various religions, and you can go on the spectrum of that, just as, similarly, you can go on a spectrum of law.

But if marriage does not need a man and a woman, then it really needs nothing at all. Then it ceases to be a marriage and becomes, if you will, almost a tautological argument and you gut the meaning of the word. So I put it to you that in some respects, if you succeed in your argument, it'll be a pyrrhic victory; that you will have destroyed, if you will, the symbolism that you crave while having gained nothing.

I'd be interested in your comments on that argument, because we're not really talking about substantive rights here. The substantive rights of gay and lesbian couples are in place. The substantive rights of common-law couples are in place. There are a few little bits and pieces of property issues that I'm quite prepared to concede are missing, and we can look at those, but substantively what we're really talking about here is symbolism. Give me your response on this point I suggest, that it will be a pyrrhic victory if you succeed, and you may well succeed, but then in fact marriage will cease to have the symbolism that you crave.

I killed that question, didn't I? That's an open invitation to the panel, really.

À (1045)

[Translation]

Me Jacques Papy: I will try to answer your question. But before I do so, I would like to clarify the basis of your question with you. Is your basic argument that marriage is based on heterosexuality because the heterosexual couple corresponds to the normal state of things? Is that the basis of your question?

[English]

Mr. John McKay: No, the issue is not naturalness or unnaturalness. The issue is that it needs a man and a woman to be a marriage.

[Translation]

Me Jacques Papy: Yes, but I am trying to understand where your statement is coming from so that I can reply to it. What is the basis for your assertion?

[English]

Mr. John McKay: The working proposition, the working definition, of a marriage is it needs a man and a woman, period. It's not about naturalness, unnaturalness, the way in which people do sex or whatever. That is what a marriage is.

[Translation]

Me Jacques Papy: Perhaps that is what a marriage is at a specific time in a specific place. Consequently, it has both a physical and temporal aspect. But you began your question, earlier, by dismissing the legal debate. So in making such an assertion, you are not trying to provide a legal definition of marriage. So we need to talk about something else. This is what I would like to understand so I can make the link with this pyrrhic victory to which you alluded.

[English]

The Chair: I'm going to have to think about it for awhile, as I go to Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

I had a flashback to a debate around a similar issue, in some senses, and that was the debate around allowing gay and lesbian people to serve in the Canadian armed forces. I remembered hearing the same arguments, that this was going to result in a collapse in the moral fabric and the cohesiveness of the forces and so on, from members of Parliament, from generals.

Parliament didn't have the courage to act on that. In fact, it was the courts that ordered...because of the courage of a young woman, a captain named Michelle Douglas, who said, look, this is about basic equality.

All those dire predictions about the collapse of the Canadian armed forces went absolutely nowhere. I suspect it'll be exactly the same thing with marriage.

I hope this committee will have the opportunity, for example, to travel to the Netherlands. As we travel to the Netherlands, will we see that marriage has collapsed as an institution, that it doesn't exist, that it's become irrelevant, in Mr. McKay's words? No, of course not. Dutch people continue to marry; they continue to have families. The only change is that gay and lesbian families are also recognized and they have access to marriage.

So let's not just have a look at fiction and illusion and theory, as Mr. McKay is suggesting, but let's also look at what has actually happened in a jurisdiction that has recognized marriage. I think that would be quite revealing.

I want to come back, though, to Mr. Derek Lee's question about children. I think this an important issue. We have to recognize that the way that society views our relationships and affirms our relationships as gay people clearly impacts our children.

I gave the example earlier of the fact that I love to speak to kids in schools in Burnaby and elsewhere. When they ask me about my partner, one of the first questions they ask is, “Are you guys married?” I say, “No, I'm not married. I can't marry Max. It's not allowed”. The immediate reaction of the kids is, that's not fair. They understand that.

They understand that when they look at their books and when they hear their teachers speaking, their reality isn't reflected. And they ask, why is that? Why is it that school boards in Surrey, British Columbia, for example, in Cadman's riding--and I'm sure that he doesn't agree with this--go all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada to try to stop teachers from having textbooks in their classrooms like Asha's Mums and One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dads, Blue Dads.

À (1050)

Mr. Richard Hudon: May I ask the chair for order, please?

Mr. Svend Robinson: No, you can't. You're not a member of this committee.

The Chair: Svend, hang on a second.

I think it's going to be an interesting spring around this issue, because people have very strongly held views, but latitude is extended everywhere or nowhere. Consequently, lots of people have said things that I find personally a little troublesome, but everybody has said those things.

So, Mr. Robinson, please proceed.

Mr. Richard Hudon: Sorry. I apologize.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I want to give the witnesses, particularly from the Lesbian Mothers Association, an opportunity to elaborate on this. When our children look at both their own families and their own sense of self-worth, if our families, as gay people, are in fact respected and honoured and affirmed as being equal, it seems to me that this will enable our children to feel a greater sense of self worth. Is that not the case?

Ms. Monica Perazzo: I'm very happy you brought up the example of being asked if you're married, because I get that question about myself and Gabriel from kids all the time. Honestly, I've had it asked about a dozen times. They're seven, eight, or ten years old, and every time you say, “No, we can't”, or you try to explain it.

It's the same thing about our kids in school. How do you explain to a seven-year-old that, yes, our family, our unit has the same value, we are a couple, but at the same time we're not allowed to be married? Therefore, again the symbolism, the state, the country is saying, you're different, you're inferior, you don't have the same rights, you're less, you're second-class citizens.

Mr. Svend Robinson: When teachers ask kids--and I've heard this often happens--

The Chair: Svend, very quickly.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Okay, I will be very quick.

When teachers ask kids, for example, “Tell us about your mother and father”...well, they have two moms or they have two dads, right? I think children ask themselves, “Well, is my family not as important; are they not as valuable?”

The Chair: Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Very briefly, it is going to be an interesting spring, and I look forward to this discussion. I think it can be civil.

Mr. John McKay: I think you're the only one.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I may be the only one. I still think we could hit the gavel. I still think, if we're going with Canadians' views, we could hit the gavel and not hold the hearings, but I want to participate.

The traditional family, the married couple as defined in law, has had special protection in Canadian law since Confederation--at least, that's the Canadian history I know. I think someone has been saying, what's the justification for it? You have to turn that around.

The question was asked, what warrants the exclusion of same-sex couples? I'm going to make those who come before us explain to me what warrants their inclusion. In my opinion, I haven't heard much really good evidence to that yet today.

I want to finish on this, Mr. Chairman, and I think I may have raised this point before when Mr. Lee was able to join us. It goes back to the comment of Ms. Perazzo that the children may be taunted “because the family is not normal because we have two mothers”.

As a teacher for 22 years, I can tell you that any school authorities worth having the job would take action immediately if there was any kind of taunting or bullying that came to their attention, regardless of the reason. But I go back again to the point I raised, that no court, no Parliament changing a definition, as you seek, is going to change the reality that your children have two mothers and may be subject to taunting. I totally disagree that there's no societal backup to deal with that at the school level, all the way up to the highest courts. That's simply a very weak argument, to me.

I'll leave it there.

À (1055)

The Chair: Ms. Perazzo.

Ms. Monica Perazzo: Thank you.

About what you're saying, I know of kids who've been hit, kids who've been yelled at, because their parents are two women. Yes, this could be racism or any other thing, but the big difference is that for those kids, for that reality to change, for it to be better, we have to become equal. Our families have to become equal. This issue is about ending discrimination. This issue is about making their family, our lives, their lives, equal.

We're still fighting racism today, but at least we all agree, by law and by values as a Canadian society, that it's not okay. Well, it's the same thing about this kid being hit or yelled at, or receiving violence, because their parents happen to be gay. It's not okay, and we have to say so.

The Chair: Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: But you missed my point. I agree that it's not okay, but it doesn't change the reality that it's the two mothers that's the issue.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Monica Perazzo: No, that is not the issue. That's the thing. Discrimination won't end... [Editor's Note: Inaudible] ...to another, but having law behind it will help us to get there.

The Chair: Mr. Hudon wants to answer, and then we'll go to Mr. Marceau for the last question.

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

I don't know about other jurisdictions, and I tend to agree with the honourable member.

In schools in Ottawa, I know all four school boards have zero tolerance for bullying, and that's a fact. It doesn't matter whether you're Negro, whether you're French or English, or you're big or small, it doesn't matter. There is zero tolerance in Ottawa.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Marceau.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question for Ms. Perazzo or Ms. Pinkstone.

I would like to go back to this pyrrhic victory that John McKay was talking about. I would presume that you have acquaintances or friends who are heterosexual. Have you ever heard one of your heterosexual friends say: “If you, the homosexuals, are entitled to get married, I won't?” Have you ever heard that?

Ms. Monica Perazzo: No, but I have very often heard something else, even as I was getting ready to come here: “What, you are not entitled to get married?” Our ability to get married would never result in our heterosexual friends not getting married, but how many times have we heard: “Why are you not entitled to get married?”.

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone: In our generation—

Ms. Monica Perazzo: We are no longer talking about children; we are talking about adults, our friends.

Ms. Gabriel Pinkstone: They are rather surprised that we don't already have this right; they thought that this question had already been resolved. They told us to go to Parliament to talk about the matter.

The Chair: Ms. Bureau.

Me Marie-France Bureau: Mr. Papy first.

Me Jacques Papy: Actually, we have a request to make of you. Mr. Chairman, we all agree that the spring is going to be very interesting, and for those who do not have the benefit of living in Ottawa, we would like to make a request.

It is within your power to ensure that these debates are re-broadcast on the CPAC channel, because they are not yet. It would be interesting for us to be able to watch them in our region. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Merci.

[Translation]

Me Marie-France Bureau: May I have a minute to respond to Mr. McKay and Mr. O'Brien?

As for the issue of symbolism in marriage, would access of gays and lesbians to marriage take anything away from the symbolism of the institution? I find that ridiculous. I do not see why. What is the symbolism of marriage? I think this is about a union. This is a public union, a union before one's community and family. It is an issue of solidarity. Living together and uniting two families is, I believe, an idea that exists regardless of the gender of the partners. Perhaps you have seen same-sex unions celebrated by the Unitarian Church or, in Quebec, perhaps you have witnessed civil unions. You will see that the symbolism does fit in wonderfully with the symbolism used over the course of centuries. When two partners love each other, take each other's hands, I can assure you that the symbolism is powerful.

I will now respond briefly to Mr. O'Brien.

[English]

The question was what warrants their inclusion in marriage. First of all, law is a powerful symbol. It is through law that society expresses its most important values. What are those values that warrant inclusion? Just to quote our Supreme Court on that very issue, I would say equality, dignity, freedom of choice, and protection of the vulnerable.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Madame Perazzo.

[Translation]

Ms. Monica Perazzo: I will be very brief. I still hear it said that marriage is about sex, heterosexual sex. The reason why I would like to marry Gabriel is because I love her. I don't think about sex when I want to marry Gabriel. And I hope that heterosexual couples who are getting married today do so out of love and not because of sex. That's all.

[English]

The Chair: I have a couple of points, and I'll take advantage of the occasion early in this exercise. I want to remind members of the committee that ultimately the witnesses are called to inform us. We can question them and express opinions, but I don't think we're here to inform them particularly. I do this now when no one is questioning so nobody will assume this is directed at them.

Á (1100)

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

The Chair: On the question of television, because it's a white paper we're sort of low in the priority. Whatever happens, when it becomes legislation we'll be bumped up in the priority here, but I'll take the suggestion under advisement. I can see, particularly because we have not been able to establish the opportunity to travel just yet, it would probably be beneficial to be more accessible to the public in this debate.

I thank all the witnesses for being here. I appreciate very much everyone's patience, and I extend the same to the committee. Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.