JUST Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, April 8, 2003

0835

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

Mr. Jay Guptill (As Individual)

0840

The Chair

Ms. Heather Hughes (As Individual)

0845

0850

The Chair

Ms. Heather Hughes

The Chair

Mr. Klaus Muller (As Individual)

0855

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance)

0900

Mr. Jay Guptill

Mr. Vic Toews

Ms. Heather Hughes

0905

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Ms. Heather Hughes

The Chair

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

0910

The Chair

Mr. Jay Guptill

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Jay Guptill

The Chair

Ms. Heather Hughes

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Heather Hughes

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Jay Guptill

0915

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.)

Mr. Jay Guptill

Ms. Heather Hughes

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Heather Hughes

The Chair

Mr. Klaus Muller

0920

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Klaus Muller

The Chair

Ms. Heather Hughes

The Chair

Mr. Jay Guptill

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

0925

Mr. Klaus Muller

The Chair

Dr. Lois Mitchell (Director, Public Witness and Social Concerns Facilitator, Canadian Baptist Ministries)

0935

0940

The Chair

Mr. Eldon Hay (President, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbian and Gay Persons (Canada))

Ms. Janet Hammock (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays)

0945

Mr. Eldon Hay

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Eldon Hay

Mr. Vic Toews

0950

Dr. Lois Mitchell

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

0955

Dr. Lois Mitchell

Mr. Richard Marceau

Dr. Lois Mitchell

Mr. Richard Marceau

Dr. Lois Mitchell

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Dr. Lois Mitchell

Ms. Janet Hammock

1000

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.)

Ms. Janet Hammock

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Eldon Hay

Mr. John Maloney

Ms. Janet Hammock

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Eldon Hay

Mr. John Maloney

Dr. Lois Mitchell

1005

The Chair

The Reverend Harry Gardner (Executive Minister, Convention of Atlantic Baptist Churches, Canadian Baptist Ministries)

Mr. John Maloney

Dr. Lois Mitchell

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Eldon Hay

1010

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Mr. Eldon Hay

The Chair

Dr. Lois Mitchell

The Chair

Ms. Janet Hammock

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Dr. Lois Mitchell

1015

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Dr. Lois Mitchell

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Dr. Lois Mitchell

1020

Mr. Richard Marceau

Dr. Lois Mitchell

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Eldon Hay

1025

The Chair

Ms. Heather Debouver (Member, Social Action Committee, Rothesay Baptist Church)

1035

The Chair

Ms. Beatrice Salsman (As Individual)

The Chair

Ms. Beatrice Salsman

1040

Ms. Susan Marsden (As Individual)

Ms. Beatrice Salsman

1045

The Chair

Mr. David McMath (Member, Christian Legal Fellowship of Canada)

1050

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

1055

Mr. David McMath

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

1100

Mr. David McMath

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. David McMath

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. David McMath

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. David McMath

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. David McMath

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. David McMath

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. David McMath

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. David McMath

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. David McMath

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. David McMath

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. David McMath

Mr. Richard Marceau

1105

The Chair

Mr. David McMath

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Beatrice Salsman

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Beatrice Salsman

1110

Ms. Susan Marsden

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Beatrice Salsman

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Beatrice Salsman

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Susan Marsden

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Susan Marsden

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. David McMath

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

1115

Mr. David McMath

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Ms. Beatrice Salsman

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. David McMath

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

1120

Ms. Beatrice Salsman

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Susan Marsden

The Chair

Mr. David Jenkins (As Individual)

1130

1135

The Chair

The Reverend Ted Newell (Pastor, Jemseg Baptist Church, As Individual)

1140

The Chair

The Reverend Jeff Crabtree (Atlantic Canada Association of Free Will Baptists)

1145

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

1150

The Chair

Rev. Ted Newell

The Chair

Rev. Jeff Crabtree

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Rev. Jeff Crabtree

Rev. Ted Newell

1155

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Rev. Ted Newell

The Chair

Rev. Jeff Crabtree

1200

The Chair

Rev. Jeff Crabtree

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Rev. Jeff Crabtree

The Chair

Mr. David Jenkins

Rev. Ted Newell

1205

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. David Jenkins

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. David Jenkins

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. David Jenkins

Mr. John Maloney

Rev. Ted Newell

1210

Mr. John Maloney

Rev. Ted Newell

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

1215

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Rev. Jeff Crabtree

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

The Chair

Rev. Ted Newell

The Chair

Mr. David Jenkins

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. David Jenkins

Mr. Richard Marceau

1220

Mr. David Jenkins

The Chair

1330

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Ms. Michelle Livingston (As Individual)

The Chair

Ms. Michelle Livingston

Ms. Marla Kavalak (As Individual)

Ms. Michelle Livingston

Ms. Marla Kavalak

1335

Ms. Michelle Livingston

Ms. Marla Kavalak

The Chair

Ms. Marla Kavalak

The Chair

Mr. Robert Johnson (Minister, Centenary-Queen Square United Church)

1340

1345

The Chair

Mr. Wayne Toole (As Individual)

1350

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Robert Johnson

Mr. Richard Marceau

1355

Mr. Wayne Toole

The Chair

Ms. Marla Kavalak

The Chair

Ms. Michelle Livingston

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

The Chair

Mr. Robert Johnson

1400

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Robert Johnson

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Art Toole (As Individual)

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Michelle Livingston

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

1405

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Ms. Michelle Livingston

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Ms. Michelle Livingston

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Ms. Michelle Livingston

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Robert Johnson

Mr. John Maloney

1410

Mr. Robert Johnson

Mr. John Maloney

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Marla Kavalak

Ms. Michelle Livingston

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

1415

Mr. Robert Johnson

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

1430

Ms. Jacinthe LeBlanc (Lesbiennes de Moncton Lesbians)

1435

The Chair

Ms. Grace Getty (Professor, Director of the Graduate Program, Coordinator of the SWAT Peer Education Program, Faculty of Nursing, University of New Brunswick, As Individual)

1440

The Chair

Ms. Mary Thurrott (Executive Director, Christian Action Federation of New Brunswick Inc.)

1445

1450

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

Ms. Jacinthe Leblanc

Mr. Vic Toews

1455

Ms. Jacinthe Leblanc

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Ms. Grace Getty

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Mary Thurrott

1500

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Mary Thurrott

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Mary Thurrott

Mr. Richard Marceau

1505

The Chair

Ms. Mary Thurrott

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Mary Thurrott

The Chair

Ms. Mary Thurrott

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney

Ms. Grace Getty

1510

Mr. John Maloney

Ms. Mary Thurrott

Mr. John Maloney

Ms. Mary Thurrott

Mr. John Maloney

Ms. Mary Thurrott

Mr. John Maloney

Ms. Mary Thurrott

Mr. John Maloney

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

1515

Ms. Grace Getty

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

1520

Ms. Grace Getty

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Grace Getty

1525

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Grace Getty

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Mary Thurrott

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Ms. Mary Thurrott

The Chair

Mr. Carl Trickey (As Individual)

1540

The Chair

Mr. Donald Tabor (Representative (male), Atlantic Region, Egale Canada (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere))

1545

Le président

Ms. Michèle Caron (Professor, Faculty of Law, Moncton University, As Individual)

1550

1555

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Michèle Caron

1600

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Michèle Caron

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Michèle Caron

Mr. Richard Marceau

1605

Ms. Michèle Caron

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Michèle Caron

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. James Crooks (As Individual)

1610

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. James Crooks

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

The Chair

Ms. Michèle Caron

The Chair

Mr. Carl Trickey

1615

The Chair

Mr. James Crooks

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Michèle Caron

1620

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Ms. Sheila Watters (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Mario Bourgeois (As Individual)

1635

The Chair

Ms. Allison Comeau (As Individual)

The Chair

Ms. Allison Comeau

The Chair

Ms. Kim Furlotte (As Individual)

The Chair

Ms. Kim Furlotte

1640

The Chair

Ms. Haifa Miller (As Individual)

The Chair

Ms. Haifa Miller

The Chair

Mr. Glenn McAllister (As Individual)

1645

The Chair

Ms. Kimberley Gilroy (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Greg Dabourn (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Bourgeois (As Individual)

1650

The Chair

Ms. Brenda M. McKnight (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Danny Jardine (As Individual)

1655

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Sweet (As Individual)

The Chair

Wendy Sweet

The Chair

Mr. James LeBlanc (As Individual)

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

NUMBER 034

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, April 8, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¾ (0835)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): I call to order the 34th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee is resuming its study on marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions.

First of all, to my Parliamentary colleagues, bienvenue au Nouveau-Brunswick, welcome to New Brunswick, and Sussex. The interest in the issue is apparent in the crowd.

In our first hour of the morning until 9:30, we have three witnesses appearing as individuals: Jay Guptill, Heather Hughes, and Klaus Muller. I'm sure you're aware, but for the benefit of those present, each presenter has seven minutes to make their opening comments. There will be a transcript of the proceedings.

I should tell you that this stop in Sussex is part of a series we began last Tuesday in Vancouver and continued on Wednesday in Edmonton, Thursday in Moose Jaw, Friday in Steinbach, and yesterday in Halifax. We will move from here to Sudbury, Toronto, Montreal, and Iqaluit.

So without further ado, to Mr. Guptill for seven minutes.

Mr. Jay Guptill (As Individual): Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to present here today in Sussex. Welcome to the Maritimes and to New Brunswick, the most beautiful province in the country. It's an honour to have you.

As Canadians, we appreciate a public forum to express our views. We still believe it matters for government leaders to hear from the people. Certainly, the mandate set before this committee on the definition of marriage is stirring this country to examine its core foundations and future values.

We trust that the final decisions on this issue will be based on principles and values that are time tested and established, and not be driven by emotive and advocacy persuasion. I concur with Daniel Cere in his brief to this committee on February 12, 2003, that “This may be the time for sober-minded Canadian caution”.

I present today as a marriage and family practitioner, having the privilege of serving in a public forum and thankful to be a husband and father on the private or home front. I consider the care of marriage and family a critical need, and I help in this area as a master's-level trained counsellor and as a family life pastor in Moncton, New Brunswick.

I believe in the high value of promoting, protecting, and preserving the institution of marriage, and I offer educational and enrichment initiatives to prepare and strengthen marriages, as well as provide resources and stabilizing interventions in the restoration and recovery of broken marriages and homes. I clearly affirm that marriage matters, and encourage us not to overlook our role as leaders to create greater resources and support in countering the erosion of the marriage and family institution as it is presently recognized.

In preparing this brief and in planning to attend this hearing, I've discovered individuals, groups, and organizations who are seriously concerned that there is a proposal to redefine such a sacred, established, and universal institution. The distinctiveness of marriage existed for millennia, well before it was recognized by legislation. It is such a unique institution that to redefine it seems to dishonour the sanctity and foundation of its existence. It is one thing to look at the development and history of marriage and to consider its role and meaning in society, but this discussion seems to be about diminishing and destabilizing the very core of the original design of marriage.

On June 8, 1999, the House of Commons passed a motion by 216 to 55 affirming the historical and distinctive definition of marriage. A portion of that motion stated: “...in the opinion of this House, it is necessary, in light of public debate around recent court decisions, to state that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others....” This maintains the distinct status and preservation of the essence of marriage. It communicates the high value of respect and dignity for an institution that was, is, and will always be. It is a clear and concise statement that helps define marriage. It is worthy of reaffirmation.

Dignity and respect are a hallmark of Canadian thought. We are a pluralistic society that considers the options and alternatives of Canadian life and culture. When considering new proposals, the possibility exists that the established pillars or institutions of society will come under evaluation and suggested change. In this discussion, it appears that the redefinition of marriage is suggesting an addition to the present view of marriage, and yet in reality it is desirous of deleting the core foundation of marriage. Maintaining the distinctiveness of marriage is not exclusive or a rejection of the personhood of others.

The issue I am observing is stated best in Daniel Cere's brief where he says: “upholding dignity and respect for gays and lesbians does not require assent to demands for the reconstruction of an institution fundamental to heterosexual bonding and critical to the social ecology of human life”. I suggest that marriage retain its opposite-sex uniqueness and that it preserve a heterosexual identity as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, maintaining dignity and respect for the marriage distinctiveness.

As a counselling practitioner, I've seen the complexities and dynamics of the contemporary marriage and family. Times have changed, as roles, rules, shared values, and family systems adapt to the demands of the 21st century.

¾ (0840)

Despite the ways marriages and families function, the basic essence and identity for the family is formed in the male-female relationship, and its availability to procreate and raise children. As stated by the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada in its brief to this committee February 13, 2002:

At its core, this debate is about preserving the social, cultural, religious, and legal means of facilitating the long-term exclusive sexual bonding of male and female. It is also about society's commitment to offer children the practical ideal of a stable and committed context within which they can intimately know and experience their biological and social heritage. Marriage is the preferred means of heterosexual bonding and the preferred context for the procreation and raising of children.

The strength and structure of the male-female marital dyad and the complementarities of parenting between the sexes are critical to the formation of the family members. Social research analyst Glen T. Stanton states in his book, Why Marriage Matters, the case for our children and the foundations we create for them in the father and mother family environment. He references Pitirim Sorokin, founder and former chair of the sociology department at Harvard, saying, “The most socio-cultural patterning of the newborn human is achieved by the family. It is the first and most efficient sculptor of human material, shaping the physical, behavioural, mental, moral, and socio-cultural characteristics of probably every individual.”

Stanton quotes the great writer and thinker G.K. Chesterton, stating, “This triangle of truisms, of father, mother, and child cannot be destroyed: it can only destroy those civilizations that disregard it”.

To end the brief, marriage is a union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I respectfully submit that marriage continue to be recognized in law with this definition.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

To Heather Hughes, for seven minutes.

Ms. Heather Hughes (As Individual): Thank you for the opportunity to address this Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on the issue of same-sex marriage.

[Translation]

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to address the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

[English]

I have to begin by asking why we are here. The answer is found in the justice minister's asking for input from Canadians. Was this the mandate of the Canadian people? We believe the answer is unequivocally no.

So why did this happen? It happened, according to the justice department, because there are now conflicting court decisions based on charter challenges to the opposite-sex requirement of marriage in British Columbia, Ontario, and Québec. So let's look and see what the charter does say.

It begins by saying, “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law”. Section 1 of the charter “guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it (are) subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”.

Then we move on to section 2, which says everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of conscience and religion; of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other means of communication; of peaceful assembly; and of association. There is no reference to these fundamental freedoms being applicable only in private and not to be exercised publicly, as stated by the courts in the Brockie and the Trinity Western University cases.

In the Brockie case, the ruling said:

Brockie remains free to hold his religious beliefs and to practise them in his home, and in his Christian community. What he is not free to do, when he enters the public marketplace and offers services to the public in Ontario, is to practise those beliefs in a manner that discriminates against lesbians and gays by denying them a service available to everyone else.

This was the ruling, even though he was not offering an essential service.

And then we find Ian Hunter in the Globe and Mail writing about the Trinity Western University ruling, that “in essence, the Supreme Court has ruled that there is a right to believe what you want as long as you never communicate those beliefs or attempt to put them into practice”.

Is the Supreme Court's ruling demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society as guaranteed in section 1 of the charter? Again, I would answer with an unequivocal no.

We move on to section 15, which is called equality rights. It states that:

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

Sexual orientation does not appear in section 15. In fact, during the discussions of 1981, justice minister Jean Chrétien and others decided to deliberately leave sexual orientation out of the charter in a vote of 22 to 2. Why is it, then, that the courts are ruling as if sexual orientation is included in the equality rights?

We look at the 1995 Supreme Court ruling in Egan and Nesbitt. The courts decided that sexual orientation should be included with the equality rights as analogous. It became part of the charter only because the judges deemed it so. The court did not follow the rule of law when making this decision, and the Supreme Court and Parliament never sought a constitutional amendment to make the change. The judiciary usurped the Canadian people and forced an inclusion of sexual orientation arbitrarily.

Also in the same case, the Supreme Court Justice La Forest said “marriage is by nature heterosexual...fundamental to the stability and the well-being of the family,...and Parliament may quite properly give special support to the institution of marriage.”

There's another thing of interest in that ruling. The court said that “spouse” as the opposite-sex definition was a valid limitation for section 1 of the charter when determining spousal benefits for pensions.

So what has happened since the court arbitrarily read sexual orientation into the charter in 1995 in Egan? Well, since then there have been many court decisions that have paved the way for where we are today.

In 1996, Mr. Scott's wrote in his own letter to Reverend Norman Woodworth that “the Ontario Court of Appeal ordered in Haig v. Canada that the Canada Human Rights Act should be treated as though sexual orientation were already a prohibited ground.” He went on to state that “the courts are already setting policy which should be a prerogative of Parliament”. So in 1996, Bill C-33 was passed to conform with the court's ruling to include sexual orientation within the Canadian Human Rights Act.

In 1998, in the Vriend case, the court read sexual orientation into the Alberta Human Rights Act and the Klein government complied.

In 1999, we have the M. v. H. case, where the Supreme Court redefined “spouse” to include homosexual partners. This was done by ignoring the previous 1995 decision that said “spouse” applied to married couples only because of their unique contribution to society.

¾ (0845)

In the year 2000, as a result of the M v. H decision, Bill C-23 on the modernization of benefits and obligations was passed to change 68 federal laws to include same-sex and opposite-sex common-law couples as “equivalent to married” for benefits and obligations. Canadians were assured that Bill C-23 was about benefits only and would not lead to gay marriage. I quote the justice minister addressing the committee at that time: “Bill C-23 preserves the existing legal definition and societal consensus that marriage is the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Let me be clear. This definition will not change.”

Parliament also assured Canadians, in a vote of 216 to 55, that “marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all necessary steps to preserve this distinction of marriage in Canada”. We expect Parliament to do just that.

Here are some questions from the implications of this. If the definition of marriage is changed to include two men or two women, or if the federal government refuses to stand by the present definition and leaves it up to the individual provinces to decide, what will happen if some provinces want to allow same-sex marriages and others do not? Would a same-sex marriage have to be legally recognized in one province because it was legally solemnized in another province? Would places of worship and clergy have to participate in and allow same-sex marriage solemnizations in order to not be found guilty of discrimination?

It is not enough for people of faith, especially Bible-believing Christians, to be told to have confidence in our present judiciary, who have shown by recent rulings that their own views and biases about homosexuality are paramount--

¾ (0850)

The Chair: Could you bring it to a close, Ms. Hughes?

Ms. Heather Hughes: --instead of the rule of law, as evidenced by cases such as Scott Brockie, Hugh Owens, the private Roman Catholic school and the Surrey School Board.

My recommendations are that Parliament must stand by its June 1999 motion that marriage is and should remain a union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament take all necessary steps to preserve this distinction of marriage in Canada, even if it means invoking section 33 of the charter. A change to the current definition of marriage must be achieved by a constitutional amendment via referendum by the people of Canada. The courts must stop dictating public policy to Canadians. As you have already noted, the courts are already setting policy, which should be a prerogative of Parliament.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Now Klaus Muller will present for seven minutes.

Mr. Klaus Muller (As Individual): Good morning, and thank you for providing this opportunity to speak.

On February 20, 2001, I stood in the Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick, Family Division, before the Honourable Justice Jacques Sirois. As I listened to the honourable justice speak for 40 minutes before rendering his decision--acknowledging no practical disparity between relationships, whether of same-sex or heterosexual unions, the inherent interdependence between partners socially, emotionally, and financially, and the obligations therewithin--I found myself wishing that my former partner had been in that courtroom with me and had heard those words passionately spoken by the honourable justice and had recognized, as the court had, that our 11-year union, but for the socially recognized status and label, was a marriage.

I was granted an interim order, and later in April 2001 a consent order, both possible through the earlier successful challenges to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by courageous and socially responsible individuals and groups.

The Supreme Court ruling in M v. H paved the road for changes in the family services acts in several Canadian provinces. In New Brunswick, those changes to section 116 of the FSA were read into Parliament on December 16, 2000, and passed through legislation on December 20, 2000. I was awarded financial equity as a result of those changes, but in truth, the remuneration can in no manner compensate for the emotional loss of a partner who could no longer suffer societal disapprobation.

It is our history that I'm sharing with you today in the hopes that our lived experiences translate into a richer and more complete understanding of how the current limitations of the definition of marriage oppress, subjugate, and discriminate against gays and lesbians who have chosen to live their lives in committed relationships.

My partner and I met in 1988. After dating for several months, we chose to reside together. A year later we decided to have a commitment ceremony recognizing our union and confirming our obligation to each other and to friends and family. Unlike heterosexual couples, who in a like situation have the obligation of a civil ceremony, our declaration had no venue but the private. As a result, family members from either side did not participate. Apart from strong religious beliefs, we were told it was “not a real marriage”. We lived together, pooled our resources, planned for the future as a couple, but to many we were simply friends who “played house”. To our straight friends, the idea was “cute” and “radical” but specifically, at that time in Canadian legal history, not binding. Our gay friends understood and were supportive and participated, but the recognition of our union was underscored by the dream that “someday it will be legal”. Our union was “our pocket of reality”.

As the years progressed, I supported my former partner emotionally and financially through his PhD. We bought a home, wherein the mortgage and title could only be transferred into the name of one partner. During family weddings, I was not permitted to sit in pews assigned to family members, because I was not recognized as a family member legally or by the church.

At family reunions, I was identified as a friend and not as family through marriage. When my former partner completed his education and began his employment with the provincial government, it was the first time in our nine-year history wherein I was recognized as a spouse, not by the employer but by Blue Cross. It was a victory of sorts, and I can remember joking with him, “I guess it's official now.”

However, a year later when he tried to find employment in the private sector and had successfully completed multiple-application interviews, the proffered positions were suddenly retracted when he disclosed that he would be relocating with his male partner to the new area. The situation occurred repeatedly, and whether indicative of personal or public discrimination and covert homophobia by the potential employers, the end result was an increased stress and tension in our relationship. Our union not being recognized by heterosexual society as a commitment and confirmation that our relationship was valued and protected under law sanctioned discrimination against us based on sexual orientation.

In November 1999, my former partner was successful in gaining employment. He relocated to Corning, New York, as a single male. The dedication of 13 years of university education--11 of which I supported--the inherent and always-present homophobia of society, the lack of family recognition and support, and the persistent prejudice in almost every aspect of our lives together was more than he was able to sustain.

What I have failed to include in this summary of our relationship are the details and experiences of our daily lives during those 11 years. Imagine being refused into an emergency ward because you're not a family member, although your partner is suffering alone within that unit. Imagine going to home improvement shows as a couple, selecting flooring and receiving strange, if not downright hostile, looks from the salesperson. Imagine not ever showing any form of affection in a restaurant, movie theatre, or while walking through a park because you are in fear of your own physical safety and that of your partner.

The legal recognition of same-sex marriage is a statement of equality. It has been argued that marriage is an institution historically based on the union of one man to one woman with the intent that procreation will result, forming the basic unit of a traditional family. Our society is based on family, but the very definition of family has evolved and continues evolving to include single-parent families, blended families, and extended families.

Family has inherently meant commitment and obligation between its members. Marriage has not become formally recognized and sanctioned only when and if children are produced. Individuals have chosen to marry as a social statement of commitment to each other, the recognition of formalized pairing with legal and civil protection of that unit, and have chosen not to have children. The law recognizes their marriages.

¾ (0855)

Gays and lesbians in committed and caring relationships are no less equal to their heterosexual counterparts, and many are parents, whether their children are the products of previous heterosexual relationships or by design. To deny same-sex couples a social institution is to state that same-sex individuals are somehow deficient and incapable of forming commitment, obligation, and responsibility to each other and their families and, as a result of this defect, are ineligible for the institution of marriage. If this is the argument, where does the deficit lie?

It has been stated in the minister's discussion paper that “Some same-sex partners seek access to marriage because it is a public recognition of, and expression of support for, their commitment, as well as a confirmation that their relationship has as much value to society as that of married couples”.

It is also a statement that as valued members of society, as individuals under the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and privileges hereto afforded, gays and lesbians are entitled to their own personal safety within that relationship.

In denying gays and lesbians access to civil marriages, the subliminal social message is that gays and lesbians are less-valued members of society, their relationships having less value--the natural conclusion and implicit message being that gays and lesbians are less valued, whether as individuals or in paired and committed relationships. It is an invitation to the continuation of hate crimes against gays and lesbians.

To deny access to the social institution of marriage to gays and lesbians continues the stigmatization of gays and lesbians. To grant the institute of marriage removes the stigma and, by consequence, the prejudice, bias, and discrimination of all gays and lesbians, thus ensuring equal and full participation in society without the omnipresent threat of personal injury currently experienced by gays and lesbians in the social arena.

I'm going to skip the next paragraph and go right to the end.

We, as all Canadians, have relationships and commitments. To protect and validate one more than the other on the basis of gender difference between partners flies in the face of the freedoms granted by the charter. By granting the institute of marriage to gays and lesbians, Canadians can proudly voice to the global arena that we do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, that gays and lesbians have our public support and recognition that committed same-sex relationships are valued members of our society as are those of married heterosexuals. This is the equality that is the very spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Kudos to the interpreters. If you think the speakers don't like to see this, they don't like to see this at all, because it's just speeded up.

To Mr. Toews for seven minutes.

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the presenters for attending here today and sharing your thoughts with us.

There's no doubt there are deeply held beliefs and opinions on both sides of this issue, and frankly, the participants who come here come in good faith and with the belief that the position they're advancing is the right one.

The question I have, and I think this committee has, is what are the consequences of the changes that we make to such an important institution as marriage? The impact of change in the immediate future is often almost imperceptible and the future consequences are largely unknowable.

I think Dr. Daniel Cere, in his paper, reflects that concern when he cautions us to exercise caution, and I think you've reflected that, Mr. Guptill, in your brief. However, the question is nevertheless one this committee is charged with addressing.

My question then to you, Mr. Guptill, first, is what harm do you foresee if this committee were to recommend to the justice minister that the definition of marriage be amended to include same-sex couples? In other words, how does this change heterosexual marriage on either the individual level--the individual marriage--or on the broader society level? How does opening the door to homosexuals in this context impact negatively on heterosexual relations?

¿ (0900)

Mr. Jay Guptill: I think it wraps around this idea of being distinctive. Marriage does have a definition distinctiveness to it now, and by opening the door and, as I referred to it, adding on to the view of marriage, it is not so much to hold on to the distinctiveness but to change the definition to the point that close personal relationship can mean that we continue to move toward polygamy.

So now we're faced not just with two individuals who want to form a close personal relationship that could be a marriage, we could actually move toward a polygamous type of group marriage if more than one are choosing to go in that direction. That's already been indicated by people who are part of this redefining of marriage.

I think one of the ways Daniel Cere refers to it is the bleaching out of the distinctive. Then you have that permeating into the culture. It's going to start to be introduced into our educational textbooks as the way in which marriage is defined. Therefore we start to formulate a whole new perspective on teaching for the generations to come, and that's going to have an impact on their lives.

I believe there are going to be a number of legal matters as well in the fact that there's going to be a challenge in the courts when it comes to marriages of gays and lesbians, if they are deciding to go that route of marriage. It's in the literature right now that there's more of a multiple-partner type of relationship. So you have that type of marriage group or polygamous type of thing, and as that goes into the court system, there's going to be a legal strain as well.

Those are some of the initial responses, I would say, on what could come in the days ahead.

Mr. Vic Toews: Ms. Hughes.

Ms. Heather Hughes: I would respond first by saying that still the majority of marriages are solemnized by clergy within places of worship. Given the climate in Canada today and the way Christian people are being told their religious faith is only for them to exercise in private, not necessarily for them to carry out in public, I have real concerns about how you're going to protect religious people who do not believe that same-sex marriage is what God intended.

We need to be confident that we have the freedom to express our religious beliefs, to live our lives as our consciences dictate, to be confident that our government is going to protect us, because under the fundamental freedoms, expression of thought and religious belief are supposed to be there.

We've seen, with the contradictory court rulings, that this is not a guaranteed right. This was one of my recommendations, which I didn't get to say, that we really do need to know from Parliament, in the year 2003 and beyond, what the fundamental freedoms mean in this country and in this charter, and what their limitations are, because the courts seem to be ruling differently.

¿ (0905)

Mr. Vic Toews: So it's your primary concern, then, Ms. Hughes, that if we were able to guarantee religious freedom, guarantee it in a fundamental way...and I know that's a precarious thing, as we've seen the course of legal history develop. If those rights, not only to expression but to actually live your faith in society, were protected, would that then change your mind? Would you say you'd be prepared to accept same-sex marriages?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Toews.

Ms. Hughes.

Ms. Heather Hughes: As a person of faith, I cannot reconcile personally something I believe God does not ordain. So my personal reconciliation would be that I could not support the union of two men or two women as a marriage.

Now, I will accept that there need to be protections. I believe the benefits, the privileges are there. I believe society and Parliament have granted many things. But to equate same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage as being the same is to me like apples and oranges.

My concern is that with the direction we're going in this country, the courts are not now granting the fundamental freedoms as the charter was intended, and certainly as people of faith have come to believe are included, and we're seeing that being usurped by the equality rights in section 15.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I'm going to go to Mr. Marceau. Mr. Marceau, you'd better try to get all your questions in,because we may not be able to get back around.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Thank you for taking the time to come and see us this morning. Your presentations were very good.

My question is for Mr. Guptill and Ms. Hughes. You both referred to religious freedom. Here is what the committee has to deal with. Currently, there are Churches that would like to marry same sex people. The United Church, the Unitarian Church and some branches of reformed Judaism, for example. They would like to do so, but the government denies them that right, and that infringes upon their freedom of religion and prevents them from doing something their religion agrees to.

Imagine if it were the other way around. If this committee were to decide to allow same-sex marriage, these Churches could follow through on their religious belief and marry same-sex couples. Yet nothing would compel Churches like yours to marry these people. The best example I can use is the one I know best, the Catholic Church. Nothing compels the Catholic Church to marry divorced people. Because its freedom of religion is protected, there is nothing that compels the Catholic Church to accept women as priests either.

So the current situation is that the religious freedom of some is not respected because they cannot marry same-sex couples and a view of marriage they do not share is imposed on them. It is not for us, as lawmakers and members of Parliament, to decide which view is right. It is not up to the State to decide which religion is right.

What we are trying to do, at least as far as I am concerned, is to protect your absolute right not to marry same-sex couples if you don't want to, while protecting the rights of those who do want to, because that is part of their freedom of religion.

I would like to hear your comments on this issue.

¿ (0910)

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Guptill.

Mr. Jay Guptill: As far as a position of religious freedom is concerned, I'm advocating that as well as other components: cultural, moral, biological, and physical, all of that as well.

From a religious standpoint, I know in reviewing the Interfaith Coalition for Marriage's position that this is certainly the view of the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Evangelical Church representation in Canada, the Jewish representation, and the Muslim representation. All of those primary faiths, not only here in Canada but around the world, do not see it as discrimination to hold a distinctiveness for marriage.

To know that there is variation in religious views and interpretation is something we deal with within our faith perspectives, discussing and debating certain interpretations of the Bible. I think the one I would come from is the perspective of what we have seen as the foundation of our country in a Judeo-Christian perspective, as established from the very beginning, that we want to uphold the distinctiveness of marriage.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: My question was even more specific. I fully respect your point of view, but you will agree with me that some Churches do not see things the same way you do.

[English]

Mr. Jay Guptill: Most certainly.

The Chair: I'm going to let Ms. Hughes answer, because the first question was put to both of them.

Ms. Heather Hughes: I would like to add to that. People of faith are also Canadians. That is why one of my recommendations is that to change something so fundamental as marriage in a society.... Marriage existed before this country did. It wasn't an invention of the government. So people of faith are Canadians as well. That's why it's very important that a constitutional amendment be put forward for the people of Canada.

Nothing right now is stopping those churches--the Metropolitan Community Church, some United churches, and others--from having their ceremonies. What is stopping them is the legal aspect of it. If you want to follow the rule of law, then a constitutional amendment is required, because this issue is about more than just....

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: So you would like to have a constitutional amendment so that your view of marriage would be imposed on those who do not share that view.

[English]

Ms. Heather Hughes: And the opposite is true. I would say a constitutional amendment is the requirement of our Constitution, to do it by the rule of law, to ensure that the democratic process is taking place. By having a decision made that is going to make each side or one side not happy...either way you are imposing.

I think Judge Pitfield gave in his ruling that other than the desire for public recognition and acceptance of gay and lesbian relationships, there's nothing that should compel the equation of a same-sex relation to an opposite-sex relationship, and in order to get the views of Canadians, I think we need to have a constitutional amendment.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Guptill, you quoted the author G.K. Chesterton, who said:

[English]

“...it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it”,

[Translation]

referring to the father, mother, child triangle. Can you name civilizations that were destroyed because they disregarded the triangle?

[English]

Mr. Jay Guptill: I cannot give you a clear quote. The study that I remember reading is in relation to a parallel study of looking at a civilization that is breaking down against the family unit as known in America--and I believe the study was done in the U.S. There were clear distinctions of a society that is breaking down that correlated with the ways in which that society responded--for example, the no-cause type of divorce, the disrespect of children towards their parents, certain key items like that, that I can find in that report. It showed that in the cultures that were breaking down, there was a strong parallel to the breakdown of the family and the marriage unit.

¿ (0915)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Marceau.

Mr. Macklin, for seven minutes.

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

I would like to look at this from a slightly different perspective. Obviously, Mr. Guptill and Ms. Hughes, you clearly want to preserve marriage as a heterosexual unit. But in looking at the options that were set out in the discussion paper by the Department of Justice, there were two options that I think would still accommodate that. The one option, of course, from the federal government's perspective, would be to go to a civil union or some similar registry system and leave marriage to the recognized churches to determine and therefore have the full freedom of religion.

I would like to hear your comments on that proposal so that we can also gather your perspective if we look at options.

Mr. Jay Guptill: From my perspective, I would say we keep the present mandate as it is--the position of our government.

My concern is the incremental approach of policy change and the fact that, by adding on, it would seem as though we're making everybody happy. The challenge to that incremental approach, as Daniel Cere said, as I mentioned earlier, is that bleaching out. Over time, we lose the distinctiveness of the marriage in order to provide for the civil union or another registry.

From my understanding of the literature I've been reading, it appears as though the agenda of those promoting a redefinition of marriage is not an interest in another option as to how they can be defined. They're saying it has to be defined as marriage, not as a civil union, because then they would not be considered true Canadians or would not be regarded as positive. So my position is that although the options are there, they do not truly recognize marriage as the distinction. It's more the add-on than to incrementally bleach out the distinction.

Ms. Heather Hughes: I'll just add to that. I think EGALE has made it clear that registered partnerships are not acceptable to them and that they are prepared to continue in court for nothing less than marriage.

My other concern is that I don't know how you as a federal government can tell the provinces that civil union is something they have to do. It's a little bit confusing as to how this is going to work, because you would have to have agreements with all provinces and all territories. If some province decided they did not want a civil union or civil registry, then it would not go.

Also, given what EGALE has already said, that they are not accepting of that either, I think it brings back my suggestion as well: a constitutional amendment is going to be required because both sides are very committed to their views.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Don't you require the consent of provinces and territories to get to that point as well? In other words, I'm not sure you're going to solve the issue of dealing interprovincially and territorially.

Ms. Heather Hughes: I don't think it ends with civil unions; that is what I'm telling you. I don't believe that it's going to end with trying to be middle-of-the-road and making civil unions. I don't believe that my gentleman here or EGALE, as a representative of the gays and lesbians, is going to be happy with that decision. They have stated so themselves.

The Chair: Let's hear from Mr. Muller.

Mr. Klaus Muller: Actually, I'm going to agree with Heather on this one. EGALE does not, from my understanding from reading the literature, agree with a civil registry of same-sex couples. Again, it's a question of degrees of equality.

We have heard, I think it was this morning, arguments saying that it's an infraction of religious beliefs and whatnot. What I would be arguing against them is that recognition of same-sex marriages of couples who are committed to each other in no way undermines the recognition and support gays and lesbians have for family members themselves and for those who parent.

It is a question of, more or less, what degree of equality you are willing to offer. Gays and lesbians have, through action and through constitutional challenges, made it clear that we are equal members of society. That has up until this point been recognized, and the changes have been done provincially on limited scales.

It's not equal. We are not all equal members of Canadian society if some of us are entitled to marriage. I'm not suggesting that religious institutions--all religious institutions--perform marriages within their own church or within their own structure. What I am asking is that same-sex marriages be recognized and have the protection afforded to them that currently exists for heterosexual couples and the families they nurture and support and grow within society--what currently exists for heterosexual couples. All we're asking for is parity--that is, the same and not less than. We are not lesser members of society.

¿ (0920)

The Chair: Mr. Macklin.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Just to make a statement that isn't quite a blanket statement, I would point out that many heterosexuals believe that over time the word “marriage” has become their property, that they've built up goodwill that reflects a heterosexual relationship in marriage. Why wouldn't you consider developing a name for the unions of lesbians and gays that could itself build up that goodwill over time? In a sense, by taking someone else's definition and trying to make it your own, you may in fact destroy or deeply hurt that particular definition in the eyes of the public generally.

How do you react to that? I'll leave that open to all panel members.

Mr. Klaus Muller: Why does ownership of titled marriage have to be restricted solely to heterosexual couples? Why do we have to create a new word to symbolize the commitment that exists between same-sex individuals for a level of caring and nurturing between two people that we as Canadians assume exists between two heterosexual partners?

What you're doing is defining the difference between degrees of caring, nurturing, and support that exist for gays and lesbians in same-sex committed relationships, saying they somehow have a lesser degree, intensity, or value than those that exist between male and female couples. Prick us, do we not bleed? It's the same argument. We are all human, we are all feeling individuals.

To title it differently still does not give us equality, it just seems to pacify the masses. What you're saying is that you're still less equal than anyone else, and you feel less equal than anyone else. You're not giving the same value. We are no different and no less.

The Chair: He went to the panel.

Ms. Hughes.

Ms. Heather Hughes: I'd like to add that I believe the charter was intended for individual protection and freedom, and not relationship equality and challenges to the historical and legal opposite-sex definition of marriage.

Another concern of mine is that if marriage becomes legal, then adoption becomes legal as well. We are here--I'm here--because I'm a person who has very, very strong biblical views on what family is and how God has ordained the family to be a man and a woman for children, for the nurturing of future generations.

I cannot compromise on that.

The Chair: Mr. Guptill.

Mr. Jay Guptill: Certainly there's a rich history of marriage for centuries and, more recently, a lot of research and literature proving the benefits of the male-female heterosexual family unit. My concern is that we are considering, as a foundation of the gay and lesbian approach to this redefining, the theory of close personal relationship. It is a concept that is fairly new. It has not been time-tested, and it seems as though there needs to be a better sense of research and understanding about this concept before we redefine something that has such a rich, strong, sacred history.

The Chair: Mr. Toews, for three minutes.

Mr. Vic Toews: I agree. I have an observation on “Prick us, do we not bleed?” Male and female alike, we all bleed, but that doesn't make us identical. We are different.

But moving on, my colleague Mr. Marceau has advanced the proposition that we can protect religious freedom in Canada by including in statute the right to continue with the performance of marriage ceremonies, each in accordance with the principles of their own faith. I guess my concern is that while religion may then operate within the four square walls of their particular institution, as soon as the practice of religion spills out beyond those four walls, these institutions and those individuals who adhere to that faith will be subject to prosecution and other legal challenges.

I think the Brockie case--as was mentioned by Mr. Guptill, I believe, and, perhaps, Ms. Hughes as well--is a primary example of that principle. In summary, you can say what you want, but you can't practise your beliefs without fear of state intervention.

Mr. Muller, you've heard these concerns. What assurances do you offer, or what suggestions could you make, to ensure that not only beliefs but the practice of those beliefs in everyday society can be continued even though they may be seen as discriminatory by some, including you yourself perhaps?

¿ (0925)

Mr. Klaus Muller: My response to that would be that at present we don't have the Catholic Church dictating the doctrines of, let's say, the Muslims. We don't have Judaism dictating, even with its own branches--whether orthodox or reform or liberal--how and what is permissible and what can be accepted.

In other words, a Catholic cannot say to a Pentecostal or to a Baptist, your marriage is not valid in your church. In Canada, marriage within a religious institution is recognized blanketly across the country as a valid marriage. We're asking for--at least, I'm asking for--a civil ceremony recognized by a judge, which is open to heterosexual couples as well. Those who have chosen by personal interest not to join a particular religion or follow a particular faith should still have that option to have their marriage recognized and sanctioned by Canadian society through a legal forum, by a justice of the peace.

I think that's all I'm asking. I don't propose to dictate which religious beliefs or fellowship, or whatever, is the predominant one or one that needs to be followed, because there would be a horrible global conflict on which religion is the know-it-all on God and which doctrines to follow within that particular belief. I wouldn't even suppose to challenge that. All I'm asking for, basically, is that our marriage be recognized civilly through civil means, not as a registry, because, again, that is a lesser degree of equality than is accorded to heterosexuals.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Toews. Thank you very much, Mr. Muller. Thank you to the panel, and thank you to the committee.

As you can well imagine, this is a very important matter. It's emotional, and there are strong views, as the panellists themselves have indicated, on both sides of this. Your attentiveness, your respect and courtesy amid a very large number of people in a very small space, speaks well for everybody here.

I'd ask the present panel to excuse themselves. The next panel--I think they know who they are--should step forward. I'll suspend for three minutes to allow for that to happen.

¿ (0928)

¿ (0933)

The Chair: I call the 34th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights back to order. Pursuant to standing order 108(2), the committee resumes its study on marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions.

From 9:30 a.m. until 10:30 a.m. we have as witnesses representing the Convention of the Atlantic Baptist Churches, Lois P. Mitchell, director of public witness and social concerns, and Reverend Harry Gardner. From Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) Canada, we have Eldon Hay and Janet Hammock.

I think you were here, so you'll know the instructions. Each group makes a seven-minute introduction. We have a good crowd and we'll be time-restrained, I think, all day. So I'll be pretty alert to the time.

First, to the Convention of Atlantic Baptist Churches for seven minutes.

Dr. Lois Mitchell (Director, Public Witness and Social Concerns Facilitator, Canadian Baptist Ministries): Thank you for the invitation to appear as a witness to these hearings.

I am appearing actually on behalf of Canadian Baptist Ministries, a national federation of four regional conventions and unions representing approximately 1,200 local Baptist churches with a combined resident membership of some 120,000.

I appreciate the complexity and sensitivity of this issue and consider it a privilege to be given this opportunity to speak with you today. As I have followed the committee's hearings across the country and read media accounts of the proceedings, I am acutely aware of how emotive this issue is for those who are making presentations, and especially for those who see the current definition of marriage as discriminatory against gays and lesbians who are living in relationships characterized by love and commitment.

I don't want to contribute to the pain gays and lesbians, and their families, experience and I assure the committee and all present that I intend no disrespect to anyone participating in these hearings. As I prepared this presentation, I have wondered if it is possible to speak in support of the current opposite-sex definition of marriage without offending gays and lesbians and being labelled as narrow-minded, unjust, and judgmental.

I believe that the challenge to the constitutionality of the opposite-sex definition of marriage is perhaps the greatest test to date of the ability of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to define social relationships in such a way as to preserve social order and promote the common good while also respecting the rights and freedoms of individuals and special interest groups. I am concerned that while gay rights proponents have used the courts to challenge public policy and public opinion around the view and treatment of gays and lesbians in our society, the result has been not only the progressive extension of rights to gays and lesbians and a growing sense of social acceptability of the homosexual identity, but also the creation of a socio-political environment in which a clear message is conveyed to any who oppose the practice of homosexuality on moral or religious grounds that such views may be construed and litigated as discriminatory.

As I reflect on this trend, it seems the principal challenge for this committee will be to look past arguments about sexual morality to the larger questions of the structure of marriage and the management of pluralism within Canadian society. Marriage is an institution that has an important role in society. Across cultures, it is the means by which the sexual bonding of males and females is managed and exclusivity is encouraged. Marriage must be understood to be much more than a simple expression of love and commitment between two individuals. Because the pressures against monogamous, exclusive sexual bonding and the perpetual care and nurture of children are tremendous, the institution of marriage is fragile and requires support through social, political, religious, and legal means.

The removal of any of these support structures has, I believe, both immediate and long-term negative consequences for both individuals and society. Tampering with the definition of marriage is social experimentation of unprecedented magnitude. I do not consider it an exaggeration to say that a decision to redefine marriage may ultimately lead to the implosion of our society, not because it lets gays and lesbians in but because it further stretches and broadens, and thus weakens, an already vulnerable institution.

The basic tenets of this presentation are:

One, since marriage is a universal social institution that pre-dates human governments, courts, and religious traditions, neither Canadian courts, parliaments, nor religious institutions have the authority to redefine it.

Two, marriage as historically and currently defined is an institution that is exclusive but not discriminatory. Within the context of a pluralist society, the opposite-sex definition of marriage does not violate the rights of gay or lesbian couples. Persons who do not choose to comply with the qualifications for marriage, or who are unable to comply, are not prohibited from forming a relationship that is subject to very similar legal and financial rights and obligations to those for people who are married. A variety of domestic relationships may have some of the attributes of marriage but should not be lumped together with marriage, because they are unique.

Three, in a pluralist society the courts and parliaments play an important role in ensuring that diversity is respected and not homogenized. That is, citizens are not forced to adhere to a single view of morality.

Four, marriage is a beleaguered institution in our society. The effects of changes in public policy around marriage, and the tendency to treat all conjugal relationships as civil contracts without maintaining distinctions, significantly undermines the potential of marriage to provide personal and societal stability.

Canadian society is a pluralist society, that is, our civil and social life is not prescribed or determined by any one ethnic, cultural, or racial heritage, or religious tradition. Citizens in Canada are free to hold differing beliefs and values and to live, within the limitations of the law, free of discrimination or moral coercion. We are in fact a mosaic of cultures and faith traditions. In the two decades since the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was passed into law, the fabric of Canadian life has been tested and tried for consistency with the ideal of pluralism. The ongoing challenge in a pluralist society is to protect equality and fairness without legislating societal affirmation or endorsement of any particular world view.

¿ (0935)

Diversity implies difference and distinction. Individuals and groups must be treated fairly because of, or in spite of, their differences. To redefine marriage in order to accommodate same-sex relationships or other domestic partnerships is not about fairness and equality so much as it is about the distinctiveness of marriage and the management of pluralism. That the parliamentary committee could even seriously ask whether marriage has a continuing role to play in Canadian society is clear evidence of the advanced state of our social and political confusion.

Perhaps this discussion will ultimately allow us to regain some of the ground that has been lost in our understanding of marriage and its unique and very special role in our society. Clergy of various faith traditions, licensed by their provinces to conduct wedding ceremonies that are legally recognized, now find themselves conducting ceremonies that have the form of Christian or other faith weddings but not the substance. Clergy across the country are watching this discussion closely, wondering if they will soon be expected to also perform same-sex weddings or face legal action for refusing to do so. The freedom of religion protections offered in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in the Criminal Code seem to be quite variable and subject to judicial interpretations.

In conclusion, I propose four recommendations for this committee as it prepares its report for Parliament. I urge you to (a) maintain the current and historical definition of marriage, the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others; (b) consider, and if necessary clarify, the legal interpretation of freedom of religion as it relates to issues where faith traditions are apt to differ from world views based on secular authors; (c) urge Parliament to review the effects of public policy on marriage and family life and to consider ways to amend public policy in order to strengthen Canadian marriages and families; and (d) clarify the role of Parliament and the courts on this issue in particular, so that a decision made by Parliament on the definition of marriage is not continually challenged by the courts.

Thank you.

¿ (0940)

The Chair: Thank you very much. We now go to Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbian and Gay Persons, PFLAG Canada.

Mr. Eldon Hay (President, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbian and Gay Persons (Canada)): Mr. Chairman, marriage should be changed to also include same-sex couples. This will make a change in marriage. Our culture and society has undergone changes before. Slaves became free persons. And, actually on this House of Commons committee--although they are not present today--imagine, there are women. Did that lead to the implosion of society?

I put it to you that when all persons became free, when even women were equal to men, our society was enriched. So marriage should be changed to also include same-sex couples, and this will enrich marriage and undergird the things my colleague Lois has already stated.

I want to now turn this part, the rest of my time, over to my colleague Janet Hammock.

Ms. Janet Hammock (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays): I do believe that the institution of marriage is central within Canadian society. It is not good enough to invent some other phrase like domestic partnership or legal union for non-heterosexual people. For many, especially those who practise religions that are openly welcoming to loving non-heterosexual relationships and that already perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, the fact that they cannot legally marry is a glaring example of inequality. No loving couple should be made to feel like second-class citizens.

I'd like to tell you a story about myself. My loving partner of the past seven years, a woman, is an American. We decided that she should emigrate to Canada in order to live together with me in a loving, devoted, long-term partnership. She applied for, and was eventually granted, independent status in Canada. Had she been a man, we might well have chosen to marry, thus greatly facilitating the immigration process. Instead, we were required to prove--prove, that's the key word here--that we had a loving, committed relationship by submitting all manner of legal documents, such as wills, insurance statements, pension statements, and so on, that indicated we had both named the other as beneficiary upon death.

We were also required to submit letters--required to submit letters--from friends and relatives documenting the authenticity and seriousness of our relationship. We had to do this because our relationship was not considered as a legally valid and sufficient reason for seeking independent status in Canada.

Furthermore, there was no guarantee that after amassing these letters she would be granted status. This determination would be made by one immigration authority at the point of entrance we chose, New York City, one person who might well have turned out to be anti-gay.

Because we were not married, because we are lesbians, our love for and commitment to each other was legally irrelevant. That my partner had to prove she has emotional, spiritual, and financial ties to a human being who happens to be of the same sex was repugnant to her beyond words, and shameful for a nation enlightened in so many other ways.

Thank you.

¿ (0945)

Mr. Eldon Hay: I would simply like to say our position is that our country, Canada, demands that same-sex couples be included as married couples and that no second-class status is good enough. We can't, as it were, wait for the time--it could be 500 years--when it could be hallowed. The word “marriage” itself is a hallowed one. It stands for a committed, monogamous relationship between two persons, and my gay son ought to have the same right to that as my heterosexual son does.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We now go to Mr. Toews for seven minutes.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you very much for the presentations.

When I review the case law and the constitutional jurisprudence that has developed over the last little while, while I understand that the courts have in fact been making steps to eliminate inequality where it is fundamentally unjust, I also note that equality does not necessarily mean the elimination of distinctions.

Society has many concerns that it needs to address and responds in different ways to each of those concerns in order to meet its challenges. Some of the evidence we've heard from the panel this morning, and also from Dr. Daniel Cere and Dr. Douglas Allen from Simon Fraser, has indicated that marriage performs a very unique function in terms of the heterosexual relationship. It's a uniquely designed institution, refined over thousands of years, to bridge that gap between male and female.

Justice La Forest, in the Egan decision, echoed that kind of thinking. He stated on behalf of the majority in that court that making distinctions in respect of marriage and keeping it as a heterosexual institution does not inappropriately discriminate against any other types of relationships, including homosexual relationships, because of the unique function of marriage as a heterosexual relationship.

Reverend Hay, are you saying that we need to eliminate this distinction, that society should not have the right to respond to different issues by the use of different mechanisms, including the mechanism of marriage?

Mr. Eldon Hay: You cited case law in Canada, etc. I think of a 17th century document by an Anglican missionary who travelled across Africa and he saw slavery--it may have been 18th century--but he pointed out very clearly that slavery was a good institution. It was good for the owners, it was good for society, and it was certainly good for slaves. And of course he was very sincere in those beliefs. I think now we see that he was wrong.

There are certain distinctions that you wish to keep for the heterosexual marriage. I think it's a false distinction. I do not believe, on the other hand, that its extension--as some people say, it's adding on--to same-sex couples in fact goes against the institution of marriage. But I'm prepared to use Lois' phrase that it in fact strengthens it. My family is strengthened by having a gay son, not weakened.

Mr. Vic Toews: In respect of the issue that was raised by the Baptists' submission here, asking for the clarification of the legal interpretation of freedom of religion, given the fact that courts, when balancing the demands of religion against the interpretation of the Constitution, have in my opinion consistently ruled against religion in this country.... I think one of the clear cases, the most glaring one in my opinion, is the Ontario decision relating to the independent school boards, guaranteed under our Constitution, overruled by the Charter of Rights.

When we talk about legal clarification, then, are we talking about anything less than a constitutional amendment? Perhaps Ms. Mitchell would like to respond.

¿ (0950)

Dr. Lois Mitchell: I should mention that Dr. Gardner is here representing our convention as well, and so if you wish to direct any questions to him he'd be happy to respond.

I'm going to come at the question from a little bit of a different angle. But my background is as a sociologist, and one of the principle bases on which the whole discipline of sociology was developed is that society is a reality sui generis. In other words, society is equal to more than the sum of its parts.

To step back and look at it from a broader perspective, I think in some senses the direction our courts and our parliaments have gone--especially since 1982 with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms--has tended to focus so much on individual rights and freedoms in seeking to ensure equality and fairness that in some senses I think the overall leadership and responsibility and oversight of the common good are sometimes lost in that process.

As for the institution of family, I think we can dissect it down and say what is family and what is marriage. In some senses when we move in that direction there is a danger that we've missed what it is that is marriage and family and chopped it up.

In terms of the constitutional amendment, I'm unfortunately not as well versed in constitutional law and the political part of the way our society is governed as to understand completely what is implied in a constitutional amendment. But my concern is that many people are so absorbed in their lives, and their personal experiences and responsibilities, that to have decisions made on behalf of our country without really in-depth study and analysis by people who are qualified to do those things and provide a lot of information.... I appreciate this committee, this process, where you're giving opportunity for a variety of people to speak on the issue. But ultimately I think dramatic changes in our Constitution, dramatic changes in definitions such as of marriage, really require an expertise and a level of awareness and understanding of the issues that may be beyond a simple decision by the voters, even.

The Chair: Mr. Marceau for seven minutes.

[Translation]

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

My first question is for Ms. Mitchell. In your brief, on page 4 of the French version, you define marriage according to your point of view. Looking at the elements that you yourself have identified, the first one is that it is something that is publicly recognized. It is agreed that the same could hold true for same-sex marriage if it were allowed.

The second element is that it has to be between a man and a woman. I will come back to that in a few moments.

Under the third element, the troth, you say “that troth is a commitment to love and nurture an intimate and mutually supportive relationship”. That too is possible in a same-sex relationship.

Your fourth element is that it is an exclusive relationship. That is possible for a same-sex couple too.

Then, you say that it has to be «lifelong». That is possible for a same-sex couple.

After that, you say that it is symbolic of Christ's relationship to the Church. Given that Canada has no official religion, that is a religious viewpoint. Obviously, Muslims, Jews and others would leave out the presence of Jesus Christ in marriage.

So, of all the elements of your definition, the only one that does not apply to a same-sex relationship is “between a man and a woman”, and you say that is because they are “being made in the image of God”. That is a profession of faith that I respect, although others might not share it. And then you talk about procreation. So basically, if I understand what you are saying, the only possible distinction between a same-sex relationship and an opposite sex relationship, according to your own definition, is the ability of an opposite sex couple to procreate.

¿ (0955)

[English]

Dr. Lois Mitchell: If I understand you, you're saying that the only difference between heterosexual marriages and same-sex marriage is the ability to procreate?

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Yes, because that is what you are telling me.

[English]

Dr. Lois Mitchell: If I could just clarify, this statement affirming a Christian view of marriage is a statement that was accepted by our Convention of Atlantic Baptist Churches at assembly in August 1999. It reflects our view of the definition of marriage, which we don't presume is a view that is commonly accepted by society. This is a view of our convention of marriage.

We would say that between a woman and a man who live together in a relationship one of the characteristics is a fundamental part of that definition. Therefore, this would mean that same-sex couples would not satisfy that criterion—and, yes, it includes the possibility of procreation.

Again, I think in order to understand the sociology of the family and the historical development of family, we need to have a lot of research—a lot of good, credible scientific research—in terms of the role of marriage and family. Certainly any of the reading that I have done suggests that the ultimate or the ideal situation for children to be raised in is a heterosexual committed union such as is described in this definition.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: If I understand correctly, of all of the elements you list in your Christian view, like the presence of Jesus, the only one that would not apply to homosexuals is that it is a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation. All of the other elements of the definition would be possible in a same sex relationship.

Besides, you somewhat question Parliament's authority to redefine marriage. If Parliament can't do it, who can? Who can define marriage?

[English]

Dr. Lois Mitchell: I would suggest that no one has the authority to redefine marriage. It is what it is. It pre-exists our Parliament, any parliament, any court, and any religious tradition.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: But don't you find that a bit circular? Marriage exists because someone, somewhere, defined it. It has not always existed, and I question whether it has always been the same. Less than one hundred years ago, when a woman got married, she virtually became the man's property, and in some parts of Canada, she was no longer considered of full legal age and became a minor again. For example, she had the power of a child over her property. So it is not true that marriage has always been the same.

I do not understand the circular argument that marriage was defined at some point in time, because everything has to start somewhere, but because it has always been defined that way, we can now no longer redefine it. And if Parliament can't do it, nor religion, then who can? Marriage does not exist in a vacuum.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Mitchell, and then I'm going to go Ms. Hammock.

Dr. Lois Mitchell: I would say that our cultural traditions around marriage have varied over the course of history. The way we celebrate the marriage ceremony is certainly culturally specific. But the basic assumption that marriage is between one man and one woman—therefore a heterosexual relationship—pre-exists historically across cultures and I think is true of every civilization and every culture.

Ms. Janet Hammock: I'd like to just make a point in response to some of the comments I've heard here. I'm concerned that what can sometimes happen in institutions is that people who are operating within those institutions can enjoy them very much and wish to make them their own property. They wish to make them exclusive or to separate them out as being special and better than other kinds of things. In other words, I see sometimes that people—and I'm talking about all human beings now—tend to want to hold on to and to protect something that they see as very valuable. And I think that's a natural human inclination.

What I think can happen, however, when that begins to happen is that this begins to make this exclusive institution fragile. And that word, fragile, has been used here—needing protection, narrow—meaning it has become so exclusive from an outside body that it might crumble if something such as a bit of water leaked in there or a person from another part of society managed to infiltrate this exclusive institution.

What I'm hearing, which astounds me, is that this institution of marriage is deemed to be so fragile that it now needs protection from gays and lesbians and that we, our community, are being asked to give up our human rights for equality in order to help heterosexual people protect this institution of marriage. I find this really quite amazing.

That's all I wanted to say in response to that.

À (1000)

The Chair: I'm going to go to Mr. Maloney for seven minutes.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Pastor Hay and Ms. Hammock, could you explain to me what is so important or magic about the word “marriage”? What is so important about the word “marriage” that you seek it?

Ms. Janet Hammock: Are you asking me?

Mr. John Maloney: You and Pastor Hay.

Mr. Eldon Hay: I'd say, first of all, it means equality for those who are now excluded from it. Those of us who are parents of gay and lesbian children see this. I see with my gay son and his partner that the relationship between those two people is essentially the same as the relationship between my straight son and his spouse. I see them as the same, but you can't call one of them marriage. They cannot get a licence. They cannot legally be recognized. It's unequal.

Mr. John Maloney: Ms. Hammock, do you have a comment?

Ms. Janet Hammock: That's exactly my comment. The equality that's achieved by exactly the same institution is really important to me as a lesbian women. That I should have to prove my love and my relationship, my commitment, over and over again for every single legal right that I think I deserve as a Canadian citizen is not acceptable to me. Absolutely not.

Mr. John Maloney: Pastor Hay. I don't know how to phrase this. Has your feeling toward gays changed since your son has declared himself that he is gay and has a relationship with a gay partner?

Mr. Eldon Hay: Of course. But my views change all the time. I don't have the same views as I did before my son came out, but I had very similar views. In short, the big thing is not my son coming out.

I remember a statement I read back in the 1960s by Pierre Berton, that the Christian church treats gays and lesbians like the early centuries treated lepers. When I read that, it was for me a terrific moment. I've known for years—for 40 years I've been at this.

Mr. John Maloney: Thank you.

Ms. Mitchell, you're a sociologist. If gay marriages were allowed, how would this personally impact you? Would it harm you in any way?

Dr. Lois Mitchell: I've thought of that question and I think I would say probably not. It would not affect my own immediate marriage, my relationship with my husband.

I do think it would impact me in the long term as society redefines fundamental institutions. We have talked about the fragility of the marriage institution. I would say the institution of marriage is far more fragile than many of us realize. The decline in the stability of marriage and the consequent positive result for society has been much compromised in recent years.

Turn on the television or listen to music on the radio. The understanding of marriage, as outlined in our brief, as a Christian view of marriage is very, very noticeably absent in our popular culture. I think the more the definition of marriage is bleached out—to use a term that was used earlier today—the less likelihood there is for my children, as they grow up and are married, and for their children to enjoy any sense of stability.

In terms of changes in past public policy and the effect they have had on marriage—the no-fault divorce legislation and other changes to the Divorce Act—I really think we will not know the full impact of those changes for probably another couple of generations. As we keep compounding and changing definitions and understandings and the legal requirements, I think the impact for all of us and for us as a society will not be known for many generations.

I do think there will be a negative effect. It won't be immediately felt and it may not be personally felt by many people, but as a society we will see negative consequences.

À (1005)

The Chair: Reverend Gardner.

The Reverend Harry Gardner (Executive Minister, Convention of Atlantic Baptist Churches, Canadian Baptist Ministries): It's difficult to answer the question in terms of personal effect, because we all have our personal opinions with respect to this. But I would agree with Dr. Mitchell in terms of long-term ramifications of legislation, the impact of changes at this level. We've simply come today to reaffirm what we believe in terms of the institution of marriage between one man and one woman for life.

Mr. John Maloney: If your children came home and said they were gay, how would that impact your relationship with them, within your family, and within their right to have a family themselves?

Dr. Lois Mitchell: I've thought of that one too. I have had the privilege of knowing many gay people and being very good friends with some gay people. My very best friend through high school and university later entered the gay lifestyle and we went our separate ways. I came back to the church and back to faith in God. Through some travelling and experiences, she ended up in a gay partnership.

I didn't feel there wasn't any reason we couldn't continue our friendship, but she did, because for her, if I couldn't completely, fully accept and affirm her lifestyle and her decisions and her choices, then we couldn't be friends. And I say that just to underline that in some sense the Christian church as an institution has been criticized for being intolerant and judgmental, but in some ways that has been a one-way street.

If my own children were to come home and say they felt that they were gay or were wrestling with sexual identity issues, it would not change my love for them or support of them at all. I think one of the critical things is that we've talked about equality as though equality has to be sameness.

From my faith perspective, I would encourage them, if that were the position they were in, to live celibately. That seems like such a ridiculous suggestion in our day and age because of the sexualization of our whole society. Celibacy is really seen as not a legitimate option for anyone these days. I would say that from a biblical perspective all sex outside of marriage is not appropriate, and that is marriage as defined in our document.

I would affirm them and encourage them as individuals. I would encourage them to live according to biblical standards despite their sexual identity—the same as I would and I will until they are married or in any situation that precludes marriage.

The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Mitchell.

Mr. Cadman, for three minutes.

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

We've heard it argued by a number of witnesses over the past couple of months, since we've been doing this, that procreation is not a fundamental component of marriage. That's the argument that has been put forward. One reason raised yesterday is that it's because procreation is possible with the intervention of a third party.

To me, that immediately raises the issue of what is the role of the third party, what is the legal status of that third party, especially in light of a case before the courts in Ontario right now, I believe, where there is an argument being put forward for a third party to be brought in as a third legal parent.

I would just like to hear comments from the panel on that issue.

The Chair: Reverend Hay.

Mr. Eldon Hay: It seems to me throughout this hearing so far today that the courts have been put in an “other” position. The courts are us. We are the courts. In other words, I think that part of our society is what the courts render to us, and one of the things it seems to me--I don't know if this was Pierre Trudeau, but I'm going to quote him anyway--is that it can save us from the tyranny of the majority.

I'm going to stop right there. I listen with respect to the courts in the same way as I listen with respect to the Pope or any other persons who can help us in our troubled times, our challenging times, our wonderful times, to create and re-create a society that's better than the one we have now. We're talking about the fragility of marriage. I believe from my perspective obviously that marriage itself can be strengthened and bolstered and undergirded by including the marriage of same-sex couples.

À (1010)

Mr. Chuck Cadman: If I could just interject, with respect, I wasn't asking your opinion on where the courts stand. I wanted your opinion on the legality of a third parent, because that's a case that is before the courts. I just want your opinion on it.

Mr. Eldon Hay: My opinion is that I would leave that to the courts. They are a part of us.

The Chair: Anybody else on the panel? He put it to the panel.

Dr. Lois Mitchell: I think procreation is a fundamental part of marriage and family, but not necessarily. We all know there are many heterosexual couples who are unable to or choose not to have children. I would still maintain that the family, the marriage unit, is the primary place where procreation continues to take place. And we're seeing experimentation with other forms.

The friend I mentioned, she and her partner, who live in Germany, have a son who my friend's partner had through artificial insemination. So we're seeing experimentation. There are other family forms and other ways that children are brought up and nurtured.

I think the predominant way and the way that in the best interests of our society should continue to be the predominant way is through heterosexual marriage. Again, I think there are studies that would demonstrate—and we need more studies to verify and to examine—that children are raised most effectively when there are both male and female parent role models present.

The Chair: Next is Ms. Hammock, and then I'll go to Mr. Macklin.

Ms. Janet Hammock: The long and the short of it is that this is in a sense not really a gay and lesbian rights issue; this is really a human equality rights issue. We're talking about distinctions between various people, and I'm thinking of blacks and whites. Blacks and whites look different. They're distinct in that manner. They may be different in other ways as well, but what they share in common--men and women, black and white, and whatever other race you want to call it--is that underneath all of these distinctions on the surface they're all human beings. As human beings, they need to enjoy human rights under the law, and that is what my community is asking for. My straight friends are also asking for this same equality under the law, because I think it impacts on both the straight community and the lesbian and gay community.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Macklin is next, for three minutes.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, witnesses.

Ms. Mitchell, I'd like to go to your second recommendation, because I think it needs some clarification. You've obviously put a great deal of thought into it. You are asking Parliament to look at the freedom of religion section of the charter, as it relates to issues where faith traditions are apt to differ from world views, based on secular society. We are a very pluralistic society, and I would like to hear your thoughts on where you think Parliament ought to be going with respect to a re-examination of that section of the charter.

Dr. Lois Mitchell: I've described in my presentation that we are a mosaic of faith traditions, cultures, and practices. Part of the responsibility that our Parliament and our courts have assumed, which they need to be very careful and diligent about, is the management of the border lands between the pieces of the mosaic, so their primary concern is on justice and equality. Where parts of the mosaic wish to infringe on or extend their boundaries and interfere with the practice of other parts of the mosaic, the way they live out their beliefs and values, is where the courts and Parliament are most concerned. In terms of freedom of religion, different people have mentioned the inconsistency in the courts' interpretations of freedom of religion.

I have spoken and used the position I have with our convention, with CBM, to encourage churches not to react, overreact, and extrapolate from current situations what might take place further on. I have to admit I'm becoming increasing cynical, despite my efforts at eternal optimism, when I look at the way courts have interpreted some things.

I think back to the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act and Parliament's decision just two years ago to specifically reaffirm and promote an understanding of marriage as between one man and one woman. The assurances at that time were that court decisions would not lead to a redefinition of marriage, yet here we are today.

I think some caution is certainly appropriate, from the point of view of religious freedoms. How are they going to be defined? It seems to vary greatly from one court to another. The fact that there are three conflicting decisions right now on the very issue of marriage does not lend itself to a lot of confidence on the part of Christian organizations, and clergy in particular, about where this is headed.

À (1015)

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: But within the religious institutions themselves there is great variance on where this ought to go. How do you recommend some reconciliation between the charter and various religious institutions? Even on this particular subject we have great variance.

Dr. Lois Mitchell: I feel a little bit constrained because I'm speaking on behalf of Canadian Baptist Ministries and four distinct conventions and unions. In the polity of Baptists, if you understand it, decisions aren't made from the top and then imposed down; they come from the bottom up. So I'm being cautious not to speak too much of my own opinions, but to reflect only those things that have been agreed upon at assembly. Sometimes they say if you have three Baptists you have four opinions.

In terms of the recommendations in the committee's report, they look at three possibilities. Just in some conversations with some pastors, they said there really ought to be a fourth alternative there. The government has talked about just turning the whole marriage thing over to the churches.

The other possibility, which is a practice in many countries, is the opposite, where government oversees marriage and all marriage are civil unions, however they are defined. Then if couples wished to have their vows solemnized they would go for an additional, but in no way legal, ceremony in a church. That's another possibility the committee might wish to look at that might resolve some of the tensions. The marriage itself would be the property or the responsibility of the government, and if there were to be a religious ceremony it would be the responsibility of the churches.

I suspect that no matter what this Parliament decides there will be court challenges. As the previous panel noted, it's likely there is no solution that will satisfy everyone.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

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

Ms. Mitchell, I would like to continue along the same lines because that is more or less the question I wanted to ask you. If the State decided to take away the right of religious institutions to celebrate marriages with legal consequences, don't you think that would provide full protection for freedom of religion, in that the State would allow same sex marriage and Churches that wish to, could offer religious marriages to couples who so desired? That way, those who wished to could include God in their relationship with their spouse.

So Churches that didn't want to could in no way be forced to do so, given that the ceremony would have no legal consequences. Furthermore, not being an extension of government, they would not even be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Because for the Charter to apply, you have to be a representative of the State, whether municipally, provincially or federally.

[English]

Dr. Lois Mitchell: First of all, I would say on behalf of the Canadian Baptist Ministries that when you spoke of having the government do all the marriages so they could do same-sex marriages, our bottom line really is that marriage should not be redefined. If there is a legal recognition of same-sex unions, it should be called something other than marriage. Again, I would say the equality arguments...I don't think equality implies sameness. So I think there should be a distinct category.

Similarly, heterosexual common-law unions should be not considered the same as marriages, because they're not the same as a marriage.

But given that, I think there would certainly be merit in exploring that possibility and again ensuring that churches...currently churches have enjoyed a considerable amount of freedom. I know churches make decisions every day on who they will and who they will not marry on the premises, and different denominations have different standards. Different local congregations do. I would see that as a possible way of giving legal recognition to same-sex unions--but don't call them married, and then do the whole registry, whatever you want to call it, as a government service.

À (1020)

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: But there are two problems. First of all, it is not the role of the Parliament of Canada to determine who can perform marriages and who cannot. I may have suggested it, but the fact is that it falls under provincial jurisdiction. The reason the Baptist Church can marry people in this province is because it got a licence from the province of New Brunswick and not from the Parliament of Canada. So this runs into division of powers problems, and I am sure that you and I wouldn't agree on how to solve those problems.

You say it would have to be something other than marriage. I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth, but I would like to know whether you would like same-sex couples to have roughly the same rights, responsibilities and duties as traditional marriage entails. In other words, it would look, smell and feel like marriage, but couldn't go by that name.

[English]

Dr. Lois Mitchell: I'm not sure how valid this analogy is, but we have freedom of religion in this country. This means that if I'm a member of a Muslim community, or a Jewish community, or a Christian community, I would be treated equally under law. This doesn't mean that all those religious groups are the same; they're not. They're equal, but they're not the same.

As I think I said in my presentation, diversity implies distinction and difference. In a pluralistic society, we should be celebrating differences and distinctions. We shouldn't be wanting to lump everything.

I appreciate the feeling of exclusion that gays and lesbians have felt, because they have been denied access to things that they feel would be indicative of full acceptance. But I don't think our Parliament or our courts are in a position to legislate that, because there is a sense of the borderlines between the pieces of the mosaic, which I talked about. To impose a view, saying that many people must affirm and accept the lifestyle and views of those who are different, whose lifestyle is inconsistent with those people's religious beliefs and sacred doctrines—which they are guaranteed the freedom to hold—borders on moral imperialism.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Reverend Hay, with respect to what Ms. Mitchell has said, I assume your church would like same-sex marriage to be allowed. Given that the law currently does not allow it and that another view—call it the Baptist, Catholic or other view—is imposed on your church, don't you feel that your freedom of religion is diminished? The definition of marriage that other religious groups impose on you impedes your freedom of religion, doesn't it?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Hay.

Mr. Eldon Hay: I don't believe so. The analogy I would use is the Roman Catholic Church's refusal to ordain women as priests. I respect the Catholic Church's position on that, and I have nothing to say on it. That's their position, but it doesn't impinge on me or my freedoms.

In the same way, I think that if marriage of same-sex couples is allowed in law, the Baptist Church, or all four of them, can say, if they wish, they don't do that. The Catholic Church can say they don't do that. But fortunately in our society, there may be churches who will do that, and there is certainly the civil route of getting married. In law, that is called a marriage, with underlining. I wonder facetiously if we could call one marriage and the other marriage, but have one italicized or something like that.

Voices: Oh, oh!

À (1025)

The Chair: Thank you very much to the panel, the committee, and again to the audience.

I'm going to suspend for three minutes. The next panel knows who they are, so would they please come forward.

À (1025)

À (1032)

The Chair: I call back to order the 34th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are continuing our study on marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions.

From 10:30 to 11:30, we will be hearing from a member of the social action committee of the Rothesay Baptist Church, Heather Debouver; from Susan Marsden and Beatrice Salsman as individuals; and from David McMath of the Christian Legal Fellowship of Canada.

Each group or individual has seven minutes. We are trying to get in as much dialogue with members as possible, as you probably have seen, so I'm going to hold you to the time limits.

I am going first to Heather Debouver.

Ms. Heather Debouver (Member, Social Action Committee, Rothesay Baptist Church): Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation today on a topic that is of great concern to citizens everywhere in Canada.

We come before this committee today to defend the existing definition of marriage in Canada and ultimately to defend the rights of Canadians to practise freely our religious faith, as taught in Holy Scripture—a cherished freedom that we believe is now under threat. We come before you because we believe that elected members of Parliament, not the courts, are responsible for establishing laws and social policies that protect all Canadians.

We are all aware that homosexual activists and lobby groups have been pressing the courts and provincial governments across the country to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, yet the divine nature of marriage is beyond the purview of any court or legal system. In fact, marriage was the first institution created and blessed by God, as recorded in the biblical text of Genesis 2:24, which states “for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh”.

Marriage is an intimate union and the unique physical and spiritual bonding of a man and a woman. It is by design and necessity an opposite-sex relationship for the comfort, care, and mutual help of both partners and for the procreation of children.

Jesus Christ confirmed God's plan for marriage as recorded in the Gospel of Mark 10:6-9, which states:

but in the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.

In recent years the homosexual movement has regarded the traditional marriage institution as a barrier to be overcome on the journey to sexual liberation and so-called equality. It has become obvious that more and more efforts are being made to use Canada's courtrooms as the primary instrument for change. As the discussion paper states, there are three separate cases awaiting hearing by appeal courts.

We believe it needs to be understood that the current challenge to traditional marriage is not about equal rights for homosexuals. In practically every area of life, that equality has already been attained. Even the national gay and lesbian lobby group, EGALE, acknowledged that Bill C-23 already gave to same-sex couples virtually all the rights and obligations of marriage under federal law and most provincial laws. The question must then be asked, since heterosexual and homosexual citizens, whether single or living together, already share the same rights and privileges of the law, why do traditional marriage and our current Marriage Act continue to be challenged in Canada?

We believe that the obvious answer is that the homosexual movement's goal is to silence those who disagree with them and to remove all opposition to their cause. This is evidenced in the recent introduction in Parliament of Bill C-250 by a leading homosexual advocate. We believe that Bill C-250, if passed into law, will fundamentally limit religious freedom and silence Canadians who believe in the traditional form of marriage. Should this bill become law, members of the clergy throughout Canada as well as private individuals would no doubt be intimidated and not speak in support of religious beliefs or scriptural teaching concerning homosexuality for fear of being charged with a hate crime.

We should not be misled into thinking this could never happen in Canada. The process is already being set in motion. Recently in Saskatchewan a judge upheld a Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission's finding that a scriptural reference printed in a private citizen's newspaper ad that referred to God's displeasure with homosexuality was illegal. The reason? Because it incited hatred toward homosexuals. Mr. Chair, Canadians are losing their freedom to express religious beliefs and to live their lives accordingly, while it appears the homosexual agenda is moving ahead virtually unopposed.

One of the great concerns to parents of the Judeo-Christian faith with young schoolchildren is the question of school curriculum and classroom instruction. If the current definition of marriage is changed by federal legislation to include same-sex marriages, will teachers be free to speak about marriage without including same-sex examples? If a student believes that God intended marriage to exist between a man and a woman as taught by the parents, what consequences might the child or the parents face should they object to the pro-homosexual curriculum?

We hope this committee will understand that this is not alarmist speculation on the part of a handful of Canadians. We believe our religious freedoms are under serious attack and that the homosexual lobby is aggressively attempting to remove any opposition to its agenda.

The traditional institution of marriage as we believe God intended has a time-honoured history as the foundational building block of our civilization and our hope for the future. No other social structure demonstrably benefits the marriage partners so fully or provides a better environment in which to raise children.

We trust that the justice committee and ultimately our elected officials in Ottawa will understand this, and we believe they do, that marriage as we know it in Canada, the union between one man and one woman, is God's design for his creation. We urge you to help protect and maintain this institution for the good of society and for the future well-being of our nation.

À (1035)

The Chair: Now we'll go to Susan Marsden and Beatrice Salsman for seven minutes.

Ms. Beatrice Salsman (As Individual): Thank you for letting us speak on this issue.

I do have a question. Am I to read our brief or can I speak about our brief?

The Chair: You can do it either way you wish. You have seven minutes either way.

Ms. Beatrice Salsman: Okay. I would like to first address the fact that we are here not as a “political issue” for myself. It's about where we are as a couple and what we face on the day-to-day issues through our life. I want to bring that to light. I guess for us that is why I feel strongly about being here to talk about that.

First, I want to let you know that we are a couple. We've been together for eight years and we have adopted a little girl, Emily, who is now three years old. That was a very joyous time for us when we adopted this child through social services.

As that adoption allows only one of us to be the adopting parent and to be recognized as a family, I have no legal right to Emily, which raises a major concern for me in terms of acknowledging us as a couple, of being in a situation where we could become a married couple and acknowledge that union of our relationship.

It has a strong impact on how our day-to-day life goes. I have a son as well as Susan's family. In terms of the legal aspects that go along with that, Jason has no legal rights as well, because he is my biological son. So if something should happen there, he would lose his sister in that situation.

Susan's family is not in this country. Should something happen to Susan herself, the question of what would happen to Emily is a major question.

Okay, I'm going to go back to the brief so I can talk a little more clearly.

I want to start with a quote, which sets the tone of our brief. “The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities” is a quote by Lord Acton.

Easter for us, as for many other households, is a momentous occasion. Not only is it the end of Lent and the time of new beginnings, it is a great time for celebration. It is a time when we reflect on the most emotional yet fulfilling time in our lives--the culmination of the adoption process, the time of year when we celebrate that Emily became our child.

April also brings with it the beloved tax season, where we, like many other families, declare our incomes. I am the spouse with the lower income, the person who has no legal right yet has the need to claim Emily as a dependent.

At three o'clock in the morning in the stark hospital emergency room, we console and comfort each other while our daughter gasps for breath due to her asthma attacks.

À (1040)

Ms. Susan Marsden (As Individual): Again, when we were taken to the hospital emergency room we were asked, who is she? Beatrice is my partner, she's my spouse, she's Emily's other mother and who Emily knows.

At one o'clock in the morning Beatrice has no right. If I have to leave for whatever reason, Beatrice has no right. She carries a letter around in her purse that says I give her the right to give our child medical attention. That's not acceptable, and that's a reality. If I'm on the road or away from home, she has to do that.

When we go to visit my family in England, Emily has to have her own passport. She can't go on mine. She can, but then that means she can only ever travel with me. If ever I have to leave, if I have to go to see my parents in England, if they are sick, I always have to take Emily with me to ensure that she's able to travel. Without her own passport, which she has now, she cannot travel with Beatrice. That's not acceptable.

Ms. Beatrice Salsman: I think that this confirms the issue of how vulnerable we are in this situation, of not being recognized as a union, or even as a couple.

Monday morning comes and we're quickly off with our families, and the weekend is over. We head off to work, dropping off Emily at the day care in order to make our living tending for the most vulnerable people in our society.

Given that we both work for and support people with disabilities or who are devalued in life, I have an understanding of what they must experience, knowing that it's somewhat what happens to our life as well. I know now why I feel so strongly about advocating on their behalf lots of times, because they're not able to have this opportunity to speak, as we have today. So I think that makes me feel even more strongly about being here.

I will try to point out how normal our lives are in comparison to anybody else's.

We are then woken in the middle of the night by our dog, who is having great difficulty walking due to a structural abnormality in her back. And so we tend to her with great care, getting her dressed and in the car in minus 30 degree weather, driving her to the veterinarian to ensure her pain quickly abates.

February, September, and October see the usual birthday celebrations with friends, families, and March brings our anniversary. We plan for our future and celebrate and rejoice in the love and commitment we share and have shared for many years.

The choices are simple. Marriage could remain an opposite-sex institution. Parliament could leave marriages to the religious. Marriage could be changed to also include same-sex couples.

And now you ask, why do I quote these compelling words of Lord Acton? Because as we state in the brief, the fewer the similarities, the more people will focus on the differences, when in reality the only difference is the gender. And yes, we are a minority and a family seeking and requiring security in the country we call our own.

The above depiction of our family mirrors many of the families in society, and therefore there is only one acceptable solution, and that is to change the sanction of marriage to include same-sex couples.

À (1045)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

David McMath, for seven minutes.

Mr. David McMath (Member, Christian Legal Fellowship of Canada): Thank you for the opportunity to address this committee.

I should note that I am described as member of the Christian Legal Fellowship. They will be making their own presentation in Toronto in a couple of days, I believe.

In my written submissions, I have essentially made about three different points in three areas. The first area is constitutional issues. I would like to begin by looking at a remark from the decision of Justice Pitfield on a B.C. marriage case. He said that the issue before the court has nothing to do with the worth of any individual, whether his or her preference is for same-sex or opposite-sex relationships. The only issue is whether marriage must be made something it is not in order to embrace other relationships.

I think that is very insightful and I would agree with his assessment. This whole issue, the claim of a breach of section 15 equality rights, is still obviously before the courts, the appeal of that B.C. case just having been heard recently with no decision yet. So in a sense, this is still an evolving issue, legally speaking.

I'd like to look at Justice Pitfield's reasoning, why he says that Parliament does not have the authority to change the definition of marriage. He points out--and I'm quoting from a few paragraphs on the first page--that:

Under s. 91(26), Parliament has the exclusive authority to legislate in relation to “Marriage and Divorce”. Section 91 excludes matters that are assigned exclusively to the provinces under s. 92 from Parliament's legislative authority. Section 92(13) assigns exclusive authority to legislate in relation to “Property and Civil Rights in the Province” to the provinces.

In my opinion, a question that arises in the context of these petitions is whether same-sex relationships fall within the class of “Marriage and Divorce” so as to be subject to governance by Parliament, or within the class of “Civil Rights” so as to be subject to governance by the province....

This answer to the question is important because the petitioners seek remedies that presuppose the meaning of “marriage” can be changed by Parliament. As I see it, the assumption around which the debate before me has been framed is that Parliament is empowered to enact legislation to define a head of power as opposed to enacting legislation under the authority of a head of power. The distinction is important.

I recognize that the Ontario court disagreed with this interpretation but I will come to that.

In order to find that Parliament has the power to define same-sex relationships as marriage, the word “marriage” in s. 91(26) must be construed to mean a legal relationship between two persons regardless of sex, or to include “marriage-like” relationships. There is nothing to suggest that “marriage”, in s. 91(26), was used in any context other than its legal context as understood in 1867, namely, a monogamous, opposite-sex relationship. That being the case, if Parliament were to enact legislation saying that “marriage” means a relationship solemnized between two persons without reference to sex, it would be attempting to change the meaning of the head of power and thereby unilaterally amend the Constitution.

In response to the argument that the constitutional terms have been liberally and progressively interpreted, Justice Pitfield held that none of the words pertaining to issues raised as having been modified--including banking, criminal law, interprovincial undertaking and direct taxation within the province--had been defined by common law.

None of these words that have been construed in a liberal manner were legal relationships created by the common law. Indeed, “marriage” is the only word in either s. 91 or 92 that refers to a legally defined relationship or construct. The meaning and legal character of the word are not ambiguous. The word is not generic as would be, for instance, the word “family” had that word been used in section 91(26). I do not construe the reasoning in Edwards

--that's the person's case--

to permit the legal construct of marriage to be unilaterally changed by Parliament.

He concludes his section of the decision with the following words:

In conclusion, I am persuaded that same-sex relationships do not fall within the meaning of marriage in s. 91(26). There is no basis for any suggestion that same-sex relationships are a matter for the peace, order and good government of Canada. They are a matter of civil rights of persons within British Columbia. That being the case, the provincial legislature may provide for their formalization and recognition should it wish to do so.

Since Parliament cannot amend the meaning of marriage within s. 91(26), the relationship will persist as a monogamous, opposite-sex relationship. That being the nature of marriage for purposes of s. 91(26), differentiation between those who can legally marry and those who can not must inevitably occur. The Charter cannot be used to override the reality of differentiation.

The relief sought, namely the characterization of same-sex relationships as marriages, cannot be delivered by Parliament under s. 91(26) without an amendment to the Constitution procured with the agreement of the provinces in a manner contemplated by the Constitution Act, 1982.

À (1050)

I don't agree with everything in Justice Pitfield's decision. For example, he dismisses the reasoning in the Leyland case in Ontario. That case said there was no discrimination. Marriage is open to any woman, homosexual or heterosexual, as long as she marries a man, and vice versa for men. I think there are issues in terms of defining the equality right as well that still need some further thought and decisions.

The second point I raise is the whole notion of changing the definition. Whether or not Parliament is able to, I would argue that it should not change the definition of marriage. In fact, I think there's a certain amount of arrogance in thinking that Parliament could change that definition, given that marriage did not originate with this state or any other. It is a pre-existing societal and predominantly religious institution that has existed for millennia. Parliament and legislatures have relatively recently recognized marriage, but they have not created that institution. In my opinion, it's one thing for Parliament to amend the definition of something it has created, like “capital gain”, for example, but not the whole concept of marriage.

The third issue in my paper deals with religious concerns and I think repeats some of what's been said this morning already. I would just point out that each of the major traditions in Canada, Jewish, Islamic, Christian--both Catholic and Evangelical--would indicate that marriage is between a man and a woman.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Toews, for seven minutes.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you. I appreciate the submissions made here today.

I think the reference made to Bill C-250--another issue this committee is considering--is very relevant to the discussion here. While there are those who insist that the right of religious organizations to carry out their practices will not be changed by a redefinition of marriage, I think we have already seen mounting evidence to the contrary. I think bills like Bill C-250 are a direct attack on the right of religious leaders and institutions to communicate and to adhere to essential matters of faith.

Organizations that choose to conduct only traditional marriages may well be entitled to continue those practices, as I've said earlier, within the four walls of their organizations, but the attack will then come against those religious organizations in respect of benefits that they will receive from the state. Indeed, we've heard evidence before this committee from activists who stated that this is in fact their next attack on these religious organizations--that religious organizations who continue to carry out these discriminatory practices may be free to do so, but they will move against state benefits to those organizations, whether it's their tax charitable status, direct funding to religious organizations, educational institutions. I'm very concerned.

It seems the human rights commissions in this country are already leading those attacks against Christian organizations. There are numerous cases already indicating that, like the Owens case in Saskatchewan mentioned here today, the Brockie case in Ontario, the Camp Arnes case in Manitoba, the Trinity Western case in B.C., the Vriend case in Alberta, and there are many others. I don't think those who simply say, don't worry, this is something that will just affect issues of equality and provide equal opportunity for all, see the writing on the wall. The human rights commissions are in fact moving very quickly, not to attack the beliefs of certain organizations in this country but certainly to attack the practice of those beliefs.

Lord Acton's statement is exactly my concern. I think it's important for the committee to hear it again. He said that the most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities. Absolutely. And the minority under the greatest amount of attack in our society today is the Christian minority in Canada.

It is not only this issue that concerns me so much; if governments or the courts decide to alter the definition of marriage, it is clear, I think, that there will need to be a response that strengthens the practice of religion in this country. It's simply not good enough, I would suggest, to put in legislation saying that a minister cannot be forced to conduct same-sex marriages. I don't think that's good enough, because we have seen, in each and every case where the battle has been between secular rights and the rights of religious organizations, the religious organizations have lost.

That includes the constitutional guarantees, guaranteed in Ontario under the 1867 Constitution, specific rights guaranteed in human rights commissions to freedom of religion. We've seen these consistently overruled by the courts and human rights commissions time and time again. Statutory protection simply isn't enough to protect religious minorities from attacks by bills like Bill C-250, and indeed the attacks of human rights commissions on the practice of religion in this country.

Mr. McMath, could you comment further on that issue, if you agree or disagree with this summary?

À (1055)

Mr. David McMath: I think I would agree. The cases you've cited are all examples of where the religious liberty has been trumped by other rights. I think part of the problem is that the courts seem to be without a moral compass. They seem to be making decisions in a vacuum, without a basis.

There's an article by political scientist Peter Röpke, who talked about the discussions that took place in a committee, probably similar to this one--the Constitution committee--when it was looking at the preamble to the charter. That preamble, with its recognition of Canada being founded as a nation that recognized the supremacy of God, really did have meaning. It was intended, I think, to be an interpretative clause as well as a preamble.

There was discussion in those committee hearings that the framers of the Constitution really understood that, unless the fundamental source of the principles upon which that society rests are clearly articulated, we are going to have this, in a sense, aimless sort of wandering. One member, David Crombie, pointed out that specific rights don't give you fundamental principles; fundamental principles give you specific rights.

I think part of what you are talking about here in this attack on religious freedom is that there's this wording in there, but it hasn't been guided by any sort of sense of true principle.

So, yes, in answer to your question, I agree with your assessment.

The Chair: Thank you Mr. McMath.

Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

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

Mr. McMath, in 1867, were women allowed to vote?

Á (1100)

[English]

Mr. David McMath: No, they were not.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Wouldn't you agree that it was because they weren't considered as persons, according to the terms used in the Constitution of 1867?

[English]

Mr. David McMath: As I understand it, they were people, but they had a disability for the purposes of employment to the Senate.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: When it was decided in 1929 that women were legally persons, and that they could be appointed to the Senate, was that an imposed constitutional change? Did we change the meaning of the Constitution?

[English]

Mr. David McMath: No, I am not aware that we did.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: No? Then if the definition of the word “marriage” were now to include same-sex couples, why would that be seen as a constitutional change, when the change to the meaning of the word “person” wasn't considered to be a constitutional change?

[English]

Mr. David McMath: I don't believe that the word “person” appeared as a head of power under the division of powers between sections 91 and 92, whereas marriage and divorce do appear as a category or a head of powers in those two sections.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Yes, but the fact is that the word “person” was in the Constitution, regardless of whether the change to the definition of the word “person” was in sections 91 and 92 or elsewhere in the British North America Act. The interpretation of the word "person" changed. Whether it is in section y, z, w or in section 91 or 92, there was a change in the meaning of the word “person”. So why would a change to the definition of the word “marriage” be seen as a constitutional change?

[English]

Mr. David McMath: I would just repeat what I said before. It is a head of power that is mentioned in the Constitution.

It is objectionable not only on constitutional grounds but also on religious and other grounds. I don't think that Parliament has either the legal or the moral authority to change the definition of marriage.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Is Canada officially a Baptist or Christian country?

[English]

Mr. David McMath: No, it is not.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: No. So why should the religious definition of marriage, which may be valid for religious matters, be imposed on a secular State, where there is separation between Church and State?

[English]

Mr. David McMath: Marriage was a pre-existing and primarily religious institution. In a sense, it has been adopted by secular society, and in Canada we have quite an intermingling between the religious and civil aspects of marriage. So it co-exists between those two areas.

I'm not sure if I answered your question.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: If Parliament, or the State, cannot redefine marriage, who can? If, as you say, it has a religious origin, can religions redefine marriage?

[English]

Mr. David McMath: No, I don't think that they can. As I have stated before, I think that marriage is an institution originally created and instituted by God, which has been reflected throughout the centuries and millennia in major religions—Christian and others. So, no, I would argue that churches do not have the authority to change the definition of marriage.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: That is because in your opinion, it comes from God, right?

[English]

Mr. David McMath: That's correct.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Should your interpretation of religion be imposed on those who do not share the same interpretation?

[English]

Mr. David McMath: It is not a matter of imposition. If they choose to embrace this particular institution, then they accept the institution as it is, as it has been given, or as it has been defined.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: By God?

[English]

Mr. David McMath: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I am going to read you two passages and I would like you to comment on them. This is taken from previous testimony. I will read them to you in English, so that will be easier.

Á (1105)

[English]

Some faith traditions still read literally the Bible, and some choose not to read the Bible literally. For me, a passage like Leviticus I would read in context of all the passages, all the sections of that part of Leviticus that would also say that you should not wear clothes of two different fabrics at the same time. Why would you give weight to one of the rules and not to another rule?

[Translation]

And a bit further on, and this is a rabbi speaking:

[English]

Arguably, the Jewish community has the longest-standing tradition of interpreting the Hebrew scriptures' Ten Commandments and so on. The Ten Commandments include the commandment to keep the Sabbath. As Jewish tradition has interpreted that for thousands of years, it involves not working from Friday night until Saturday at dark, refraining from a whole series of prohibited forms of creative activity, and it is absolutely on the same level as the prohibition of adultery or any of the others there. The terminology used about a specific act of male homosexual intercourse in Leviticus—that's important: it's not a general statement about same-sex relationships; it's about a specific form of intercourse—the same terminology is also used about eating shrimp, seafood. From the perspective of the Jewish faith community's interpretation of its scriptures, those prohibitions are indeed on the same level.

[Translation]

So you see there are people who are obviously well versed in biblical interpretation and who have a different interpretation from yours. I respect yours fully, but you have to agree that there are others with different interpretations. To come back to my question, why should your interpretation of God's will be imposed, while others, like in the passages I just read to you and like the United Church and the Unitarian Church, have a different view of marriage and of God's will with respect to marriage?

So I will rephrase my question. How can your right to keep your definition of marriage be respected within your religious sphere, while allowing other people with another view, which may also be based on religion, to act on their view without your right within your sphere being threatened in any way whatsoever?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. McMath.

Mr. David McMath: I don't think that there need be any other interpretation of marriage; marriage is what it is. It's exactly what Pitfield said. The issue seems to be whether or not marriage must be made something it is not, in order to embrace other relationships. I think that's what the effort is of those who would suggest otherwise, that they're making it something that it is not.

The Chair: Mr. Macklin, for seven minutes.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and witnesses.

Ms. Salsman and Ms. Marsden, obviously you make compelling arguments with respect to the difficulties and barriers that you face with respect to a child and as a couple trying to manage and act as a dual parenting group.

When we look at that issue, many of the things you raised are constitutionally in two areas of jurisdiction, both federal and provincial. There are other ways to resolve those problems without necessarily using the terms “marriage” or “being defined as marriage”. I'm wondering whether it is the difficulty that you're working with that you'd like to have corrected, or is it in fact more than that?

Ms. Beatrice Salsman: Could you repeat your question?

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: I am referring to the difficulty you have in dealing as a family unit, because in fact I guess what we're really saying is that family, as defined now, is obviously found in many forms. It's not under the traditional head of a married unit. So in fact, you're working within a family, and I gather that you're saying that in trying to express yourself and look after a child as a family unit, it is extraordinarily difficult when part of your family is not recognized.

Ms. Beatrice Salsman: I think there are legal issues around that. Obviously we have protected ourselves with wills, the power of attorney, and all of those things that are needed. But the bottom line is that it can be overruled as well. Without that protection, we are still at risk; so is Emily and so is my son. I think that is unjust.

I've heard a reference here today to protecting all Canadians. We are Canadians, and we deserve the same protection as everyone else has. Whether it be religion or whether it is us, it's the same protection that's required. That's all we're asking.

Á (1110)

Ms. Susan Marsden: I would like to add to that. Obviously, with this British accent, I wasn't born here. I was here for several years before I chose to become a Canadian citizen because I was proud to live here and proud to become a Canada citizen. It was a choice I had to do that and I fought for the Constitution, and that's why I'm here today.

When I went before the judge for Canadian citizenship, I wasn't asked if I was gay or straight. It was not important. And it shouldn't be important today, but I should still be given the same rights as every other Canadian who's living here and working here today.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: And with respect to that, there were other options suggested for discussion in this process we're going through, some of which would permit you to obtain all of the rights and privileges of marriage in terms of the practical arrangements that you make, but not necessarily called marriage. Would that satisfy your needs as you've expressed them here today?

Ms. Beatrice Salsman: I think, not being totally up on the political inferences of that, I wouldn't want to set up with something that's going to give us less than equality. I think that's where I'm standing on that. If in fact it limits us by not being a marriage status and not being recognized as a family, I think that would be a loss to us, for sure.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: A loss? If you were able to do all the practical things as a family unit that you'd like to do and the law permitted that, do you have to have the name “marriage” with it in order to make it effective?

Ms. Beatrice Salsman: Me personally? Probably not for me personally. That would not be my major issue. My major issue is protection and to be recognized as a family unit.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: And Ms. Marsden?

Ms. Susan Marsden: I would say as long as the word “marriage” is removed for everybody. The same word should denote everybody's status in the country.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Fair enough. I hear your comment, but I wanted to make sure that you could--

Ms. Susan Marsden: If it would change for everybody, then I agree.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: I see.

Mr. McMath, you said that we as a Parliament shouldn't be dealing with “heads of power” or we don't have the power to deal with those issues, and yet we find ourselves in a position where constitutionally the courts—at least two of the three courts that are now considering this issue—have indicated that we would either have to move on this issue in some form or other or they would in fact move for us. Bearing in mind what you've said about our not having the power, where do you think we ought to be going?

Mr. David McMath: Again, to repeat what others have said, Parliament ought to do all it can to encourage marriage, to support it. It is the fundamental institution that will allow for society to continue, given its unique procreative abilities.

I think one response should be that the definition of marriage should remain the same, but another would be, through whatever legislative means you might have, to support and encourage marriages and families. Granted, some of those measures would help others, even those who would be cohabiting or perhaps even same-sex unions, but I think that's one recommendation I would make—that Parliament do what it can to protect the family and marriage in that sense.

The Chair: Mr. Toews, for seven minutes.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm thinking that marriage is not the only appropriation by secular authorities or the state of a religious institution or practice. I think one example—and I'd like your comment on this—is perhaps male circumcision. It started out as more of a religious ceremony in middle eastern practice, perhaps Judaic, perhaps other religions. It was certainly carried on by other religions.

We use essentially the same name for it, whether it's done in a secular context, by a doctor, or by a religious figure in a religious ceremony. The ceremony is different; the practice is essentially the same. We basically call it the same thing.

Why can't we do the same thing with marriage, Mr. McMath? Are we talking about the same kind of thing?

Á (1115)

Mr. David McMath: I'm not sure that we are. If we are, I would suspect that the Jews may have objected to the appropriation of that term, if it was to remove it of all of their religious significance. As I figure, I don't think it's necessarily on all fours with the concept of marriage. I have an open mind on that.

Mr. Vic Toews: Yes. I just thought of it. These are the kinds of things we think as we sit here listening. But I think it's a good discussion to have in terms of how the state appropriates religious institutions for their own benefits. In other words, marriage is seen as a very important stabilizing factor in our society and therefore it is good that the state says, we have an interest in protecting this particular institution; it might be a secular institution as far as we're concerned. The question, then, is how do we as a secular society protect those religious interests without at the same time advancing secular interest?

My particular concern--and I listened to Ms. Salsman and Ms. Marsden talking about the child--is that essentially to me what marriage is all about is the procreative aspect and the intergenerational nature of families. If we say we're going to exclude same-sex couples from this institution, I'm wondering what obligation we have as a Parliament to these children to ensure that they live in a secure environment.

We know that children outside of the context of regular marriage are in much greater harm--statistically speaking, not specifically speaking, because I don't want to cast any aspersions on any particular couple. But statistically speaking, we know that children are in more danger. What can we do as parliamentarians to strengthen that protection for children?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Toews. I think the question was put to Ms. Salsman.

Ms. Beatrice Salsman: What was the question?

Mr. Vic Toews: Very briefly, there is a societal need to protect children. If we don't include them in that context of the marriage institution, what other context do we put them in so as to protect them?

I understand your position. Maybe that's why I wasn't directing it at the two of you. Perhaps better to Mr. McMath and Ms. Debouver.

Do you have any response? Mr. McMath.

Mr. David McMath: I think it was alluded to earlier that there is a foundation or a fabric that is gradually being chipped away somewhat as a result of the social change we have seen over the years, and it was mentioned earlier that the ease of divorce and cohabitation and other things tend over the long term to have societal effects.

It was mentioned as well that with a major social engineering type of decision as you're being faced with just now, there could be long-term effects in terms of children. I don't have any empirical evidence to say this. I think I've read in some of the literature that obviously the rate of breakdown of cohabiting couples is higher than married couples. I think there's an affecting of the fabric of the family that would have an effect in the long term on children.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McMath.

Mr. Marceau, what have you been thinking about?

[Translation]

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

I can't tell you everything, Mr. Chairman, obviously. I have a comment and a question.

The comment has to do with the circumcision analogy. The circumcision ceremony, in the Jewish tradition, is called a “Bris”, and the person who performs the ceremony is called a “mohel”. Calling the ceremony “the circumcision” is like calling marriage “the exchange of rings”. It belittles the ceremony and its meaning.

My question is for Ms. Salsman and Ms. Marsden. People have repeatedly come before the committee and said that we have to be careful and weigh all of the consequences, and that this would significantly affect the heterosexual community and couples. I assume you have friends, acquaintances and family members who are straight. Have you ever heard anyone heterosexual, male or female, say that if you had the right to get married, they wouldn't get married or would get divorced in order to avoid belonging to the same institution as you? Would they stop procreating because you were entitled to get married? What might be the terrible consequences if you, as a same-sex couple, were allowed to get married?

Á (1120)

[English]

Ms. Beatrice Salsman: The part that I'm sort of confused about is that I don't quite understand why our desire, our wish to have a union, a marriage, threatens the existing marriage. I don't understand that all.

I also don't understand why, if what we're trying to do is preserve families, and what our whole premise is and the premise I hear from the religious sector is to have families.... That's what we're asking for. Why are we being denied that? I don't understand that at all. I'm totally lost with that.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you.

[English]

Ms. Susan Marsden: I would like to support Beatrice and say we are not aware of any tragic circumstances, and as you have alluded, we've certainly had several members of our families that are heterosexual, and several heterosexual families and friends that we hang around with, support us in being here today. It's because of them as well that we're here today, so that we can proclaim our family union, the same as they proclaim theirs.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I appreciate very much the input of the panel and the committee and all those who continue to stay with us and take this in.

I'm going to suspend for a few minutes. Our next panel can come forward as this one departs.

Á (1122)

Á (1128)

The Chair: I call back to order the 34th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, as we continue our study on marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions.

From now until 12:30 we will have a panel: as individuals, David Jenkins, and also Reverend Ted Newell of the Jemseg Baptist Church; and as an organization, the Atlantic Canada Association of Free Will Baptists, Reverend Jeff Crabtree.

I think you've heard the instructions. You have seven minutes. At six minutes I'll indicate that there's one minute left, so then please bring your thoughts to a conclusion.

First, I'm going to David Jenkins for seven minutes.

Mr. David Jenkins (As Individual): Thank you very much for allowing me to make this presentation today.

I appear before you today on my own initiative as an individual member of the straight community, a community that is made up of men and women from all walks of life, regardless of location, race, colour, religious or political persuasion, a community that has its own unique cultural differences, as do all other communities in our great country.

One of the core cultural values of the straight community is the one man, one woman marriage institution, created in the beginning with the express purpose of a union between one man and one woman, with the desired results of bearing children, a profound necessity if the human race is to survive. This institution is a valid cultural heritage that creates a family unit, a way of life that has been handed down to our people from generation to generation for hundreds of years. It is a heritage that we wish to pass on to our children and their children's children for ages to come.

It is estimated that it costs in excess of $150,000 to bring a child into the world, raise, educate, assist them in getting jobs, assist them in their marriages, and help them to become productive members of society. In lieu of this huge financial cost, governments over the years have extended to the institution of marriage certain benefits such as children's allowance, income tax relief, spousal benefits and so on, thus addressing the concerns that are specific to the straight community.

All communities in our country have their own unique cultural differences, whether it be the Chinese, native, black, French, or gay communities, and we respect their cultural rights and heritage. The Government of Canada, with its multicultural program, has defended these rights to the point of allowing some to even carry daggers in public places. Let it never be said that in Canada we have allowed the rights of one group, even though they be in the majority, to be trampled over in the pursuit of the rights of others.

The straight community has a time-honoured fundamental right to its heritage of a one man-woman marriage institution. Yet this core value of our way of life has been under relentless attack for the past decade. Not only have our rights and values been under attack, but we have been subjected to vilification, accused of homophobia, hatred, and intolerance when we attempt to defend our rights and values.

It has been argued that marriage is an equality issue. The equality issue is apparently a very grey area in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, due to the many different measures passed by the government and the courts that seem to have been ignored or overruled. For example, in 1999 Parliament passed by a wide margin a motion stating that Parliament would take all reasonable steps to maintain the opposite-sex meaning of marriage in Canada. As reported in the February 2003 issue of the Telegraph Journal, the Supreme Court ruled in 1993 that gay and lesbians were not a family. In the last few years there has been a wide range of confusing court decisions in this regard. It appears that the strategy is to press on until they find a court that supports the gay agenda, and they will win.

These events lead one to ask the question, is the attack on the marriage institution about equality, or is it about denying a people their fundamental rights? Is it about intolerance and discrimination against the straight community and its core values?

Any question of equality regarding the marriage institution is far outweighed by the time-honoured fundamental right of the straight community to maintain and pass on to our children a valued cultural heritage and way of life. It has been argued that marriage raises the public profile of an opposite-sex union higher than that of a same-sex union, because there is a ceremony and it is announced to friends and families and so forth.

Every community has the right to raise the awareness and profile of its customs and practices without infringement on the rights of others. It cannot be argued that one culture's values must be undermined because it is better than another culture's values. Each community must find ways to work for its own betterment while respecting the rights of others.

Any question of rights and equality must be addressed within the framework of each individual community, with laws and guidelines put in place that pertain to their unique culture and lifestyle and, as I said earlier, without infringement on the rights of other communities and cultures. As the one man-woman marriage institution is protected by law against bigamy and its destructive nature, so must the institution be protected by law against same-sex marriages.

Á (1130)

Whereas the attack on the marriage institution is ongoing and costing millions of dollars, which will no doubt continue in the future, it is recommended that a bill be submitted to Parliament designed to protect the one man-woman marriage institution to guarantee that it will be preserved as such for the future. It is further recommended that in the meantime a national lobby group be established to defend the rights of the straight community and promote the proposed legislation until it is put in place.

In conclusion, if justice is to prevail in this country, the rights and freedoms of all Canadians must be respected, including those of the straight community. We must be free to maintain our cultural heritage and free from harassment, court challenges, intolerance, and discriminating attacks on our way of life.

Thank you very much.

[Applause]

Á (1135)

The Chair: To the members of the audience, as enthusiastic as you may be when you hear certain things, it has a tendency to escalate throughout the day. Everybody is trying to out-clap each other and all that. So let's just hold it back a little bit.

We'll now go to Reverend Ted Newell of the United Baptist Church of Jemseg.

The Reverend Ted Newell (Pastor, Jemseg Baptist Church, As Individual): Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak to you this morning.

I want to address the social effect on heterosexual marriage. Will recognition of same-sex marriage really make a difference to heterosexual marriage? How will adding a category to marriage affect social stability? I want to give three answers in three words. It will redefine marriage, it will challenge marriage, and it will end marriage as we know it.

Adding same-sex unions to marriage will redefine the public meaning of the word “marriage”. Marriage is the central hope, the central ideal, the central institution for heterosexual people. In Canada, pastors and congregations still witness 75% or more of heterosexual weddings. These celebrations celebrate a coming together.

Human beings are divided by gender. Maleness and femaleness are different cultures. There is a gender divide. The wedding ceremony marks the coming together of very different human beings. Heterosexual weddings are an expression of human hope. The human dilemma is that we have to come out of ourselves. Some said before this committee that human beings are dimorphic. Human beings come incomplete. Your physical body is made to be matched; it is obviously made to be matched.

Unity out of difference is what the word “marriage” implies. Out of diversity, marriage makes community. Males and females are led together out of their separate realities. Marriage is a human cultural marker of a cultural construction called heterosexuality. It is more than cultural, but it is cultural, and marriage is central to hetero-identity.

Difference unites. Two human beings become a new compound: Dave and Donita, the McAlpins; Bob and Joyce, the Joneses. Two genders make a one-flesh union. Children are naturally created out of this two-gender encounter. Out of difference that has been unified comes life. A parent may grumble about their husband or wife, but children watch for themselves the process of loving someone different and how it works.

Heterosexual marriage is literally a cradle of community. Differences are bridged right before kids' eyes. Hetero-marriage is able to build community across the basic human gender gap. Marriage bridges the great divide. Other-oriented citizens are the natural result.

Adding same-sex unions to marriage will change the meaning of the word “marriage”. Marriage will not be about bridging difference; it will be the public way to describe any loving commitment. Male and male and female and female cannot unite across genders, it is clear. Parliament may wish to recognize those relationships, but it will redefine the meaning of married if it calls them marriages.

Secondly, adding same-sex unions to marriage will challenge heterosexual marriage. Marriage is said to be an institution. Certainly pastors institute marriage on a wedding day, but happily ever after is more of a process. Vows to be sustained have to be supported by a web of understandings. No doubt this web is what Daniel Cere of McGill meant when he said that marriage was a massive and complex reality. Marrying a heterosexual couple is like setting in a process a beneficial culture.

Gender identification of male and female is definitely a part of the internal commitment required for heterosexual marriage. In my brief I cite three thoughtful or frank gay or gender theorists who say that undermining traditional gender roles is part of what they hope for in gaining the word “marriage”.

I have seen identity trashed. I worked with a group of divorced women and men. These unwilling singles experienced marital breakdown firsthand. They came to our regular meeting the first time like stabbing victims. They moved in a sort of frozen way. They were not sure any longer who they were. It was as if they had been Siamese twins and half their lives had been ripped away. Identity had to be built again from the ground. The rebuilding process--hesitant, painful, tearful--took a year or two or more for them to recover. Many never were the same as they must have been.

Rising divorce statistics are too cold to show the loss behind every digit. Gender identity is part of the web sustaining heterosexual marriage. Parliament has already made changes in law that appear to have the effect of destabilizing hetero-marriage. Decline in marriage rates ought to be a concern. The high level of divorce ought to be considered. If traditional gender roles are embraced by millions of couples against a few, should not Parliament resist calls to reshape a massive and complex institution to an alternate? Moving the other way seems unfair.

Á (1140)

Hetero-marriage has been more than love. Our generation really can't get hold of that. To say it startles people. A commitment of love is good until love runs out, and then he is in his rights to leave for someone else. I allude to this on pages 3 to 7.

Why are the divorced so hurt? They knew themselves to be in a covenant, and it was written off. Adding a category not based on the fitting-together union will challenge hetero-identities and what it means to be married.

Thirdly, adding same-sex marriage will end marriage as a public word in the way we know it. It will redefine it, challenge it, and end it the way we know it. Of course, that seems way too far-reaching a conclusion, but hear me, please. It has been observed many times before this committee that conceding same-sex marriage will make it impossible to defend the word “marriage” against any kind of love.

Some same-sex advocates deny that their desire is at all to legitimize polygamist or consanguineous relationships, and I think their denial needs to be heard. But it already appears that law enforcement officials who find polygamy are declining to prosecute for fear of a charter challenge. I have James Skillen on page 12 saying that public policy has the responsibility to seek the flourishing not just of individuals but of agencies of society.

Rights cannot be the whole of policy. That is why it's appropriate that not judges looking at individual groups but Parliament, with responsibility for the whole country and all its social clusters and the overall flourishing, makes this call. Adding one category that makes the public meaning of marriage no longer gender-bridging will open it up one too much.

There is no reason why a distinction cannot be maintained if Parliament and society wish it. Canada is a democracy. Representatives represent the people. Equality does not have to mean sameness. If heterosexual marriage is the focus of one group's identity, the word “marriage” can be reserved for gender-bridging bonding.

It seems clear that once a change is made, additional changes will be forthcoming. Once made, changes will be irrevocable. A change in the definition will redefine it, challenge it, and end it as we know it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you.

Reverend Crabtree.

The Reverend Jeff Crabtree (Atlantic Canada Association of Free Will Baptists): Thank you for allowing me to speak today.

I represent the Atlantic Canada Association of Free Will Baptists, a group of ten churches that has enjoyed a respectful presence in this province for well over 150 years. Our association of churches holds membership in the National Association of Free Will Baptists, Inc., headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee, which has congregations in Canada, the United States, Mexico, Cuba, Panama, Brazil, Uruguay, France, Spain, Côte d'Ivoire, India, and Japan. Letters accompanying this brief support my representation status.

On behalf of our churches, I have been charged with asking the Government of Canada to leave the definition of marriage as it presently is in Canada. Our position is that our Creator has told us, His creatures, how to live individually and as a society. We believe He has instituted marriage as the voluntary union for life of one male and one female, committed to living together in the holy estate of marriage, to the exclusion of all others. Three general observations support this.

First, God ultimately marries couples. Four components are required for marriage in our modern society. The first three are clear: there must be the approval of society, shown here in the granting of a marriage licence; public commitment, seen in the witnessed exchange of vows before a designated representative of the government; and the consummation of the marriage with the physical union. The fourth component is God's involvement. When the Bible says “What God has joined together...,” we see that God is a participant in the marriage act. Though the government may grant the licence and the couple exchange vows and become one in body, only God can ultimately join two persons in holy matrimony. For this reason, persons who present themselves for marriage, whether the ceremony is religious or civil, are presenting themselves before God as well as their society and therefore must be qualified by his standards.

In other words, approval for marriage by society does not guarantee approval for marriage by God. This is one reason the Bible-believing church community is so protective of the definition and rite of marriage. God sanctions the physical union of a man and woman only, and then only when the two parties are committed to living with each other in the holy estate of matrimony, to the exclusion of all others.

Our second observation is that the first provision for marriage stated in scripture is that the two parties getting married were of opposite sexes: “male and female He created them”, and “a man...shall cleave to his wife”.

The truth is repeated in Ephesians 5:31, a passage written several thousand years after the creation account of Genesis 2. The later repetition of this truth shows that time and practice did not change God's will in this matter. Though homosexuality had become common in certain contexts by the time the Ephesians portion of the Bible was written, God still did not approve of it or suggest that the church or society should make provision for it.

Our third observation is that homosexuality is mentioned several times in scripture. Thus it is easy to ascertain God's will in this matter. From Genesis 19:4-7, attempted homosexual rape at Sodom, around 1880 B.C., through to 1 Timothy 1:10, written around 62 A.D., where the writer lists several activities that are opposite the message of God and the lifestyle of godly people, each writer treats homosexuality the same. It is a relationship that has God's strong disapproval. It is called a “degrading passion”, “unnatural”, an “indecent act”, and one that has divine penalty accompanying it. It is as wrong as any fornication, idolatry, or adultery for both partners--you can see 1 Corinthians 6:9, where both the active and passive partners are mentioned--and is just as forgivable from God's perspective, again in 1 Corinthians 6:10, where former homosexuals became part of the church congregation.

In conclusion, our association of churches does not see the question before us as a light matter. We believe the Bible is a record of God's words revealed to man and, as such, is to be our rule of faith and practice. As Bible believers, we adhere to the mind of God. We accept the Bible as his word, authoritative on every matter on which it speaks. We believe the Bible reflects its author--immutable, infallible, inerrant, all-wise, holy, and loving.

Therefore, we respectfully ask this committee to report that the people of Canada want the definition of marriage as written in the Constitution to remain as “the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.”

Again, thank you for permitting us to state our position. We pray that the Supreme God will guide you in your deliberations.

Á (1145)

The Chair: Thank you.

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

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you very much, presenters, for your comments and observations.

I mentioned the Egan decision before, the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1995 wherein a majority of our Supreme Court justices upheld the distinction between marriage as a heterosexual institution and all other forms of relationships.

Mr. Justice La Forest dismissed the idea that legal distinctions between heterosexual legal marriage, on the one hand, and all other relationships, including homosexual relationships, improperly discriminates. He said it doesn't discriminate; the state, in fact, has a legitimate interest in strengthening this unique heterosexual relationship, and therefore the state was entitled to pass laws and programs that strengthened that relationship. Again, he saw nothing discriminatory in that respect.

Of course, some of this has now been put into doubt by lower court decisions that have, seemingly conveniently, ignored the Supreme Court's comments in Egan. The presentation that Mr. Jenkins made raises some very interesting comments--not that everyone didn't raise interesting comments, but I want to specifically dwell on his.

He raises the situation that a bill be submitted to Parliament designed to protect the one-woman, one-man marriage institution. That, of course, is fraught with difficulties because it doesn't matter whether we pass a law to that effect or not. If it's unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional. Statutory amendments simply won't cure that problem.

One of the points, though, when we're talking about trying to defend that institution, is the fact that many traditional groups have not had access to the same kind of funding that activist groups have. Under our court challenges program, the federal government supports organizations that want to attack our laws and sends money to these organizations so they can attack and destroy our laws.

These funds are distributed in secrecy. One of the excuses given states that this is solicitor-client privilege. That's nonsense. We're dealing with public money, and the public has a right to determine and to know how its money is being spent. But the idea of an organization that then defends some of these laws that are under attack...because, frankly, I'm not so convinced that our government is doing that good a job. Even if we look at the discussion paper, it doesn't mention cases like the Egan decision. I think it's reflective of an attitude toward marriage in our society. We see it in the court challenges program, that traditional groups don't get access to the funding that those who want to attack our laws get.

Since I've taken this out of Mr. Jenkins' observations, I'm wondering whether any of the other presenters have any comments to make in respect to that issue, which I think Mr. Jenkins has very interestingly raised.

Á (1150)

The Chair: Either Reverend Newell or Reverend Crabtree. Reverend Newell.

Rev. Ted Newell: I think it's healthy that we can have a debate and a discussion on these fundamental matters and I think it poses a challenge to our basic values. It asks what is really important to us. The political process, I think, has to be affirmed, and I'm certainly delighted to be able to be a part of that process.

The Chair: Reverend Crabtree.

Rev. Jeff Crabtree: No, sir.

Mr. Vic Toews: Perhaps I could proceed, then, on that same issue. It's important to be involved in the political process. But if the real change is being made in the courts and not here, shouldn't organizations such as yours, who are advancing a particular interest that is important to society, have the same access to funding that activist groups have who are attacking these institutions?

Not only is the question shouldn't you have access to those funds, but shouldn't the people of Canada know who is getting funded for these purposes by our tax dollars?

I leave that open to any of the witnesses.

The Chair: Reverend Crabtree.

Rev. Jeff Crabtree: I would respond by saying our church people, as I have listened, have been somewhat hesitant because of the separation of church and state emphasis that's been given.

It's almost as if the church is not allowed, is not permitted to access the courts, and too much political activism will endanger its charitable status. There's almost a fear that really comes from ignorance, perhaps, because we are not aware of all the legal rights we have. But that's what I'm hearing, that's what I see.

It's from a lack of awareness. Yes, if this committee could help, or anyone could get information to the groups that we have access to these rights, that we can challenge just the same as other groups can, it would be helpful.

Rev. Ted Newell: I think there's a difference between the state and the church, and I think that's what Reverend Crabtree is definitely alluding to, that we aren't operating on the same basis as many of the groups that have access to that funding.

I certainly would say it's very appropriate that all citizens of the country have access to information about how funds are distributed. That only seems right.

Again, I think the response.... It's one thing to ask the question. But it's how the question is answered, and is the Parliament not really still in a position of supremacy in regard to the laws of Canada? Or has some fundamental change occurred, that law may now be made at the court level? I'm wondering about that.

Á (1155)

The Chair: Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

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

I have a comment and a question. The comment is that I can't wait to hear the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice defend the allegations of my friend and colleague Vic Toews about secret funds being channeled to certain groups to challenge legislation. So I can't wait to hear what he's going to say in defence of government programs.

My question is for all three witnesses. First of all, thank you for coming and presenting your viewpoints. I would like you to help me clarify the following situation.

I am trying as much as possible to strike a balance between two very important values. I am trying to protect the right of your churches to refuse to marry same-sex couples—I will fight to the end to protect this right of yours—and to live, not just teach, but live according to the tenets of your faith. In my opinion, that is essential, and I would not want anything that would go against the tenets of your faith to be imposed on you.

On the other hand, there are some people who came here this morning; some testified, others did not. A very nice retired United Church minister came and spoke to me afterwards and confirmed that the United Church would like to marry same-sex couples, as would the Unitarian Church, the Metropolitan Community Church and some branches of reformed Judaism. But although these churches would like to, they can't because they are not allowed by the State. So they feel that their freedom of religion, which would allow them to marry same-sex couples, is somehow limited.

So help me out here! What can I do to make it possible for those churches and organizations that want to be able to marry same-sex couples to do so, because that is consistent with their interpretation of the word of God—and it is not for me to judge the value of their interpretation or yours; let's be clear on that—while protecting, guaranteeing and confirming your right not to marry same-sex couples because that runs counter to the tenets of your faith?

[English]

The Chair: Reverend Newell.

Rev. Ted Newell: My basic position is that heterosexual marriage, as it has been understood, is a public good. As Mr. Jenkins alluded to, there is substantial statistical evidence that heterosexual marriage is something that provides a good to the state.

Obviously this question we're engaged in is a very, very difficult one that is exactly on the borderline between religion and the state. It is precisely why we are so very deeply invested in that debate.

We believe that heterosexual marriage is something that has been of such overwhelming benefit to the state that it requires a continuing maintenance in law of its distinct status. We're not saying other forms of relationship might not be recognized by the state, but we do say that heterosexual marriage is of such significant benefit that it ought to be retained.

Thank you.

The Chair: Reverend Crabtree, did I see an indication you wanted to speak?

Rev. Jeff Crabtree: I'm just jotting. I can.

Again, I'm speaking positionally for those of us who are Bible believing, and I recognize that not everyone is; it's a decision we make, and it's a wilful decision. So my statements are not meant to be an imposition.

Our position is that the Bible is not a fluid document in the sense of being open to reinterpretation every century; it's a fixed document. It is fixed from thousands of years ago. That is a distinction from what I'm hearing and from what I've seen in the constitution. That is one differentiation between us and groups that say they can perform such marriages.

Now, I ask the question somewhat like what you brought up last week at our meeting in Fredericton. What was the attorney's name, John McEvoy?

Â (1200)

The Chair: John McEvoy.

Rev. Jeff Crabtree: He happened to be in our discussion group, and I asked him the question about ministers--or anyone--being forced to perform ceremonies if they really felt they shouldn't. He said a church is like a club; you cannot be made to do anything you don't want to do inside of your own organization. And if someone doesn't like your rules, they can go form their own club.

Then I ask about someone who is in a job such as a federal position where their job description requires them to perform weddings. He said he believed there was a declaration of exemption.

So there are possibilities already for a person to be exempted from certain activities for religious reasons and not be made to do them. As long as it's understood that as a church we're going to still have our position, state our position, and live by it...after all, it's been said if Christianity is not lived, it's nothing.

We don't want to be locked inside our walls. We want to be able to come out. We want to be able to train our young people to have a lifestyle that we say is proper. What the state does, what the government does, that's separate from us. Just don't force us to try to come under that.

The Chair: Mr. Marceau, they may not be back, you understand, so---

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: On that point we are in complete agreement. I'm pleased to hear you say this.

If ever this committee were to decide to suggest same-sex marriage, and if this were to be done through legislation that would include spelling out, black on white, as does section 367 of the Quebec Civil Code, that nothing in that legislation could force ministers of any faith to perform a ceremony contrary to the tenets of their faith, would that be acceptable? It would not necessarily alleviate all your fears about being made to accept this, but would it deal with some of your concerns? It would recognize your absolute right to not only state your beliefs but to live your religion as you wish. Is this something you could accept?

The Chair: : Thank you, Mr. Marceau.

[English]

I'm going to give everybody a chance.

Reverend Crabtree.

Rev. Jeff Crabtree: I would say again, as long as we understand it's just a side-by-side living relationship, not an approval, then personally I think that would be a way we could deal with it. I understand it's a separate issue lately, but the church keeps coming up, so there has to be a dichotomy.

The Chair: Mr. Jenkins, did you want to respond to this?

Mr. David Jenkins: My position is very clear. The institution of marriage should not be changed. As for the changes that should be made with regard to Parliament, again I would like to reiterate there should be proper laws put in place to protect the institution of marriage against the ongoing attack.

Rev. Ted Newell: Well, I recognize that angle of approach has been taken in Quebec, that specific exemption was given for ministers to opt out of performing marriages they were not able to do. I wouldn't be convinced a statutory declaration would be able to stand up. It certainly appears that statutory measures are not standing up against charter challenges in all instances. It wouldn't completely allay my concern, but it certainly would be one step in a certain direction.

My main concern, though, is that heterosexual marriage is a delicate institution and the delicacy of it is not fully appreciated. It's not fully recognized in the academic literature now and it merits the full defence. And in terms of the benefits it historically has brought to our country, it needs to be protected rather than defined, challenged or....

Â (1205)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Maloney, for seven minutes.

Mr. John Maloney: Mr. Jenkins, in your conclusion you state we need to be free to maintain our cultural heritage, be free from harassment, free from court challenges, and free from intolerance and discriminating attacks on our way of life. It's interesting that some of those comments are being used by the gay community as reasons for acknowledging gay marriage--free from harassment, free from intolerance and discriminating attacks on their way of life.

How do you feel about that? You're using the same arguments to support your position as the gay community is using to support their opinion. What are your comments on that?

Mr. David Jenkins: Well, as I said in my closing remarks, if justice is to prevail in Canada, then the rights of all the communities must be respected--all Canadians.

Mr. John Maloney: Why does that comment you just made not support the gay rights movement?

Mr. David Jenkins: Because what I'm saying is we have a right to a one man, one woman marriage institution. That's part of our way of life, part of our culture, and we should not be subjected to attacks like those that are going on today across our country. We should be free from those attacks, and I consider it to be discrimination against the straight community.

Mr. John Maloney: If Parliament were to acknowledge and allow gay marriages, how would that impact on you personally? Where would the harm be?

Mr. David Jenkins: That would impact on me because I would be subject to an act of discrimination against part of my culture that I value very much. It's an institution I want to hand down to my children and my grandchildren in its present form. I would resent it very much.

Mr. John Maloney: Reverend Newell, you paint a very scary picture of the state of our marriage today. Is marriage so fragile that allowing gay marriages will impact on heterosexual marriages in their nature and form, it will end heterosexual marriage? Do you really feel that way?

Rev. Ted Newell: Well, the state of marriage is very tenuous. I think a number of witnesses before the committee, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the Convention of Atlantic Baptist Churches, Canadian Baptist Ministries, and a number of different agencies have painted a picture of the way heterosexual marriage is finding a great number of challenges. In fact, legislation does appear to have had an effect on the sustainability of marriage, so it is not to be ruled out that further legislative changes will again affect the web. We are dealing with something that is so woven into the fabric of our culture and is so basic to the way society has conducted itself that we are really dealing with something that is, I guess you could say, anthropologically huge. It's gigantic.

There was a marked rise in divorce rates following the changing of divorce laws. Now, one might say, well, that was just pent-up demand, people were waiting to have the opportunity, and once the divorce laws were changed they seized the opportunity. Another possible interpretation is that people found that it was possible to escape from a marriage rather than working out their troubles and being led to continue. It's possible that the change in the legal environment led to a rise in people up and cutting the knot, so it became easier to become unmarried, and that was the result of legal changes.

All of these things are subject to interpretation, but we are dealing with something that is not at all a trivial matter. I quote in my brief the condition of marriage in Jemseg, with which I am familiar. A number of our couples, three in the last couple of months, have split up. Over the past couple of years there have been more than twenty homes in a very small area where the home has simply been split apart. I don't think the human cost of that is adequately reflected, and that's why I told the story of my involvement with the divorced people's group, because there is such a tremendous amount of pain involved when people's identities are taken apart in that fashion.

Marriage has been understood by people who are entering into marriage as a commitment of that sort, where come what may, we are going to be together in this. To have that ended for no apparent solid reason, people simply feel betrayed; they feel hurt and they feel like their life is coming apart. This is something they had really invested themselves in, and they really regret the fact that their marriage has come to an end.

Â (1210)

Mr. John Maloney: I just jotted down a couple of comments you have given us this morning in support of heterosexual marriages, that it's a public way to recognize loving relationships, it's the expression of human hope, and it's unity out of diversity. Many of these same arguments are being used by the gay community, again in support of why we should be recognizing gay marriages. How do I reconcile these two positions that try to go to different conclusions?

Rev. Ted Newell: I don't envy you your position as legislators. I should say that we pray for you regularly. You have a very, very difficult job, and we sincerely appreciate the work you are doing here. It is not at all an easy task. You are involved in a matter of very serious discrimination and judgment, one that is not at all a simple task.

But to answer the question, I think, again, that heterosexual marriage has been shown statistically and through the history of our country--and it's recognized in of course the religious fabric as well--and recognized as being of such significant benefit that it needs to retain its distinct status, no matter how that is accomplished. As I say in the brief, equality doesn't require sameness. It has never been required that people make major changes in who they are in order to have equality become a reality.

We are certainly not in favour of not recognizing the human dignity of people who are not heterosexual. That is not at all the intention. We certainly wish to recognize that, and there is no desire to hold back. We do want to say at the same time that marriage is something that has a long history and tradition and that has been of huge benefit to the state. Rather than having another sort of ingredient put into the mix, it needs to be protected and safeguarded.

The Chair: Mr. Maloney, I am going to go to Mr. Toews for three minutes.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you.

First of all, as a comment, I appreciate how Reverend Newell has approached the issue of the impact of divorce on the family from a religious point of view. We've also heard a lot of evidence here, particularly from Dr. Douglas Allen of Simon Fraser University, who talked about society not foreseeing the consequences of the Divorce Act and its profound impact on marriage. So we've heard this not just in a religious context but in a statistical or economic context as well.

In respect of the issue of the exemption of ministers from having to perform same-sex ceremonies, the analogy was brought up of a private club and the lawyer who said, well, you can't make a private club do anything that contravenes its beliefs. That's correct, and I believe the same thing applies to the church. However, the real danger is not what happens within the four walls of your church or what you believe. The Brockie decision made that very clear. It's not an issue of what you believe; it's how you're then entitled to actually practise your belief. By continuing, then, what will be discriminatory practices, the real jeopardy you're facing is the loss of state-granted rights.

I appreciate Reverend Crabtree saying there's a separation between church and state, and yet the state grants many rights across this country to religious organizations--charitable tax status, the direct funding of religious educational institutions. Indeed, we've seen areas like Trinity Western University, which had a specific faith-based doctrine that discriminated, if I can use that word, against the practice of homosexuality, and that was then attacked. The people who held the degree from Trinity Western were attacked, and those people, the argument was, should be prevented from teaching in our public school system because they were promoting discrimination.

These attacks are just beginning to come. We see it very, very clearly. So what I would wonder is whether religious organizations have the same interest in advancing their opinions not only here to us as politicians but also to the courts, because if that's where the real decisions are going to be made on these issues, shouldn't you have a voice in that, especially when the Department of Justice may not in fact be representing your interests in terms of defending your particular position on marriage?

Â (1215)

The Chair: Is that addressed to anyone in particular?

Mr. Vic Toews: It's for anyone.

The Chair: Reverend Crabtree.

Rev. Jeff Crabtree: The short answer is yes. I like your direction, and I would say, yes, we should; we will.

The Chair: Does anyone else wish to answer? Otherwise I'm going to Mr. Macklin.

Mr. Macklin.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Thank you, Chair.

I can't resist at least coming back to Mr. Toews' comment earlier on, because if we are, as a society, judged by how we treat the least among us, surely we have gotten past the stage where economic might is right, and we can share in bringing forward reasoned debate to the issues at hand. I don't think we should simply say we should use financial means of shutting off debate. I think it's very important to society.

Coming back to the issue at hand, this issue deals with the question of children. I hope you were here for the previous panel and you heard from Ms. Marsden and Ms. Salsman about their issue and concern. I'm wondering, as caring Christians, are you able to see it in your heart to find a way to say, I can see the state raising their issues and concerns and legislating to deal with those, maybe not to the point of marriage but at least to eliminate those concerns that cause them difficulty? I leave that open to the panel.

The Chair: Reverend Newell first, if you want to answer.

Rev. Ted Newell: I'd have no objection whatsoever to a couple who wanted to gain access together to a child in a sick room. I visit people in the sick room. I understand how important it is to have people who care about you to come close by. So I have no problem in seeing the specific legislative remedies for those kinds of issues.

The Chair: Mr. Jenkins.

Mr. David Jenkins: As I've already said, those concerns must be dealt with within the framework of each individual community, without infringing on the rights of others and the customs and practices of other communities.

The Chair: Reverend Crabtree, any comments?

Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

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

Mr. Jenkins, you made a rather strong plea regarding the need to preserve the definition of marriage as being the union of a man and a woman exclusively.

Whether one agrees or not, whether one supports it or not, today there are same sex couples. Is there a type of legal recognition that you would accept for these couples? If so, what would be the rights and responsibilities that would be a part of this recognition that would not be a marriage?

[English]

Mr. David Jenkins: No, I'm not prepared to accept gay unions. In my view, sex between two members of the same sex is not appropriate, and as an individual member of the straight community, I just do not approve of that.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: My question is to Mr. Jenkins again. That is your right and I respect it. But do you think that because you do not approve of that relationship given your own morals, that your morals should be imposed on others who do not share them? For example, you claim to speak on behalf of the heterosexual community. I've been married for nine years and I have young children. However, you are not speaking on my behalf.

So why should your morals, that you think are acceptable—and I do not question that—be imposed on people who have another perception of morals, that you may not think is as good as yours, as valid? We will probably agree that morality is a very personal issue and that all people, in their hearts and souls, and sometimes with God, have to decide for themselves.

Â (1220)

[English]

Mr. David Jenkins: My position on that is, as I said, I do not approve of that lifestyle; and as you said, I have a right not to approve of that lifestyle. Everyone has a right to their feelings in that regard. To me, that does not have any impact on the marriage institution. That has no regard to the marriage institution.

What we're looking at here across our country, as I said in my brief, is an attack on the institution of marriage, and I do not see any justification whatsoever to continue that attack. Any rights, any concerns, anything that we want to deal with, whether it's the children in the hospital or whatever, must be dealt with. There must be ways found to deal with those issues and those problems without attacking the institution of marriage--and I'm sure there can be.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Marceau.

I thank the panel very much. I would point out to the panel and to the audience that's here that many of the issues we've talked about this morning are quite fundamental to our country, to how we live together and the role of the church, the role of the state, and so on.

I would bring to your attention the fact that not only is this committee seized with this issue, but we're also going to be doing a revision, a review of the Divorce Act, Bill C-22, and we've also been given responsibility for, as has been referred to before, Bill C-250. My sense is that many of the issues that bring us here today are before us as a committee, and I would encourage you to participate with us in this exercise.

Regardless of the fact that there are people on this committee who hold views on either side of this question before us today, there are people on this committee who have yet to determine what their views are on this question--which I suppose makes the system and the process credible, because as we carry through the process, if everybody had already decided, I'm not certain what we would be doing travelling all over the country. So I would encourage you to keep notice and help us as Canadians all to come to the best conclusions we can.

With that, thank you again.

We're going to suspend now. We'll see everybody back here at 1:30.

Â (1223)

· (1327)

The Chair: I call back to order the 34th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights so that we can continue our study on marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions.

Before I introduce the panel, I want to clarify a couple of points that have been brought to my attention by colleagues. Just for the education of the people who are here, this is the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights of the Parliament of Canada. I'm sure you know that. There are 20 members on this committee on a normal basis. If we were sitting in Ottawa, you would find that there would be a larger number of members. I would outline how many members there are from each political party, but I'm sure you would add it up and it wouldn't work out to 20, so I'm not going to try.

The bottom line is that what you see is only a small part of the justice and human rights committee of Parliament, because Parliament is sitting, and members who would otherwise be here today are introducing legislation and debating other subjects. Many members of Parliament sit on more than one parliamentary committee. I know that Hedy Fry, for instance, who's a member of this committee, is on the health committee. A transcript is made of everything that is said here, and those transcripts are available to all of the members. It's just that we can't be everywhere all the time. There are at least two women on the committee, Marlene Jennings and Hedy Fry. The other political parties are represented on the committee. That's just for everyone's edification.

As we wait one more minute, if anybody actually has a question on the process, I'm prepared to entertain it.

A voice: Why can't members of Parliament be in all places at all times?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

· (1330)

The Chair: That's probably one of the least demanding things that has ever been put to me.

A voice: When is the written brief due? I was told both April 10 and 24.

The Chair: It's our hope that we will provide a response to Parliament, which charged us with this responsibility, in June. I'm guessing. We report as a committee to the House of Commons.

I didn't intend to take questions from the committee.

An hon. member: Andy, you had better give a straight answer here, though.

Mr. Vic Toews: You said the other parties are represented. What do you mean by “other parties”? Who is “the” party if those are the other parties?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: We are sitting. So I don't have to do this again.

We have a panel from 1:30 to 2:30. We have as individuals Marla Kavalak and Michelle Livingston; from the Centenary-Queen Square United Church, Robert Johnson; and as individual, Wayne Toole and Art Toole.

I think you were here this morning. After seven minutes are up, we're finished. Then we'll go to the committee.

I'm going to go directly to Marla Kavalak and Michelle Livingston for seven minutes.

Ms. Michelle Livingston (As Individual): Before we start, I'm a little hearing impaired at the present time, so I may ask for somebody to repeat themselves.

The Chair: I should bring to your attention too, then, that you can wear this earpiece not just for interpretation, but also for amplification.

I don't hear very well either and I use it all the time for amplification.

Ms. Michelle Livingston: Okay, I'll try that, then.

I'm here with my partner, Marla Kavalak. We're both going to go over our brief.

Ms. Marla Kavalak (As Individual): What brings us here today has been the source of great controversy across our country. The question of whether or not to allow same-sex marriage is one that, for obvious reasons, is important to both Michelle and me. It is important enough that we have asked to appear before this committee because we feel this is an issue of our basic human rights.

Although it is true that the federal government has made many changes to legislation with respect to the benefits and obligations to unmarried couples and their children, not all provinces and territories have made the same changes. As a result, gays and lesbians are not afforded the same rights as heterosexual Canadian citizens. Extending marriage rights to same-sex couples will help to alleviate many of the inequalities that continue to exist.

We want you to see how this inequality has impacted upon us, even though we feel we are just like many other couples in Canada, with our only difference being that we are two women who are in love with each other.

Ms. Michelle Livingston: We met almost five years ago. What started as a friendship grew into a committed, loving relationship. We've always wanted the same things, like any other couple, including marriage, owning our own home, and having a family. We've been able to achieve two of these three goals, starting with the purchase of our first home together, and then deciding to have a child together.

When we started to seriously consider having a baby we realized that we had to work through many issues that were potential barriers to achieving our dream of having a family and being effective parents.

We had to think about the logistics of creating a family, including fostering, adopting, artificial fertilization, known donor versus unknown, as well as the pros and cons of each. We looked at the financial aspects of having children, and most importantly, we looked at the emotional impact on us, on our potential children, and on our family and friends. Unlike many of our heterosexual friends and families, we had in-depth discussions surrounding our values, our views, and our styles of communication and parenting. We thought about how the world would view our family and about the discrimination that we could possibly face. We consulted with people in the legal field, other parents, gay and straight, as well as consulted many books to help us put everything into perspective.

In the end, we believed that we had a lot to offer a child and that we would be good and loving parents. Children born into gay and lesbian families are born by choice, not by chance.

Ms. Marla Kavalak: We knew that, as a family, we would face discrimination based on ignorance and lack of understanding. However, we believe that most children will face some sort of discrimination in their lives, such as being too small, too big, too poor, or not being white, or wearing glasses, or having red hair, and the list could go on and on.

We feel that our role as effective parents will be to raise our child to know that the most important thing is to have a family that unconditionally loves and supports you. We want to raise our child to know that it doesn't matter if you're gay or straight, black or white, physically able or not, that you have the same rights as everyone else. We want our child to embrace diversity and understand that being different isn't wrong, it's just different. Allowing same-sex couples would only reinforce the points noted above.

We also had to define our role as parents, knowing that, based on our marital status, one of us may not be viewed as an equal parent. We talked about many issues that would come legally and automatically with marriage. We engaged the services of a lawyer and we had powers of attorney and wills drawn up to try to ensure that we would be able to make medical and financial decisions about each other. This is a right that comes with marriage; however, we had to pay thousands of dollars for this protection.

· (1335)

Ms. Michelle Livingston: With the arrival of our baby, coming almost six weeks early, there were many concerns about her health. We wanted to ensure that both of us had equal parenting rights and responsibilities, so while Keigan was in the hospital, we started the process of second-parent adoption. Unfortunately, the Province of New Brunswick does not allow unmarried couples to adopt a child together, and we were not informed that I would not be entitled to adopt Keigan.

After a week's stay in the hospital, we were finally allowed to take her home with us. As most people who have babies know, before you can leave the hospital there are reams of paperwork to be filled out. This included the application for child tax benefit as well as the birth certificate registration.

Ms. Marla Kavalak: With regards to the baby's name, we had much discussion around the last name and how it would appear legally. We talked about hyphenating both our names, but with a name like Livingston-Kavalak, we realized that it would not fit on the tax form. We even talked about Michelle potentially changing her last name to Kavalak. This option may have become more viable if we were allowed to marry, as it may have lessened the possibility of people misunderstanding our relationship based solely on our last names.

In the end we both agreed that Keigan Emily Carole would have my last name, Kavalak, in order to show our recognition of my role as parent as well as to continue on my family name.

The department of vital statistics refused to register Keigan as a Kavalak, as they did not recognize me as a parent and therefore she could not legally have my last name. They registered her under Michelle's last name but indicated that if we wanted to pay a fee, we could apply for a name change. However, there was no guarantee that the change would occur. Had we been married, regardless of our last names, we would have had the option to register Keigan under either surname.

The application for the child tax benefit clearly indicated that whether you were a same-sex common-law partner or married, both parents had to list their salary on the application. My salary was going to be considered as a factor in determining the amount of child tax benefit we would receive. Yet legally I am not considered a parent in the eyes of the law.

Federally my money counted when it came to the child tax benefit; however, when we inquired and attempted to apply for my parental leave, the federally run HRDC department informed me that I was not entitled to parental leave because I was not the biological parent, nor could I legally adopt Keigan in the province of New Brunswick due to my marital status.

We must admit that we were somewhat surprised to find out this information, especially since it was our understanding that this had been rectified with Bill C-23. It was of particular interest to note also that my collective agreement, as I work for the federal government, entitles me to those benefits, and somebody in Ontario could get them; however, I could not.

The Chair: You have a minute.

Ms. Marla Kavalak: Okay. Although it appears we have been focusing on many provincial issues, these issues are interdependent.

I am going to wing it now because it is too long.

Basically, we talked about provincial issues here, but these provincial issues are impacted by the fact that federally we can't be married. If we could marry, then my federal government job would permit me all of the rights, as every other heterosexual couple in Canada working for the federal government is entitled to. If we could be married, then the provincial Government of New Brunswick would allow me to adopt my baby that we had by choice, not by accident. Basically, we're saying we're not asking for anything different from any other Canadian, just the same rights as everybody else has.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Robert Johnson.

Mr. Robert Johnson (Minister, Centenary-Queen Square United Church): Centenary-Queen Square United Church, an affirming congregation within the United Church of Canada, and AFFIRM United are committed to equality of rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered persons within Canadian society. Centenary-Queen Square United Church adheres to United Church of Canada theology and practice, in providing for the public blessing of covenants made between same-sex couples. Such commitments are recorded in the congregation's marriage register. As the GLBT support network within the United Church of Canada, AFFIRM United supports and provides resources for such ministry by local congregations.

Centenary-Queen Square United Church and AFFIRM United believe that homosexual people are children of God, made in God's image and after God's likeness, as one part of the great diversity of God's creation. We believe that, along with the whole human family, homosexual persons share in God's love and must therefore be treated with fairness, justice, and equality before the law. Furthermore, we believe that “we must live what we claim: the Body of Christ, the Church, is inclusive, where all are welcomed and all are honoured as God's own”.

We are persuaded that this inclusion and equality in Canadian society must be extended to same-sex couples seeking the public acknowledgement and blessing of their relationship. Simply speaking, the equality for which we speak today means marriage. It can mean no less.

Your discussion paper proposes three possible paths of extending such equality and inclusion. The first option suggests that “Marriage could remain an opposite-sex institution”. This simply does not provide equality. It merely offers an alternative that would continue to uphold division and discrimination. It advances an option that continues the devaluation of significant human relationships. Recent moments in our nation's history speak clearly to the fallacy of separate, distinct, but equal.

Full equality will be the only option by which we can help to ensure that the relationships of committed same-sex couples will receive the same value as that accorded the relationships of committed heterosexual couples.

The second option, that “Marriage could be changed to also include same-sex couples”, is of course the choice fully supported by AFFIRM United and Centenary-Queen Square United Church. If marriage is the formal ritual acknowledging a deepening love commitment between two individuals, then public celebrations of commitment between same-sex couples are worthy of our note. Such public commitments are undertaken and survive to great lengths of years in the midst of tremendously unfavourable odds. I am personally acquainted with many same-sex couples who have lived in monogamous, committed relationships for 5, 10, 12, 15, 20 or 30 years.

There have been, and will be, those who speak before this committee imploring you to understand that marriage is synonymous with procreation. I would dispel you of that myth. Evidence clearly indicates that procreation can no longer be considered a defining dynamic of marriage in our society. I have solemnized the marriage of 27 couples who indicated that they had every intention of being sexually intimate and active but no intention of bringing children into the world. For several of those couples, it was a biological improbability. Neither I nor my church, however, withheld a public blessing for their commitment.

I also acknowledge that I am acquainted with at least 10 gay or lesbian couples—and I forgot about Marla and Michelle, so make that 11—who have raised or are raising their own children successfully, some in place of the heterosexual parents who relinquished that joy and responsibility. I am perplexed to find an adequate response to the children who ask, why can't my mommies, or why can't my daddies, or why can't my parents be married like the parents of my friends? Children in those very healthy homes, established by same-sex partners, do not see a difference until it is foisted upon them.

Others have and will come before you imploring you to uphold the traditional moral values of Canadian society, which they contend to be Christian, based on a more literal interpretation of the Christian scriptures. I would urge you to be mindful of the impossibility of legislating in the Canada we know today on that basis. According to StatsCan, almost 20% of the people who live in Canada today consider themselves of no religion or of a religion other than Christian. For this committee to address the issue before it today from such a traditional, literal perspective will require reconsideration of a significant parts of current Canadian law.

· (1340)

The third option, “With the co-operation of the provinces and territories, Parliament could leave marriage to the religions”, is indeed not tenable. Canada is one country made up of provinces and territories. The residents of the provinces and territories are citizens of Canada. Equality for homosexuals and heterosexuals under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms necessitates that marriage for opposite-sex and same-sex couples be overseen by a national legislative framework.

The groundwork for option three is not in place, nor does it address the GLBT concerns for equal rights under the law. Should the federal government choose this third option, they would do well to acknowledge such action as an intermediate step towards eventual approval of option two, that “Marriage would be changed to also include same-sex couples”. Canada does not need something else that threatens to divide from within. Choosing the third option only bespeaks of a default of leadership.

On behalf of AFFIRM United and Centenary-Queen Square United Church, I ask you to recommend that the federal government adopt legislation that provides the same civil recognition for heterosexual and same-sex couples.

Thank you.

· (1345)

The Chair: Wayne Toole and Art Toole, for seven minutes.

Mr. Wayne Toole (As Individual): The story of Art and Wayne. The story of two gay men coming together in a heterosexual society begins back in January 2000. It all started one Thursday night at Triangles Karaoke in Moncton, New Brunswick. We had spotted each other, but neither of us had the nerve to go over to the other and start a conversation. This continued on the next Thursday, and then on Saturday, January 29, with the help of a mutual friend, we finally met.

We maintained a long-distance relationship for seven months as Wayne was living in P.E.I. at the time. During this time we grew as a couple and began to find out what made the other person tick. After six months of dating, we both went for HIV tests and shared the results with each other. We wanted our first time together to be special and uninhibited.

Shortly after our six-month anniversary, Wayne was offered a job in Moncton. We were not sure at this point if we were ready to live together, and at first we decided that Wayne would take his own apartment when the time came. But as it drew closer, we both knew that we would be spending all our time with each other, so why bother with a separate place? So in August 2000 we moved in together.

It was Wayne who first brought up the question of marriage. Our initial date was set for August 2001, but thanks to cold feet and sheer nerves this date got postponed. Previous to this, in March 2001, Art had started the process to have his last name officially changed to Toole. We have yet to hear anything from the province on this application.

The issue then came up in December 2001, when Art called Wayne one day at work and asked him if he could come home as soon as he could. Wayne can still remember the note saying “If you love me, marry me and with Sasha become a family” and the package containing the rings.

As we started planning for our wedding, we were disappointed about the responses we were getting from hotels, motels, and churches in the greater Moncton area. Just because two men were exchanging their vows and were in love with one another, they were suddenly booked solid. One day an acquaintance of ours informed us of an old French Catholic university--and I stress “Catholic” university--where they had a chapel, since then desanctified. Contacts were made, and the management and staff went that extra mile to ensure that we were treated with the utmost respect.

Our wedding took place on October 26, 2002, in a beautiful ceremony where we were surrounded by friends and family from New Brunswick, P.E.I., Quebec, the U.S.A., and Nova Scotia, at the Memramcook Institute. This was the most precious day of both our lives. Emotion and love filled the room as we celebrated our love for one another.

Our ceremony was officiated by the Reverend Eldon Hay, our dear friend and church minister. After the ceremony we greeted friends, family, and well-wishers, enjoyed a wonderful drag presentation by our dear friends, and then danced the night away. It was disappointing to see that some of our friends and family were not in attendance due to whatever reason. This evening will live in our hearts forever.

It was in the months following our wedding that we started considering lobbying the Province of New Brunswick to officially recognize our wedding vows. This idea was reinforced after listening to a presentation by Kevin Bourassa and Joe Varnell as they promoted their book Just Married in Sackville, New Brunswick. Art, being actively involved in politics all his life, was very keen on this issue. If we were no different from a heterosexual couple, then why couldn't our marriage be as recognizable as theirs?

Art then placed a call to Service New Brunswick and was granted an appointment to apply for a marriage licence. It was after the setting of this appointment that a call came from Fredericton stating that the province did not recognize same-sex couples, but we stood adamantly and kept our appointment. That date was Friday, February 14, 2003, at 10 a.m.

We joined couples across the country in the freedom-to-marry campaign. We did not expect the province to accept our application, but this would begin our fight and pave the way for other couples, couples who want recognition for who they are and the freedom to love anyone they choose.

We already have the freedom under the Human Rights Act not to be discriminated against based on our sexual orientation, yet we are being discriminated against by not being allowed to marry. What would you call that?

A friend of Art's, a premier of this province of New Brunswick for 17 years, had fought for equal rights for French and English in this province. Maybe he should have gone further to see that everyone had equal rights, men and women. As the Human Rights Act of the province of New Brunswick states:

WHEREAS recognition of the fundamental principle that all persons are equal in dignity and human rights without regard to race, colour, religion, national origin, ancestry, place of origin, age, physical disability, mental disability, marital status, sexual orientation or sex, is a governing principle sanctioned by the laws of New Brunswick;

If this act is truly enforced, we should be allowed to have our marriage licence.

· (1350)

On a separate note, there's another thing I'd like to point out. This ring, as were the rings many of you are wearing in this room, was given to me by someone who loved me, someone who cared about me, and someone I wanted to spend the rest of my life with. The ring you're all wearing on your finger means as much to you as this one does to me. It doesn't matter if I love a man or a woman; this is love.

Thank you.

The Chair: We'll go first to Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

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

Thank your for your presentations. I cannot help but begin by saying how uncomfortable I feel in seeing you here before us and hearing you try to convince us that your relationships are just as valid as the one I have with my spouse. I think it is rather strange that you should have to convince other people that your family is just as loving, just as devoted, just as valid as mine. Because you are of the same sex, you have to convince us, because most of the people around this table are in a heterosexual relationship. My first comment is that I wished that you did not have to do this.

Reverend Johnson, you said earlier—and I thought this was very appropriate—that it was dangerous for lawmakers to draft legislation based on a literal or fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, because several Canadians do not share that opinion, this religious meaning. I don't know if you were here this morning, but several denominations told us that they feared that their freedom of religion would be violated, restricted in the event that we would allow same-sex marriage.

Given that your church does allow same-sex marriage and that the State forbids it, do you not feel that that is a violation of your freedom of religion, given that you cannot live out your faith because the State prohibits you from doing that?

[English]

Mr. Robert Johnson: I think that technically I would have to answer yes to your question, that could be interpreted as a violation of my faith, because my church says I can do this. And indeed, I've done it seven times, celebrated covenanting services for same-sex couples, but the state does not allow recognition.

Technically, I would have to say yes, that it might violate my faith. On the other hand, I don't want to say yes, because I want the freedom to practise my religion the way I will practise it. I want to underline the word “practise”. This is not just something I believe in; this is something I do.

Yes, from time to time I face negative opinion about that, face harassment, face abuse. But I would rather face that abuse and know I can do this than say, well, nobody will do anything because we wouldn't want to have somebody questioning anything.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Toole, Ms. Kavalak and Ms. Livingston, several witnesses told us that if you ever had the right to marry, that would jeopardize marriage, that would strip away the very essence of marriage and there would be several other major consequences. You no doubt have friends or family members who are heterosexual.

Have you ever heard anyone say that if you had the right to marry, heterosexuals would stop having sex, stop getting married, and stop having children? Have you ever heard a heterosexual couple say that if you had the right to marry, that would have such an impact on them that they would divorce or do something because it would taint the institution they belong to as married people?

· (1355)

[English]

Mr. Wayne Toole: I'd like to answer that. My personal opinion is that if just the fact that homosexuals were getting married caused people to run out, get divorced, and stop having children, their marriages weren't very stable to begin with.

The Chair: Ms. Kavalak.

Ms. Marla Kavalak: None of our straight friends or our family members, who for the most part are straight and married, have indicated any fear that if Michelle and my relationship were recognized it would devalue their relationship in any way. In fact, my mother, who is babysitting our child--our daughter is 16 months old--was so moved yesterday after we talked about the marriage forum in Fredericton last week and my experience at the forum yesterday in Halifax, that she wrote a brief asking why her two daughters--one who's straight and one who's not--are being discriminated against. Why is one allowed to marry while the other is not? She sees absolutely no problem with this and she's not threatened by it.

The Chair: Ms. Livingston.

Ms. Michelle Livingston: I agree with everything that everybody has said. My experience with my heterosexual friends and family has been that they're usually quite surprised that we don't have this right. They are a little shocked and say, what, really? They just assume that because we live in Canada and we're an accepting society, it's there.

So we have to do a whole lot of educating on how that's not really the way it is. People are generally very surprised to hear that.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Macklin is next, for seven minutes.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Thank you, Chair, and thank you, panellists, for appearing today.

I understand--I saw some nodding heads--at least some if not all of the panel were here this morning. You heard from a number of churches very strong positions being brought forward on their religious beliefs and their beliefs in the institution we call marriage.

I'm sitting here today trying to hear an expression of views from those who are advocating both sides. But in the end the question may well be, how do we accommodate each other? In that accommodation I would ask you to give me or this committee as a whole some ideas on how we might be able to find some degree of accommodation between these polarized positions at the moment.

That's a real problem for us. We're struggling with this and trying to find answers. As much as you believe you need and have demonstrated in many ways that you need support and legislation to help you in all these various issues, especially with children, can you give us some sense of where we might find some accommodation? Do you see some ground that we might be able to plow in this field of opportunity?

The Chair: Reverend Johnson.

Mr. Robert Johnson: I took note this morning of the number of times it was suggested that we find another term for the designation of commitment between same-sex couples. Couldn't we just leave the term “marriage” alone and leave that with the heterosexual community?

I want to offer that we can't do that, despite all of the gains that have been made through Bill C-23 and other things, where benefits and so on are looked after. We still have the questions that Marla and Michelle and Bea and Susan raised this morning. It seems to me that despite all those advances that have been made, the one thing possible for us in Canada to do is to say marriage can have the broader definition, because then employers, landlords, hospital administrators, and citizens on the street cannot discriminate.

That doesn't mean they have to say, oh, I really celebrate your relationship. They don't have to say that, but they will not then be able to discriminate. It seems to me that's the only thing that's remaining. If these two relationships on either side of me were understood to be equal to the relationships of any man or woman here who's wearing a ring and married to a member of the opposite sex, discrimination that still happens despite all the advances we have made will not be able to take place with impunity.

¸ (1400)

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Where is the help for me and this committee in that statement?

Mr. Robert Johnson: As I said in my brief, you need to show leadership for the whole of Canada.

Several comments were made this morning about the place of Parliament and the place of the court. No offence meant to those who are parliamentarians and those who may be part of the judicial system, but Parliament in Canada and parliaments in democratic countries make decisions and statements with a view to be re-elected. We can not deny that. Courts, on the other hand, make decisions and statements with a view to uphold the laws of the land for the best interests of all the citizens. I think those two have to come together.

It shouldn't be that decisions are made by various political parties, when they are in government or not, on the basis of what may or may not get us re-elected. As long as that is happening, I think the courts have no other choice but to provide the leadership and pull us all forward kicking and screaming.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Is there any help to be provided by the Toole family or the Kavalak-Livingston family?

Mr. Art Toole (As Individual): We met with the justice minister of the province of New Brunswick. We were the first gay couple he had met in the last four years. We asked him why we could not be recognized. His words were that the federal government did not have the guts to make the decision, so if they could not make the decision, he could not enforce something that the federal government had the power to do. He has no power provincially to grant us a licence. The federal government has to make the decision. They can play with the ball all they want, but a decision has to be made.

The only thing we're asking for is marriage. If two men or two women get married and anybody in any religion believes that is going to separate their church, look at your four walls. They can't be that strong if two gay men or two lesbians get married and a church is so threatened. That's what I can't understand. Where is the threat? There's no threat.

Marriage is marriage. It's very simple. Yes, you're asking a panel that's all in favour of it now, and you have the other side also. I want to repeat what Reverend Bob just said. You are there to make a decision and you have to make the decision.

If we stop and look, in 1929 when they made the decision, they didn't go to a referendum to ask if a woman was equal to a man; they just passed it and made it law, and that was it. We're asking the federal government to do the same thing. Just say that gay marriage is accepted.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Do you wish to add anything, Kavalak-Livingston, that might be helpful to the committee?

Ms. Michelle Livingston: I have one thing to say, and it has already been said today. There has to be some protection for the religious groups to practise their religion. I think that needs to be in there; otherwise, we'll go absolutely no place, because we're just on two polar opposite ends of the scale. That's the only thing I can offer you that may be helpful. It's been said before.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: That's helpful, because I think we're trying to achieve some degree of accommodation. In fairness to the comments that were made, other than a marriage licence, the province can do a number of things, especially in dealing with adoptions.

¸ (1405)

The Chair: Mr. Cadman is next for three minutes.

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

I just want to put it on the record that I am not suggesting for one minute that the relationships you folks have with each other, or those of the other people we've had before us over these last few months, are not loving and caring. It's just that other people are saying that marriage goes beyond just relationships. That's what this is all about. We're not suggesting for one minute that your relationships are not good, loving, caring ones. I think I can speak for everybody here on that.

My question is to Ms. Livingston. Does your child have a relationship with her father, and do you think that is important?

Ms. Michelle Livingston: Our child doesn't have a father, she has a sperm donor.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Well, she still has a father.

Ms. Michelle Livingston: No, she has a sperm donor. We don't have the foggiest idea who he is. We used an unknown donor and we specifically went that route for that very reason. We weren't looking for a third parent; we were looking for semen. She will be brought up to know there was a sperm donor, but that person has no part in our family.

We're very open with her, and when she's an adult, if she chooses to try to find him, that'll be her choice. We'll never hide from her that this is how she got here or that this person was involved. But as far as we're concerned, he's unknown, for starters, and he has no part in our family at all.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Does she have a male role model in her life?

Ms. Michelle Livingston: She has several. She has three godfathers; we covered our bases. Seriously, that's part of the reason. She has two grandfathers, two uncles, and three godfathers. Our godfathers babysit very regularly. They're our babysitters of choice because we want her to have those role models, we want her to have relationships, we want her to make male friends.

We want her to have that, and she knows--well, she will know, she's only 16 months old--that most people in Canada have a mother and a father. She has books that have mommy and daddy in them. We're not trying to hide that, we're not trying to say ours is better than theirs, it's just different. It's not good or bad, it's just different.

We expect entirely that she will grow up to be more open-minded and accepting of all people with differences because of that.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney: This whole concept of same-sex couples raising children is reasonably new. Perhaps to Reverend Johnson, or any one of the panel, do you have any long-term evidence or long-term experience of the effects of same-sex couples with children in the family?

Are there adolescents, are there teenagers, are there young people who have been the product of same-sex families? And what's the result? Is it a good family unit? Are there situations where families split up? How strong is that family and what is the impact?

Mr. Robert Johnson: The experience I have would indicate a very positive response to your question. I'm aware of at least three families where the major responsibility for the upbringing of the children was lodged in each of the three cases with two male parents. Those families now have children who are in their late teens, early twenties. One has children who is in mid-teens. And they seem to be as healthy as any of their peers brought up by heterosexual couples.

To further respond to that, and to again address some comments that were made earlier and comments that I know the committee has heard across the country, points were made about the significant benefit that heterosexual couples make to the country and to raising children. It needs also to be remembered that the vast majority of spousal abuse cases in this country, and the vast majority of child abuse cases in this country, come from heterosexual families. That's not to say that those things don't occur in same-sex families, but the vast majority of cases that we deal with through the courts, through law enforcement and in the churches, come from heterosexual couples.

Mr. John Maloney: But that's easy to say, because the vast majority of families are heterosexual families. Are you trying to say that proportionately there is a greater incidence with heterosexual families?

¸ (1410)

Mr. Robert Johnson: I'm only suggesting that the benefit that heterosexual families have brought to our country is not a clean slate, is not a total slate.

We're all human beings. Some heterosexual couples, as far as I'm concerned--some that I know--were never meant to have children, were never meant to become families with children, on the basis of what they did in exercising that privilege. I'm sure that happens with homosexual couples too. I don't know of any, but I will afford that it probably happens. I simply think you need to keep that before you also.

Mr. John Maloney: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Maloney.

Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

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

Ms. Livingston, I fully understood the very clear answer you gave Mr. Macklin on the protection you would like to give the churches, the congregations that do not want to marry same-sex partners, and I would simply like to put the question to the entire panel.

If this committee ever recommended that same-sex partners could marry, would you accept having legislation that explicitly and clearly stated that nothing could force a minister of any denomination to perform ceremonies that went against his faith? Do you feel completely comfortable with the idea of having it included in the Act?

[English]

Ms. Marla Kavalak: I would be comfortable with that, and a point I want to make is that I was raised as an Anglican. My mother dutifully took us to church every Sunday, and then for a period of time as a teenager I rebelled and then found my way back to church.

When Michelle and I came together as a family, we wanted to renew the religious and spiritual part of our relationship. I looked at how we could do this and we looked at how we could do this together as a couple, because the Anglican Church is somewhat split on how to treat same-sex couples. Michelle was already in the United Church, and we opted to go to a church that was more open and accepting, because I'm not going to force somebody to accept me if that's not their views. Why would I go to a church like that? Why would I want to force them to marry me?

We go to the United Church because we know that church tends to be a bit more supportive of same-sex relationships. So for us personally...and we can't represent every gay person because, although we appear to all know each other, we don't. It's that we're a small area in New Brunswick. For me personally, and I think I can speak for Michelle, we wouldn't force another religion to marry us. We think it's important to protect that freedom of religion.

Ms. Michelle Livingston: I would like to add to this. To the members here who received our brief in advance, we attached a sheet of photos. Included on the sheet of photos are pictures of our daughter's baptism, which happened in a mainstream United church. And it's not an affirming congregation; it's just a Joe Schmoe congregation in New Brunswick.

We had to get permission of the session, and they didn't have to say yes; they chose to say yes. We're active members in our church, and we wanted desperately to raise our child within the church. We took a few extra steps, but we weren't going to knock on the door of the Catholic Church and say, please baptize our baby. We knew that was never going to happen, so we were totally okay. We'll find the church. We'll find whatever's right for us individually in terms of ceremonies and those sorts of things. I don't think it should be forced upon anybody.

The Chair: Mr. Toews.

Mr. Vic Toews: A very brief question.

Mr. Johnson, your statistics on the relative harm of children vis-à-vis the family unit I found a little surprising, especially given the suggestion that somehow the harm to children in a traditional family unit is much greater than in other contexts.

The statistics we heard yesterday were that in a common-law relationship, a child--I think this was the statistic--is six times as likely to be harmed in that context, and in a single-parent family it's even greater. I might not have the statistics exactly right--I thought it was nine times--but I stand to be corrected. It was astoundingly higher than, certainly, the suggestion you've left that somehow it's more dangerous for children to be in a traditional family unit.

I don't remember if we had any statistics presented to us in respect of same-sex couples, but my guess is that they simply don't exist, that we're in a pretty early stage of time. So I would suggest that if you have any actual statistics on that issue, perhaps you could present them to the committee so we can review them.

¸ (1415)

Mr. Robert Johnson: I don't have any specific statistics, and as Mr. Maloney said, my comment had to do with the fact that there are far more heterosexual couples in families in Canada than anything else. Therefore, the vast majority of child abuse cases would be attributed to them.

It is not to say that percentage-wise, per capita-wise, there wouldn't be significant figures whether they were a single-parent family, a gay-couple family, a common-law couple family, but the picture that was presented this morning about the significant part of the contributions that are brought to our country by heterosexual couples and families needs to be balanced, for a similar reason, with this other picture.

Mr. Vic Toews: Even that statistic concerns me. I don't know what the percentage of common-law relationships is in this country. I'm sure Statistics Canada did give us that and, indeed, single-parent statistics, but as for your statement that on a total basis there's more harm done to children in the traditional marriage context as opposed to any other type of relationship, I've never seen that statistic. So even that kind of general statement causes me some concern.

I would suggest, if we're making those kinds of statements, that we be very careful. These are pretty significant issues that we're dealing with, so I only wanted to confirm that you don't have any statistics in that respect and, therefore, we should look to other places for statistical evidence in order to make those kinds of statements.

Thank you.

The Chair: Is there anybody else?

I want to thank the panel very much for coming here today and helping us in this very challenging issue. I'm going to ask the present panel to find a way to where they came from.

The next panel--I think you know who you are--please come forward.

I will suspend for three minutes.

¸ (1417)

¸ (1429)

The Chair: I call back to order the 34th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, so we can resume our study on marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions.

For the next hour, we will have the following panellists: representing Moncton Lesbians, Jacinthe Leblanc; appearing as an individual, Grace Getty, professor and director of the graduate program, and coordinator of the SWAT Pure Education Program, Faculty of Nursing, at the University of New Brunswick; and for the Christian Action Federation on New Brunswick, Mary Thurrott, executive director.

Each of you has seven minutes to make a presentation. I'm going to go first to Jacinthe Leblanc from Moncton Lesbians.

¸ (1430)

Ms. Jacinthe LeBlanc (Lesbiennes de Moncton Lesbians): Hi. My name is Jacinthe Leblanc. I am a 40-year-old lesbian from Moncton, New Brunswick. I am here representing on behalf of a group called LML, which stands for Lesbians de Moncton Lesbians.

The group has been in existence since 2002. Its main goal is to provide social activities for lesbians of the greater Moncton area. Shortly after its creation, LML saw the creation of a subgroup called Family Pride Moncton. Family Pride Moncton is a group of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, and two-spirited parents focusing on activities for their children. The group feels it is important for our children to have the opportunity to socialize with other children from similar family situations so they know they are not alone.

This brings me to the question at hand. Why is the issue of gay and lesbian marriages so important to us? It is on behalf of this group that I will be focusing most of my brief today. The right to marry will give gay and lesbian parents the ability under the law to protect the ones they love so dearly—their children and their spouses.

It is a question of love, that same love that we share and that heterosexuals share with their spouses and with their children. People get together to proclaim publicly the vows that they feel for one another. Mechanism aside, our love is not any different than the love that is shared between a man and a woman.

Upon consultation with our members regarding the issue of equal marriage, I found that the one concern that was brought up time and time again was the fact that all members found it unfair to be treated differently from heterosexuals. After all, they pay their taxes like all good Canadians, yet they feel discriminated against when denied the same basic rights that are so freely granted to other Canadians to enjoy.

By denying us the right to marry, our government is sending a clear message to our children that their parents are second-class citizens who do not deserve the same treatment and respect as their peers who have heterosexual parents. These children will grow up thinking there is something wrong with their parents.

Suicide among gay and lesbian youth is three times higher than that of straight youth. It is the leading cause of death among gay and lesbian youth. Granting the right to marry to gays and lesbians is sending a clear message to these youth that it is okay to be gay or lesbians. It will make their process of coming out much easier and I'm sure in return it will reduce the number of unnecessary suicides. It will tell them our government values all Canadians equally.

Another major concern of LML and the Family Pride group is the protection of our children. Gay parents may be denied the right to visit their sick children in the hospital or be asked to justify their relationship when they do visit the emergency room. How would you like to chase the hospital administrator and then have to argue in order to be allowed to visit your sick infant in the intensive care unit? This denial of a basic human right is an outrage, not only to the parents but to the children who suffer in the process.

Parents are being denied medical coverage for their children as well as being denied parental leave, as we saw earlier. Once again, if parents were allowed to marry, this would definitely prevent a lot of malicious discrimination.

The biggest fear among members of our group is that if the legal parent of the child were to die or become too incapacitated to care for their children, the biological family could just walk right in and take away the children. Can you imagine living with that fear on a daily basis? I know what you will say--you can get legal documents to protect you in all those cases. These legal documents can be contested in court. Furthermore, it is unfair to expect that in order to receive the same legal protection, gays and lesbians need to spend thousands of dollars while heterosexuals can get all those rights by simply getting married. These parents want to be able to register their children at school or at hockey or pick them up when they're sick and take them to the hospital.

¸ (1435)

One couple in our group is in the process of adoption. The child that was identified as a match for them was a young child that social workers felt would be better placed in a lesbian home. A team of at least five and six professionals decided that this would be the best placement for the child. If professionals—people who work on a daily basis with children—view placement into a gay or lesbian home as a safe, secure environment that would permit a child who has already had a rough start in life to grow and reach his or her full potential, surely that same government has a role to play in making sure these children have protection under Canadian law.

Two lesbians can adopt in Ontario, but what happens if they move to New Brunswick? Which one is the legal parent? Letting our provincial government take control of these issues would only leave us with a mishmash of rights, depending on where you live.

It is a federal issue and the responsibility of our federal government to legislate marriage. Creating a civil union—call it whatever you want—is creating classes in our society. We would never think of telling a couple that they can only have a civil union because they are aboriginal. Why would we create a civil union for gays and lesbians? This is creating classes among the oppressed group. We are first-class citizens and we deserve--like all Canadians--the same rights. We want the right to marry in order to be able to protect our families.

LML and Family Pride Moncton recommend that our federal government grant the right to marry to all Canadians, making them all equal citizens.

Thank you.

The Chair: Grace Getty.

Ms. Grace Getty (Professor, Director of the Graduate Program, Coordinator of the SWAT Peer Education Program, Faculty of Nursing, University of New Brunswick, As Individual): Mr. Chairman, the Honourable Andy Scott, and members of the committee, I want to preface this by telling you that I'm a professor of nursing, that I am here because I've been privileged to work with gay men and lesbians as I've worked in the HIV field for almost 20 years now.

So speaking from my practice base as a nurse, I've done two studies with gay men, looking at what are the factors that influence their health. I'm here to tell you that in response to the question you have posed, I'm supporting the fourth option: that all people in Canada who love one another and choose to spend their lives together in a spousal relationship be recognized by the Government of Canada to have entered into a committed relationship and to have the equal right to be granted the privileges of that union, including tax and pension benefits; both parents being legally responsible for the care of their children; the right of being legally recognized as the next of kin to one another; and the recognition of death benefits for the surviving spouse upon the death of one member of the relationship.

I contend that the church should no longer serve as an agent of the Government of Canada. In the death of a citizen, individuals are free to ask their church to celebrate their lives and acknowledge their deaths in the funeral rites accepted by that faith group. But this does not take the place of the death certificate. While the funeral service may be important to the person who died and his family, one particular faith belief is not imposed on the beliefs and practices of others.

The same is true of birth. While some faith communities believe in circumcision of baby boys and others believe in baptism of infants, these practices are not forced by the government upon people whose beliefs differ. Instead, the state requires that a birth certificate be registered to document this birth, to establish that this child is a citizen with all the privileges of any other citizen in Canada.

Only in the case of marriage does the state endow faith communities with the privilege of celebrating the marriage in their own manner, as well as employing their service as an agent of the state. The decision about who is to be married is not made by those people who have made a loving commitment to one another and who have pledged to spend their lives in a loving relationship but, in fact, is being made in our country today by clergy and church communities who are empowered to decide who meets their standards.

In this regard, some individuals who have had the good fortune to fall in love with someone of the opposite sex are judged to be worthy of the privileges and benefits of marriage and to have their marriage celebrated by society, while the loving relationships of those who are only attracted to and fall in love with individuals of their own gender are rejected. In fact, as long as the individual falls in love with someone of the opposite gender, he or she is blessed by the church each and every time he or she remarries. Heterosexual persons benefit from the privileges provided by the state and the church even when they are married several times during their lifetime. This, to my mind, is patently discriminatory, treating some loving relationships as worthy of acknowledgement and not others.

The arguments against recognizing the loving relationships between gay men and lesbians depend upon the belief that homosexuality is a choice. While some literature would address this issue, most of the scientific literature in peer-reviewed journals has contended that there are differences in homosexual and heterosexual individuals.

Thirdly, in the studies of twins, we know there is a higher prevalence of gays among twins who are gay, even when they are separated at birth. Regardless of the cause, it is clear from both the counselling and medical literature that sexual orientation is not something someone chooses. He or she is born homosexual.

To make this more relevant to you, I would challenge the members of the committee to think about when they made a choice about the sexual orientation they have. Did you choose that you would be heterosexual, if that is your sexual orientation? At what point did you make that decision? I would contend that we don't make that decision. It just is. That's who we fall in love with. I would suggest that we are not more morally competent. We are not more in line with the values of society. We're just luckier. We just happened to be born heterosexual.

I believe that our relationships should not be honoured to a greater degree than a loving relationship between two people who fell in love who are of the same gender.

¸ (1440)

The other issue that I've heard over and over again in the 20 years I've worked in this field is that the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong, and certain members of the churches do not believe this. The one question I would ask is that when the belief system that is determining who is able to be called married is a literal translation of the Bible, why is it that those same people don't not eat....? For example, the Book of Leviticus is said to speak of homosexuality, in some people's interpretation, yet why is it that people who believe this choose to eat pork and also choose to each shellfish, both of which are forbidden in that particular chapter?

Two weeks ago I attended the forum on marriage that was held by Andy Scott. There were a couple of observations I made. One of them is that those from church communities expressed their fears that they could be charged under the laws of Canada for discriminating against gay men and lesbians because they believe that homosexuality is wrong. If it is a choice to become homosexual, then this belief might have some credence. However, in my experience in working with gay men and lesbians, this is not a choice.

In Canada, we believe in a freedom of religion, and it is clear that church ministers and members would not be charged for following their beliefs and refusing to marry homosexual couples who ask to be married. I would like to point out to the committee that we are free to believe whatever we choose to believe in our society as long as our beliefs do not infringe on the rights of others and do not impose harm on the rights of others.

For example, there is a group of people in our society who choose to believe that the earth is flat. Now, we all know that this is a very ancient teaching, that it has not been changed. We understand that people continue to believe this even though the literature, the science, the rest of the world believes and understands that the world is round. There is nothing to say that people can't choose to believe in a flat earth unless their beliefs impose on the rights of airlines to fly to the rest of the world and my right to drive there.

So one of the things I would say, hoping not to be too facetious, is that it's important, in my opinion, for us as a society to not discriminate against other people by virtue of the way in which they were born.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We now got to Mary Thurrott, the executive director of the Christian Action Federation of New Brunswick.

Ms. Mary Thurrott (Executive Director, Christian Action Federation of New Brunswick Inc.): The Christian Action Federation of New Brunswick wishes to thank you and the justice standing committee for the privilege of speaking to this issue of same-sex marriage.

We are an interdenominational organization that's been involved in social issues affecting the families and individuals in New Brunswick for nearly 60 years. The federation recognizes the right of every Canadian citizen to be treated in an equitable manner.

We also view the issue of same-sex marriage as the promotion of a lifestyle rather than a matter of equality. We will argue, therefore, that the Government of Canada maintain the traditional definition of marriage.

Christians and other monotheistic religions can never endorse same-sex marriage, because God has spoken. A Christian believes God has spoken through the Bible. The Muslim believes Allah has spoken through the Koran. The Jew believes Jehovah has spoken through the Torah. Because of their value systems, those who believe that God has spoken do not feel free to adjust their ideology to coincide with man's changing ideas. Truth does not change, and a God whose nature is truth does not change his character to suit the sometimes rebellious evolutionary ideas of man.

Although it should be noted that it is the Judeo-Christian God referred to in the preamble of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, all the major religions agree that God has declared all forms of sexual immorality a violation of His holiness, with resulting consequences.

Some may argue that because Christians refuse to endorse same-sex unions they are somehow forcing their religious views on others. But this is not the case. Since time began, the universal institution of marriage, encompassing cultures and world religions, has changed very little because it is an inherently heterosexual institution.

There is, however, in our day, an intensive lobby of special interests involving the agenda of homosexual activists and the gay pride movement. The homosexual lobby group EGALE, Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere, in a presentation before the House of Commons justice committee, made this statement: “Bill C-23 already gave to the same-sex couples virtually all the rights and obligations of marriage under federal law and most provincial laws do the same.” Therefore, the marriage challenge in Canada is not really about equal rights for gays, because that has already been attained. Their ultimate goal is an endorsement that will silence disagreement and opposition to the homosexual activist's cause. Couple the redefinition of marriage with Bill C-250 and the stage is fully set for a growing repression of religious freedom and the moral voice of our nation.

Over the past five years, freedom of religion and freedom of speech has fallen under assault in the courts, workplaces, schools, and the media. I would remind you of Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No. 36. Against the wishes of the majority of parents and the school board, homosexual material is now introduced, and indoctrination of the minds of our children.

There was the Trinity Western University, where graduates, because they had signed an agreement in regard to abstaining from homosexual activity, were deemed to be unfit to teach in public schools.

Christopher Kempling, a Christian teacher in British Columbia who wrote articles in the newspaper, is in danger of losing his job because of speaking about the detrimental effects of homosexual lifestyle.

We've heard tell of Scott Brockie being referred to, and even now we have Camp Arnes in Manitoba, where a lesbian choir wanted to rent their facilities on a weekend, and because the Christian camp refused to allow that, they are facing charges as well. The question of who is really forcing their ideas on others can clearly be seen.

¸ (1445)

We believe the time is now for Parliament to reassure Canadians that it is not opposed to Christianity and those who hold to a theistic view of marriage. If Parliament permits a change in the definition of marriage, strengthening the already powerful homosexual agenda, we would conclude that Parliament is against the religious views of thousands of Canadians.

Furthermore, because the holy books of the major religions similarly oppose same-sex marriage, it would be concluded that the Canadian government believes its laws form a higher moral standard than God himself has declared. According to research provided by the international organization known as Focus on the Family, “children suffer when denied the nurturing influence of mother and father. Children of married parents are more likely to have better cognitive and verbal development, greater educational and job attainment, fewer behaviour and emotional problems, lower dependency on welfare, less exposure to crime, a lower risk of being sexually abused and fewer marital problems as adults”. Because no other institution can produce such a God-honoured outcome, safeguards need to be placed around the integrity of the institution of marriage.

We believe the time is now for Parliament to reassure Canadians that no longer will our courts, through social engineering, reshape the face of Canada using their interpretation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Just three years ago, Parliament promised Canadians, in a 216 to 55 vote, that the traditional view of marriage would be upheld. Is an extremely powerful minority strong enough to force Parliament to renege on its promise to the Canadian people? Will Parliament agree with the British Columbia Supreme Court decision that the charter does not require marriage to be something it is not? Will Parliament draw the line that prevents our courts from further eroding our basic freedom of religion and say, this far and no further?

In closing, we urge the parliamentary committee, the Department of Justice, and our members of Parliament not to tamper with this time-honoured definition of marriage as it now exists and was created and blessed by Almighty God.

Thank you.

¸ (1450)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Toews, for seven minutes.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you.

Thank you, panellists, for coming here today and sharing your views. It is not always easy and certainly sometimes our questions aren't easy for you. If we sometimes appear a little harsh, it's not that we bear any personal animosity against anyone; it's that we have a responsibility to get all the facts and get them accurately.

I think Mrs. Thurrott summarizes very clearly the fear that many faith-based organizations have expressed regarding their right not simply to believe in certain principles and ethical standards but indeed to practise them. And it's fundamental to some of these faith-based organizations that they have a right to proselytize. Therefore the tensions between the rights of that organization to proselytize and the rights of others conflict. We're seeing this in cases like Brockie and Trinity Western. I think we, as parliamentarians, need to clarify that so our citizens can live in harmony despite the fact we have very strong feelings on both sides of that issue.

Mrs. Leblanc, there are a couple of comments you made that I just would like to explore a little further, mainly in terms of trying to get some facts from you. There was an allegation made by you that there had been a denial of medical coverage for children of same-sex couples. Could you elaborate on that?

Ms. Jacinthe Leblanc: There are some companies that will deny you if it is not your legal child. So if I had a job and my partner didn't, and it was her child, my medical coverage could possibly not cover that child.

Mr. Vic Toews: I find that surprising. That's something we have to look at.

I was a lawyer for a large insurance company here in Canada for many years. That's certainly not my understanding of it. If you can give me some details on which insurance practice would deny that, I think it would be very helpful. Just send the information to the chairperson.

The second is an issue that has been raised, and you've raised it very succinctly. Have there been any cases where children have been removed from the family home when one partner in a same-sex couple dies? I assume it would be the biological parent who would die, leaving the other partner in the same-sex couple there, and the child would be removed. Have there been any cases in Canada to that effect?

¸ (1455)

Ms. Jacinthe Leblanc: I'm not sure, to be honest with you. But can you imagine living with that fear, though? As lesbians, we're being discriminated against on a daily basis.

I had a friend who was sick and died of cancer. My partner was denied the right to visit him at certain times. If that happens, do you think I might not fear that same fear?

Mr. Vic Toews: I think that's a realistic fear in the context you had to go through, unfortunately.

What I'm concerned about is, has there actually been any court case that has sanctioned the removal of a child from the home where the biological parent has died? I'd be interested in knowing that and under what legal framework it was done. I'm not talking about a child welfare context, but perhaps about a family law context.

The Chair: Ms. Getty.

Ms. Grace Getty: There was a case in Alberta where children were being fostered by a lady who then acknowledged publicly that she was a lesbian. Whatever it was called, the Alberta department that placed children took away those children and refused to allow her to foster others, although she had fostered quite a large number of children over a number of years. So I think there is a precedent in terms of fostering children, which I'm sure is the basis for why many people fear that the child they have parented from birth may not be as safe.

Mr. Vic Toews: That's an issue that maybe the provincial legislature has to look at, because under our division of powers each legislature needs to look at that.

I'm particularly concerned about the issue of actually taking a child from that same-sex couple home. Has that been done? If it has been done, please bring that forward to our attention. I don't want to put you on the spot, but if it has been done I think we need to know about it and to look at the details of that kind of allegation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Marceau.

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

First of all, good afternoon and thanks to the three of you for your most interesting presentations. The differences in view points show clearly that it will be difficult for us to reconcile opinions that may seem contradictory. On that point, on this very rare occasion, I would like to echo the views of Vic Toews, who said that if your questions seem difficult, it is not because we want to be hostile against anyone in particular.

Ms. Thurrott, I was quite surprised by your introduction in which you said that all mainstream religions, all of the main denominations were against marriage between homosexual partners, but we have heard fairly clear evidence to the fact that the United Church, which is the largest Protestant denomination in Canada, supports marriage between same-sex partners.

Are you telling the committee that the legislative measure we will pass, on this point in particular, must be determined by your interpretation of the Bible and by the interpretation made by your denomination?

[English]

Ms. Mary Thurrott: That's a good question that I'm glad to answer, because I would say that the Christian faith did not grow from man's ideas. The Christian faith grew from God, who gave us the Holy Scriptures. It is not to be our value system and the evolution of our thinking, but what God says. In the Holy Scriptures, God has spoken and it's therefore not for us to choose, but rather to choose whether or not we're going to believe what he has written.

¹ (1500)

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: But you do agree that what God might have said is interpreted differently depending on whether you are Catholic or Protestant, Jewish or Christian.

So are you saying that the Christian vision should be imposed on all Canadians, including those who are not Christian?

[English]

Ms. Mary Thurrott: No. I reiterated in the brief that all of the major world religions agree that God has spoken. All forms of sexual behaviour other than what he has endorsed in marriage are.... He has described marriage as that of a male and a female, and so that's—

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I presume you often refer to the passage in the Book of Leviticus, where types of homosexual relationships are condemned, because most of those who are opposed to same-sex marriages for religious reasons refer specifically to those passages. Am I wrong?

[English]

Ms. Mary Thurrott: Not necessarily. God has continued in the New Testament to speak in this manner about homosexual behaviour, and so it is a continuing theme through the scriptures.

God is a holy God, and that God of the Old Testament spoke his law. Now, it's up to us whether or not we want to choose to embrace it, but God has set a standard regarding his holiness. He has declared it in the Old Testament, and disobedience does fall under the judgment of God.

We talk about fear in the church, and fear of these different areas. Yes, there is a concern. I don't want to see my pastor go to jail; I don't want to see a Christian camp being fined; I don't want to see a Christian businessman being brought before the Human Rights Tribunal. But that's not where our real, real fear lies. Our real fear lies before God, because some day we who are Christians, and those of other faiths, believe that we're going to give an account to God. Therefore, we want to live our lives in a way that measures up with the word that He has spoken to us.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Once again—and I want to assure you I am doing this with the utmost respect—, someone gave me a letter earlier, and I would like to have your comments. I will read some excerpts of it. It is in English, so you can take off your earpiece, which you find a little annoying.

[English]

These are Bible facts, and keep in mind that what you read in the most Holy Book gives no leeway in what it is saying.

Number 1: I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her menstrual uncleanness. ... My problem is how do I tell? Most women take offence when I ask.

Number 2: I know that I am not to eat shellfish. ... Does this include lobster?

--that would be a problem in New Brunswick--

Number 3: I know that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football...?

Number 4: Most of my male friends, including myself, cut their hair and beards, even though it is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19 v.27.

...

Number 6: A number of us work on the Sabbath. Exodus...clearly states that we should be put to death. Who is morally obligated to kill us?

[Translation]

All this to say, and will all due respect, that the excerpts taken from the Bible and the rules of the Bible that are adopted can vary from one religion to another or even from one Christian denomination to another.

I know you mentioned the concern of being imposed Christianity one way or another. For example, you would not want your church to be obliged to marry same-sex partners.

So here is my question. How can you find a balance between the power or permission that some churches may have, such as the United Church, the Unitarian Church or Reformed Judaism, to marry same-sex partners if their religion allows it, while at the same time protecting your most fundamental right—and for which I would fight as strenuously as I can—to not be imposed the right to marry same-sex partners? What would you suggest the committee do to respect those who have a different interpretation of the scriptures or morals, because many people do not have a religion that is based on the scriptures, while at the same time protecting your undeniable absolute right to not marry same-sex partners in your church? What would you suggest we do to find a balance between those two things?

¹ (1505)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Marceau.

[English]

Ms. Mary Thurrott: I would say one thing. You're going to have to do a lot to help us realize that there's not repression of religion in this country. There is a strong feeling because, as has been shared this morning, time and time again religion has been undermined in this country. You give a promise that this won't happen, and then it turns around and it does happen. There's going to be a lot more than words that will tell Christians we are safe and that this is not a land of religious persecution. That is the feeling of many Christians in this land right now.

Secondly, I would say that Parliament is going to have to take a leadership role in this. As the gentleman who sat here ahead of me said, although we're on opposite sides, it's not reconcilable because--

Mr. Richard Marceau: Is it or is it not? I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.

An hon. member: She said it's not.

Ms. Mary Thurrott: As Christians, and I'm including in this world religions that take a position opposed to this lifestyle, a role of leadership in this area.... Where was I going?

The Chair: I can let Mr. Maloney put some questions.

We have time left, so you'll have lots of opportunities.

Ms. Mary Thurrott: I would say also, though, that it's for the strengthening of the family. For that reason also we feel that marriage needs to be kept as it is. It is a very delicate part of society, and it needs safeguards put around it. We feel maintaining that definition would help.

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

Mr. John Maloney: Ms. Getty, you've indicated or suggested that the church should get out of marriage altogether. Could you elaborate on that? How would that work?

Ms. Grace Getty: I'm not suggesting that they should not be free to marry people within their church, not at all. What I'm saying is the government should not use the state as an agent. In other words, there should be something equivalent to a birth certificate, something that is a civil procedure where all people have the same credentials. I would suggest that those who get married in churches should be required to get the same document that suggests you have made a legal commitment to being in a relationship together on a long-term basis.

I think that some heterosexuals will choose to be married in the church of their faith that believes that, but there are other people who have every bit as loving and strong a committed relationship as heterosexuals do, and they have the right to have a church that understands and accepts them to marry them. Then there are people who don't have any faith, and they have the right to go to a judge.

What I'm saying is that the church right now has a preferential situation. They're able to say when someone is able to get married. I think that with marriage it should be the responsibility of our government and the state to acknowledge the responsibilities and the privileges that come with making that kind of commitment, however the ceremony happens and whatever the faith belief.

I believe it's discriminatory for a very significant proportion of our society. I would never suggest that the marriage that's performed within a church not be valid, but it's valid to that church and that faith and that belief. It should not have the power of the law, in my opinion. I believe that as long as some churches believe that people....

Mary used the word “lifestyle”. I would suggest that most of the gay men and lesbian people I work with have a lifestyle very similar to my own. They don't choose this; they live a normal life, they have children, they pay their taxes, and they go to their work. When you use the word “lifestyle”, you're making a judgment about them I find offensive.

Does that answer your question?

¹ (1510)

Mr. John Maloney: Ms. Thurrott, you indicated that the situation is not about equal rights because the gay and lesbian community already have those. We've listened this afternoon to Ms. Leblanc and witnesses before her, Ms. Livingston and Ms. Kavalak, saying that in fact they do have difficulties, are discriminated against, and don't have the same rights. How do you equate what we've heard with your comments?

Ms. Mary Thurrott: Can I ask a question back in this regard?

Mr. John Maloney: I'm not sure if I can answer it, but go ahead.

Ms. Mary Thurrott: I wondered too. I read the account of Chris Kempling in B.C., a schoolteacher, a Christian, and a professional counsellor. He wrote during the summer some articles, editorials, in the newspaper, and as a result of that he's in jeopardy of losing his job, his profession, and his training. However, last Sunday in Fredericton there was another teacher who spoke. He identified himself and where he was from and spoke out, and when comments were made, terms like “shame, shame” were used, and he was belittling Christians.

I sat there and I said to myself, where is the equality? Here is a Christian teacher who's brought before a human rights tribunal because he writes from a professional viewpoint--he documented everything he said in his studies--and he's under threat of losing his job. Here comes another teacher who, because he advocates from the under elements...well, you know....

Voices: Oh, oh!

Ms. Mary Thurrott: No, let me find my words.

Because he's speaking for those who historically were perceived to be unequal or whatever--however that's written in the Constitution, I'm not up on that--he's able to verbalize what the other one isn't. Now, where is the equality in that?

Mr. John Maloney: I don't know how that answers my question about the equality issue Ms. Leblanc is suffering under and fears to suffer.

You say gays are treated equally now. We've heard---

Ms. Mary Thurrott: No, I think there are some places where they may not be treated equally.

Mr. John Maloney: And if they were allowed to marry, this would---

Ms. Mary Thurrott: But marriage is a different issue.

Mr. John Maloney: Well, it leads to this inequality. It's the denial of marriage that leads to the inequality, as we've heard this afternoon with hospital administrators or school principals.

The Chair: Mr. Toews.

Mr. Vic Toews: On that issue, in response to Mr. Maloney's comment that it's the lack of access to marriage that leads to the inequality, I don't think that's what the courts have in fact said. What the courts have indicated is that there is a distinctive type of relationship in the institution of marriage, which is a uniquely heterosexual institution and therefore not accessible to homosexuals because they simply don't have the nature of that relationship. It's not a heterosexual relationship. That's what the marriage relationship is all about, and that's what the courts have said.

I don't think that leads to the inequality. There are certain specific differences in humans that have led to that difference and that different treatment.

In fact, one of our earlier witnesses, Dr. Daniel Cere, emphasized that marriage is such a difficult thing, the relationship between two sexes, that marriage was developed as a very unique institution to bridge the gap between the two genders. When we're talking about homosexual relationships, we're simply not talking about that type of relationship.

That's why I'm finding what Ms. Getty has said actually quite fascinating. Now you've come up with a fourth alternative, and unfortunately I wasn't listening closely enough, as I should have been. I immediately went back to the paper and I said, you know, I don't remember there being that fourth alternative.

But that's good, because I found it very offensive that the minister had said that there were only three alternatives here. Maybe there are other combinations, and that's why it's so good to hear from people. If you could, please just recapitulate for me, because I'm a little slower or a little hard of hearing, what your actual proposition was, what your suggestion was for us. Can you just say that once again, please.

¹ (1515)

Ms. Grace Getty: What I'm suggesting is that the state is responsible for acknowledging that two people have made a commitment, a loving commitment, to live in a spousal relationship in which they will share their lives. They will bring up their children, they will share their resources, they will work together.

Now, we all know that heterosexual marriage is far from a perfect entity. We also know that it's to the benefit of our society to honour the commitment two people make to work together and live together.

Now, we are never going to get through this issue of some of the churches believing that marriage is according to their interpretation of the Bible. I think that's irrelevant to this process right now. If we want a free and equal society, we need to treat everyone on an equal basis, in my opinion. I'm suggesting that everyone who chooses to enter a married relationship should be able to access a government document like a death certificate or a birth certificate that acknowledges that they have formed this relationship, and it gives them the privileges that are currently inherent in marriage.

I believe people should have the right to celebrate that marriage any way they wish. I want to say I've been married for 37 years and I believe in marriage, but I also think it cheapens my relationship when other people in equally committed loving relationships are not given the same privileges.

I don't know whether that's clear. What I'm saying is that the church should not be the agent of the state when it comes to marriage.

The Chair: We'll go to Mr. Macklin.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, witnesses.

One question that does come up now and again is this, and I think it's an evolving scientific process. Is a homosexual born or is a homosexual making traces or learning behaviour?

Now, today, as a professor of nursing, you have been rather direct, rather clear on this point. A number of people I've spoken to have in fact said to me, if I knew someone was born that way, then I could accept them so much easier.

I'd like you to tell us whether or not there is support for your position, because I think it's important. I think the American Psychiatric Association has taken it off the list of diseases, so we've gotten past that some time ago. Let us advance. If this is true, then it should be clearly stated. We should put it on the record. We should make sure that the public generally are aware of this and we should go forward.

If this is an advancement in understanding, I think it is very important, because if we talk about God making each and every one of us, whether we're born without an arm or not or, in this case, if we're born homosexual, I think it makes a significant difference to some of the arguments we're hearing. So I'd like to hear what your position is on that, or give us any support for that, scientific or otherwise.

¹ (1520)

Ms. Grace Getty: There are several areas of research that would attest to this. One is the biological research. We certainly know that if you look at studies of twins, where they've been separated at birth, where they've been adopted separately for whatever reason, there is a much higher prevalence of gayness, so to speak, among the sets of twins, even though they grew up in different homes and families and different environments and contexts. We know that some biological studies have been done. They looked at things like chromosomal differences. They looked at pregnancy influences.

I know people who have tried not to be gay. What I do know from my own practice, and I guess that's where I feel the most secure, is that nobody in their right mind in our society chooses to be gay. You're discriminated against, you're taunted, you're harassed, you're put down by people who say that your lifestyle is indecent and who make judgments about you.

I have talked to people. In one of my studies I asked them about their beginning understanding of their feelings and who they were as a person. In the two studies I've probably talked to close to 120 or 130 people. All of them have said they were appalled when they first recognized that they were not attracted to the opposite gender, that the person who they were attracted to was of their own gender. They didn't want that. They tried everything. In fact, one-third of gay men marry in a heterosexual manner because they're trying so hard not to be that.

I think the counselling literature has told us...there was a group of studies done in the sixties and seventies. We thought that if we showed you pictures of men together or women together and we put little electrodes on your gonads and we shocked you every time you had an excited response, you would learn not to be gay. What we learned was that sex wasn't much fun and you began to have an aversion to sexuality, but it didn't change your orientation.

In all of the people I have worked with, they may hide who they are, they may deny who they are. For example, I can think of one priest who told me that he went into the priesthood because he thought it was a safe place to be. He could live a celibate life because he was so appalled about who he was. But no matter what he tried, he remained gay.

Do you know what? It seems to me that if I have the privilege of enjoying a loving relationship with my spouse, why would I deny that to someone who is in love with someone of their own gender? It is the same emotional reaction. And when they describe to me what they feel, they talk about falling in love.

None of us knows why we're attracted to our spouses. We just are. I don't know about you, but I certainly didn't make a choice that I was going to fall in love with the guy I married. Should I be especially privileged because I fell in love with a man? I don't think so. I think I was just lucky.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Then how would you deal with those who would say or demonstrate that they've been in both types of relationships? What would your answer be in that respect, from a scientific perspective?

Ms. Grace Getty: Certainly there are people who are bisexual, and that's a reality. There are some people who are attracted to either. I would say that we don't know the proportion because they're not somebody who comes out and says, hi, by the way, I'm bisexual. They're discriminated against in every society. What we do know is this. When you look at the erotic attraction, the emotional attraction to somebody, it tends to be to one gender. The only choice you make is whether you're going to move into a relationship with that particular person. I don't think you make a choice as to who you're going to fall in love with.

¹ (1525)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Macklin.

Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

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

Professor Getty, my first question is of particular interest to me. Did you really say that twins have a much greater propensity towards homosexuality?

[English]

Ms. Grace Getty: No, what I said was this. If one member of the twins is gay, there's a very high prevalence of the other member of the twins being gay. For example, identical twins are much higher proportioned than fraternal twins, and they have a much higher prevalence of both being gay than other siblings.

We do know there is a higher prevalence of gayness among families who have gay kids.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you.

Ms. Thurrott, you are vehemently opposed to same sex marriages, but surely you agree with me that there are same sex couples and that is a fact.

Would you be open to some sort of recognition of same-sex partners that may not be called marriage and by virtue of which the same-sex partners would have certain rights, but also certain obligations, or are you against any form of recognition of same-sex unions?

[English]

Ms. Mary Thurrott: I have a bit of concern that, as in the Netherlands, first it was a recognition and then the next step led to marriage. Belgium took that same approach. It was a recognition, and the next step was marriage.

I respect lesbians and gays. God has made us all. I'm only saying the scripture has a standard. As a Christian, I'm not going to deviate from what God has written and from what God has said.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I'm sorry, I only have three minutes. Do you think the concern about the civil union shifting towards marriage is strong enough for you to tell us here today that you refuse any form of legal recognition of same-sex unions because that could later lead to marriage? Is that what you are telling us?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Marceau.

[English]

Ms. Mary Thurrott: I am just saying that I would have a concern in that area, and were the government to go that way.... As it was stated before, the 1999 definition of marriage would remain as is, and I do have concern in that area. When is the slope going to stop?

I think marriage needs to be protected. I just say that I have a concern.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I want to thank the panel for their contribution today.

I would make a personal commitment to Ms. Getty that I won't mention to Norville what you had to say about him.

I really do appreciate the contribution that all of the people who have been here today have made. I'm going to ask the present panel to withdraw so that the next panel can come forward, and we'll finish this portion of today's hearing.

We're suspended.

¹ (1529)

¹ (1535)

The Chair: I call back to order the 34th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights as we continue our study on marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions.

From now until 4:30, we will be hearing from, as individuals, Carl Trickey and James Crooks; representing EGALE Canada, Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere, Donald Tabor, the Atlantic region male representative; and also appearing as an individual, Michèle Caron, a professor in the faculty of law at Université de Moncton.

I think everybody has been here and knows the rules. You are asked to make a seven-minute presentation. At six minutes, there will be an indication that you have one minute left.

I'm going to go first to Carl Trickey and James Crooks, for seven minutes.

Mr. Carl Trickey (As Individual): Good afternoon. My name is Carl Trickey, and this is my life partner, James Crooks.

We are here to put another face on the issue of same-gender marriage. We are both gay men. We did not choose to be gay, any more than we chose the colour of our skin, the amount of hair we have, or our gender. We did choose to accept that we are gay men and that we are attracted to people of the same gender. We recognize that this is not consistent with the majority of society; however, we do not believe it was a mistake, that we are evil, or that we are seen any differently in the eyes of God than any other person.

We do believe, as gay persons, we are similar to approximately 10% of the population, which represents over 2.5 million people nationally. We were both blessed with the capacity to love and we believe we were brought together to honour that blessing.

We have known each other for almost 10 years and have shared our lives for most of that time. In August 1996 we shared a covenant, a promise to work every day at celebrating the love that God had entrusted us with. Our covenanting ceremony took place in the sanctuary of Centenary-Queen Square United Church. The media referred to it as the first gay marriage in maritime Canada. We thought of it as our wedding day, and each year we celebrate it as our anniversary.

Why was this ceremony important to us? We love each other. Isn't that enough? Why do we have to flaunt it? As Christians with lifetime connections to the United Church of Canada, it was very important to us.

Jim is an ordained minister with 35 years of ministry within the United Church of Canada. I have been an active member of the United Church for most of my adult life and serve currently as an elder, congregational chair, board chair, Sunday school teacher, and a member of various committees. It would seem inappropriate to not celebrate our covenant before God and in the presence of our families of origin, our family of choice, and our friends.

Months prior to the event, our minister, the Reverend Robert Johnson, met with us as he would any couple coming before him to commit themselves to one another. He told us that to have our ceremony in the sanctuary of our church, we would need to have the approval of the majority of the elders.

A letter was written, and the request was given due consideration. The elders accepted our request, with only one negative vote.

One accepting elder commented: “We have authorized the marriage of many people in this church. Many of them we had never seen before and we have never seen since. We know what these two men mean to each other, and we know what they mean to us. How could we deny them our blessing?” This from a 70-year-old elder of our church.

August 10, 1996, was a celebration, and anyone present in the sanctuary of Centenary-Queen Square United Church would be hard pressed to deny that they were not part of something very solemn and very meaningful.

After the ceremony, a member of the media asked me what I thought of our wedding. Trying to be politically correct, I replied, this could not be a wedding, because we are denied that legal right. My eight-year-old son pulled at my hand and, looking very perplexed, said, well, it sure seemed like a wedding to me.

That was almost eight years ago now. We have a good life, living in covenant. It has been hard work, but I guess anything as important as love deserves that effort. It is unfortunate that the Government of Canada has chosen to deny our relationship legal status. We could not obtain a marriage licence or become married.

We can love, but we may be denied access to the person we love at a time when they need us the most. Would Canadians want to be left in the hall while their loved one fights for their life in an intensive care unit?

We can declare our love and live in covenant, but we may be denied the pleasures of those many years of love and hard work when a grieving family of origin moves in and takes control when a partner dies. Would Canadians want to be excluded from a spouse's final celebration of contribution? Would Canadians want to deny a couple the right to personal property and a lifetime of hard work?

¹ (1540)

We can register our covenant with a certificate and even have it written in our church register, but we then need to spend hundreds of dollars and hours of time getting pages of legal documentation and then distributing these copies to banks, hospitals, doctors, lawyers, and a myriad of others to declare our wishes and to protect our rights, the same rights we would have if we were legally married. Would Canadians really want to deny us that?

We are not the enemy. Our love is not the enemy. Recognition of us and our relationship and giving it equal status with opposite-gender relationships is fair, just, and right. We don't want special status, but we do want equal status. If a 70-year-old elder and an 8-year-old boy can find it in their power to do so, then we do not understand why the Government of Canada would find it so difficult.

Canadians, we are told, believe in what is fair. Canadians, we are told, believe in equality. Canadians, we are told, accept diversity. As Canadians, we embrace these beliefs. It is time that the Government of Canada lives up to the fundamental beliefs of Canadians.

On behalf of the more than 2.5 million gay men and women in Canada, we ask the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to recommend that the federal government adopt legislation that provides the same recognition for same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Donald Tabor.

Mr. Donald Tabor (Representative (male), Atlantic Region, Egale Canada (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere)): Mr. Chairman, honourable members.

As was mentioned earlier, I represent the Atlantic region on the board of directors at EGALE Canada. In my professional life, I am the chief administrative officer for the Town of Springhill, Nova Scotia, where I have been employed for the past 26 years, the last 10 of those as CAO.

Today I am here to share with you about my partner of seven years and our love and commitment to each other. While my position is consistent with that of EGALE Canada, I felt that sharing our own personal story with you would further emphasize the reality that same-sex couples in loving, long-term relationships do exist and that our love is real and worthy of being affirmed and acknowledged.

In February 2002, my partner suddenly and unexpectedly suffered a massive heart attack. The following two weeks I spent in the intensive care unit, waiting and praying that he would fully recover. The doctors told me after he was admitted that 95% of those individuals who suffer a heart attack as significant as his never recover. Suddenly I had to face the reality that I could lose this person that I so deeply loved and cared for. What saddened me was that aside from a few friends and family, the significance of our relationship and his loss of life and its effect on the surviving partner would be virtually unrecognized.

We had registered our domestic partnership with Nova Scotia vital statistics. However, I was and still am constantly reminded of the fact that had this happened in another jurisdiction in Canada I would not have had some of the protections that the RDP in Nova Scotia afforded me.

I want to emphasize at this time that I am not here to support RDPs as an option. I will speak to that in a moment.

Currently, some of the options before this committee for consideration are these. One is to keep the status quo and have marriage remain an opposite-sex institution. Another option is that, with the cooperation of the provinces and territories, Parliament could leave marriage to the religions. The third and only fair option is to allow marriage to include same-sex couples.

Throughout these proceedings it has been suggested that a registered domestic partnership or civil union status be applied to define same-sex couples and their relationships. The question has been asked by this committee if that would be acceptable. The answer to that question is simply and implicitly no.

Why, you ask? First, because such an arrangement legally divides Canadians with regard to our central social institutions. Like the miscegenation laws, registered domestic partnerships and civil unions essentially create a two-tier system with one marriage model clearly superior to the other. The benefits may be the same as they were for black couples, but the segregation is just as profound.

One of the greatest merits of contemporary civil marriage as an institution is its civic simplicity. Whatever race your are, whatever religion, whatever your politics or class or profession, marriage is marriage is marriage. It affirms a civil equality that emanates outward into the rest of our society. To carve within it a new segregated partition is to make the mistake we made with miscegenation. It is to balkanize one of the most important unifying institutions we still have.

Secondly, marriage is not merely an accumulation of benefits. It is a fundamental mark of citizenship. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free persons. It is one of the most fundamental rights accorded under the Constitution. Even political rights, like the right to vote, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Would any heterosexual in Canada believe he or she had a right to pursue happiness if he or she could not marry the person he or she loved? What would be more objectionable to most people, to be denied a vote in our next federal election or to no longer have legal custody over their child or legal attachment to their wife or husband? The answer to this question should be quite clear.

The only option that clearly provides for full equality is the option that marriage be changed to also include same-sex couples. Though my partner and I have no immediate plans to do so, we would like to have the freedom to make that choice if and when we should decide to. My heterosexual siblings and friends have that option unequivocally, and we should have that option as well.

¹ (1545)

In conclusion, I strongly urge this committee to recommend that the federal government do the only fair and just thing and put a stop to this discriminatory practice. Denying equal marriage to same-sex couples denies us our basic human rights. Anything other than marriage segregates us as second-class citizens and further symbolizes the inequality and injustice we experience by being denied the right to marry our loved one. Marriage is about love and commitment. Marriage is about choice. This is about the equal right to make that choice.

Thank you.

[Translation]

Le président: For seven minutes, Michèle Caron.

Ms. Michèle Caron (Professor, Faculty of Law, Moncton University, As Individual): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, allow me to introduce myself. I am a professor of law at the University of Moncton. I am 54 years old, and—if I do not restrict myself to the narrow legal definition of the term “marriage”—I can say that I have been married twice. The first time around, I was married to a man for 20 years. The second time around is my current relationship. I have been in a marital relationship with my female spouse for 12 years now. In my eyes, those two marital relationships are quite comparable. In both cases, we did not have children, nor did we wish to have children. Both marriages were and are the union between two professionals who consume, contribute to society through their taxes and social commitment, who have careers and share real and personal property, and who have every intention of remaining in the marital relationship to the end.

In fact, my current life with Noëlla is very similar to the life I had with Jean-Claude, with one significant difference: my relationship with Jean-Claude was encouraged and praised, while my relationship with Noëlla is denounced and discouraged.

A heterosexual union which works well and in which there is love is not hindered by outside conditions. In a same-sex union, however, conditions within the relationship must be better and superior than in a heterosexual relationship because the couple has to withstand disapproval and sometimes even violence from outside. Love must be very strong indeed to be able to survive in such a hostile environment.

After examining all the rationales put forward, including the social function of procreation, complementarity and other far-fetched theories, and after having examined the history of the various types of registered partnerships found in Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Vermont, Hawaii, Hungary and Spain during a research project in 1999-2000, it has become clear to me that those regimes all have a single purpose: to keep gays and lesbians occupied and make them shut up, while society continues to disapprove of them and their union, and continues to remain hostile.

These regimes were not granting equality, but only the appearance of equality, while maintaining the hierarchy of sexual orientation as well as continuing to promote heterosexuality.

Some of the people who object to marriage between lesbians and gays are trying to make us believe that they are not homophobic, and do not have a problem with having sexual orientation cited as prohibited grounds for discrimination in employment and services. They would have us believe that their only problem is the act of marriage between gays and lesbians. To my ears, however, those wonderful statements ring very false and are quite divorced from reality.

The reality is this, hostility and homophobia are exacerbated by the unfavourable treatment accepted as normal. And hostility is not only exacerbated, but positively encouraged, when unequal treatment is enshrined by the State. Something we must never forget is that law is thus descriptive and prescriptive. It codifies what we consider normal and prescribes the standard we are to consider normal—that is, normative behaviour. In recognizing only heterosexual marriage, the State is not just describing normality but establishing that normality is the standard to be applied to the exclusion of all others. Thus, since the State standard, the normative course, is heterosexual marriage, then only heterosexual marriage is normal. QED.

Taking this circular reasoning one step further, it does not take much to conclude that homosexuality is abnormal, and that queers should be given a good trashing. The State's refusal to recognize an equal marriage to my mind simply underwrites violence and other forms of discrimination.

The issue of same-sex marriage goes well beyond the issue of marriage as such. The hierarchy maintained among forms of marital union provide ideological support for a hierarchy of sexual orientation, and at the same time serves to maintain the hierarchy among men and women. This underscores the argument which states that broadening the institution of marriage to include gays and lesbians would lead to its erosion, because heterosexuality is the superior sexual orientation, and those who practice it deserve to be at the top of the sexual orientation pyramid.

¹ (1550)

Recognition of the right to marriage requires that one go beyond equal tolerance and progress to genuine equality.

The House of Commons bears considerable responsibility for the heterosexism and homophobia to which gays, lesbians and “transgenres” are subjected to in Canada every day.

Ever since the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act was passed in June 2000, the government would have us believe it is open-minded. However, it is difficult to forget that the federal government waited until 1996 to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation as prohibited ground for discrimination. The federal government took 19 years longer than Quebec, 10 years longer than Ontario, and 9 years longer than Yukon and Manitoba—only Alberta and P.E.I. were left.

We should also bear in mind that federal statutes, particularly the Income Tax Act, gave provinces and pension fund administrators as well as employers the excuse to deny gays and lesbians the recognition for common-law marriage, to the point where the Ontario court forced the Ontario government to establish a separate pension fund for its gay and lesbian employees. And even when it did adopt the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, it did so reluctantly, among other things including the requirement to negotiate with provinces in establishing parental leave benefit leave application procedures.

In conclusion, I will just say that, if the federal government fails to adopt a statute recognizing marriage for gays and lesbians at this time, it will put itself on the side of backward-looking provinces like New Brunswick, where Bernard Lord's government and particularly his Minister of Justice simply take the election-driven path.

¹ (1555)

[English]

The Chair: We'll go to Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you for your presentations.

We have had a number of discussions already. Some of you here were present for those. I would like you to help me, and incidentally perhaps also help my colleagues on the committee, to find a balance between two things: first, allowing governments and churches who wish to do so to marry people of the same sex—authorization would also be given to churches, but since we are talking about civil marriage here, church authorization would be purely incidental—and second, giving States which do not wish to marry of the same-sex people—as is their right—a clear assurance that they will never have to do so. That is the pivotal issue, the main argument against same-sex marriage. Time and again, we hear the same fears: groups which do not want to have something imposed on them in spite of the freedom of religion guaranteed in the Constitution.

So can you think of anything that would help me reassure people with serious concerns, people with religious faith that we have to respect? Can you help me assure them that their religious beliefs are not threatened in any way?

Perhaps we could begin with Ms. Caron, and then hear other witnesses.

Ms. Michèle Caron: I think that first of all we have to know that at the present time, the State has not taken away the Catholic Church's right to celebrate marriage, for example, even though the Catholic Church refuses to marry divorced persons. So there is already that proof.

In the previous panel I heard the lady who was afraid of religious repression. I do not think that our fears can find any basis on jurisprudence and on the way the Canadian courts have interpreted the right to equality and the prohibition of discrimination since as the Egan case demonstrates, what must be shown is that the possibility exists. If I wish to get married, provided that I am able to do so before a justice of the peace or in another denomination which has no objection, I will not be able to claim that denomination x refuses me this right.

At the present time, the courts have clearly shown in jurisprudence that they would strike a balance between religious freedom, on one hand... Let me note in passing that as an atheist, I think that I am also entitled to have my atheism respected; it is part of the freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. That was an aside, let me go back to what I was saying. In matters of jurisprudence, it is clearly demonstrated and if the courts did not start this balance between the freedom of religion, on one hand, and the right of gays and lesbians not to undergo discrimination, on the other hand, they would be going completely against precedents, they would be going against stare decisis. That strikes me as inconceivable in the present state of jurisprudence.

º (1600)

Mr. Richard Marceau: To continue along the same lines, let me note that the Egan ruling has come up on many occasions and that judge La Forest is quoted. You are a professor of law, you know that La Forest expressed his point of view as an incidental remark when he made his comment about heterosexual marriage, since the Egan case did not deal with marriage in any way but rather spousal benefits for same-sex spouses, is that not so?

Ms. Michèle Caron: Yes, you are quite right.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you.

In the same context, I would like to put another question before dealing with constitutional arguments. As a jurist and as a person in favour of marriage between same sex partners, if ever this committee were to decide to allow them to marry, would you be in favour of including a section similar to section 367 of the Quebec Civil Code establishing that no church minister could be compelled to carry out ceremonies that go against his or her faith? Would you have any problem with the inclusion of such an article in a bill that might allow for marriage between same-sex people?

Ms. Michèle Caron: Personally, I do not see any difficulty in making such a provision if it would alleviate the fears or phobia of certain people. If it is done in order to reconcile them with the idea, then I really would not care one way or the other.

Let me add that even though I am in favour of the right to marry, I am not of the view that marriage is the ultimate end and I certainly do not see marriage as the mythical institution that people have been making it out to be since it is clear that at the present time, the institution of marriage and all conjugal rights, responsibilities and obligations are in a complete mess. Things are being patched together here and there but there really is a need for a full review of all these regimes. I am thinking in particular of the assistance and insurance aspects. The matter is considered from the completely outmoded angle of a stay-at-home wife who is dependant. I think that all these legal constructs based on a conjugal relationship must be completely reviewed so that we have a system of assistance and insurance based on something more than the concept of parental status and the need for support.

That being said, a research project in which I was involved, suggests that a royal commission of inquiry be set up to deal with the question to encourage society to reflect on this matter but the other point, in my opinion, is that this cannot be done for as long as gays and lesbians are excluded from the institution.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Do I have a little bit of time left, Mr. Chairman?

As a jurist and professor of law, would you agree that two out of the four options presented in the Department of Justice working document are unconstitutional because of the division of jurisdiction? First of all, a civil union as proposed would be a matter of provincial jurisdiction since the federal government jurisdiction in the area of family law is limited quite specifically to marriage and divorce. Secondly, the position whereby religions would be given the power to conduct marriages would be unconstitutional also from the point of view of the division of jurisdiction since it is the provinces that decide which registry office officials will be able to celebrate marriage and give its legal effects.

º (1605)

Ms. Michèle Caron: You are quite right that the federal government's jurisdiction comes under what I refer to as questions of capacity whereas the provinces have jurisdiction in the matter of celebration under paragraph 92(13) on civil rights. In other words, the provinces could enact legislation themselves on the matter of who may officiate, if that is what you are suggesting.

Mr. Richard Marceau: That is what I meant...

[English]

The Chair: Sorry, you're out of time.

Mr. Macklin.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, witnesses, for appearing.

Needless to say, this is, at the end of the day, as murky in many respects as when we started. We know everyone is doing their best to try to help us along. I suppose to some extent we're still hung up on some of the more basic issues.

In the discussion you were just having with Mr. Marceau on the question of constitutionality and the question of provinces' jurisdiction over certain aspects of marriage in terms of ceremony and so forth, I think the question is whether we could find a way that would keep both sides, relatively speaking, on side. We could negotiate through the constitutionality or deal with that issue. It isn't the first time we've had a constitutional problem and have been able to work our way through it.

Madame Caron, I suppose you came as close as possible today to giving us at least an opportunity to say, you're not, as I understood it, completely locked to the concept of marriage per se, but rather, you're locked to the concept of equal rights and equal opportunity. I'd just like to make sure. Is that my understanding that as far as you're concerned, we could have another definition, if that were appropriate, for gay and lesbian conjugal relationships as long as the rights were the same? It's a rights issue with you, not necessarily a symbolic issue.

[Translation]

Ms. Michèle Caron: I think I was misunderstood. I stress that the right to marriage should exist. We should not underestimate the symbolic aspect and say that it is only a victory for gays and lesbians. That is not the case. The symbolism has an important ideological influence and that is what I attempted to demonstrate. For as long as we maintain a certain hierarchy in such unions, we encourage hostility and homophobia.

I am not crazy about marriage because as a feminist—in addition to being lesbian, I am a feminist—I know that the history of marriage is far from brilliant and how marriage, contrary to its mythical image, has been an institution for appropriating women, for appropriating their bodies as well as their labour.

So I do not make marriage out to be something extraordinary. However, marriage as it exists in our society today does have a symbolic value and also reflects personal respect. And what I am saying is that nothing less than marriage will be able to destroy prejudices and stereotypes. After that, we can deal with the question of benefits and obligations but marriage must come first.

[English]

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Do you want to answer, Mr. Crooks?

Mr. James Crooks (As Individual): Yes. I was glad to be part of your chairman's people's forum last Sunday. Certainly Carl and I, for not quite ten years but since 1996, have felt ourselves to be in a covenant relationship as life partners. I guess until last Sunday I was feeling that the relationship, if the rights were there, could be called by another name. But certainly from my participation with the people's forum, it seems to me that if we call it another name, it has to be perceived that it is a marriage.

I think therein is the challenge for your committee. If you're calling it by another name, it needs to be not just legally the same; it has to be perceived as the same. In that area, I think we as a nation, as a people, have a long way to go.

º (1610)

The Chair: You still have time.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: I think I understand that you're trying to gain a type of respectability in these relationships that should be equal, but I'm wondering whether, with simply the achieving of that symbolic name “marriage”, you're actually going to achieve what you want. Isn't there also a possibility that you may also get a backlash from those who would hold it as separate and distinct, and in fact, you might not be doing yourselves much of a favour by trying to link into what is, by many terms, a heterosexual institution as opposed to an institution that would better suit your needs?

Mr. James Crooks: There are those from within our own community who would say marriage is not.... They don't want the responsibility; they are not prepared to accept the commitment. But there are those of us who feel that the love, the support, and the commitment of working together in an arrangement, in a committed relationship, far outweigh the negatives that are there. So as individuals, in almost everything we do within our community, we need to fight and prod, but we are prepared to go on, because life is good; it is worth struggling for, and for the satisfaction that we achieve.

In my own mind, I would be rather skeptical that looking at it or calling it by another name or achieving it would bring that about at this point in time.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: But if it's an evolutionary process, wouldn't this help if you were trying to build up goodwill, so to speak, in terms of the strength of homosexual relations as conjugal partnerships? Wouldn't this be helpful in the longer term by demonstrating to the heterosexual community that they shouldn't be fearful, that in fact you could develop that institution equally as well as they historically did over their period of time, maybe even better? Maybe they'd want to join in.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Crooks and Mr. Trickey.

Ms. Michèle Caron: It seems to me that while we're examining why gays and lesbians want to get married, maybe we should look at why not. It seems to me that if we look at why not, it's more telling as to why we should. The reasons we would be excluded are exactly at the source of the discrimination. That's why we want it, because we want to put an end to it. So just flip the question around.

The Chair: Mr. Trickey.

Mr. Carl Trickey: It seems to me that the issue here is very simple. You have a decision to make, and whether you as a group and the Government of Canada have the guts to make it is what the issue is all about. The bottom line here is fairness and justice for all Canadians.

I call myself a Christian. There are people in this room who would probably not believe that, but I will refuse to call myself anything other than that. I believe being in my committed relationship, although I am obligated to refer to it as a covenant, is the best I can have now, but why should I have to wait and be gentle and kind and loving about this issue? I am in a committed relationship with the person I love, and I should be able to call that the same as you would call your relationship with your spouse or any other person in the country of Canada.

We are a country that has been built on equality. I have absolutely no problem with recognizing that the discussion is going to continue, and I also have no problem with being amongst individuals who say, you know what, I don't really agree with your relationship. I don't have a problem with that. But the bottom line is that someone has to set the rules, and that's your obligation. I believe you need to make the decision, and trying to appease both sides isn't the issue. What is fair, what is just, and what is right, that is the issue.

º (1615)

The Chair: Do you want to get in on this, or do I misread that?

Mr. James Crooks: No. Carl will be able to express it well.

The Chair: Fine.

Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

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

Ms. Caron, I did not have time to finish my previous questions. I would like to return to this issue of the sharing of jurisdiction. Of course, you know that the problem of shared jurisdiction would not be dealt with in the same way by me and the other people in this room but we will not enter into that debate.

It is agreed that out of the four options presented, two are unconstitutional from the point of view of jurisdiction. So the choice that we are faced with as a federal Parliament is either to allow or to refuse the marriage of same-sex persons. There is no other choice.

It also appears that the three rulings dealing explicitly and exclusively with the issue of same-sex marriage were handed down by three superior courts. The three courts, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, decided that the present definition of marriage was discriminatory under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the discussion therefore relates to section 1, namely whether such an exclusion is acceptable in a free and democratic society. The British Columbia court said that it was; Ontario and Quebec said that it was not.

My opinion, and I would be interested in hearing your comments on this, is that if ultimately the decision is left up to the Supreme Court, according to the precedents that you mentioned, an analysis of article 1 would result in a ruling that the only constitutional option, whether based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or shared jurisdiction, would be to allow the marriage of same-sex persons.

Is that also your analysis of the purely legal dimension of the problem?

Ms. Michèle Caron: It is difficult to make predictions these days but I think that there is a certain degree of conservatism that has crept into the Supreme Court of Canada, among others because of all the criticism against its supposed judicial activism. I do not believe that the Supreme Court is unaffected by such criticism.

I do not have a crystal ball but in my opinion the Ontario and Quebec decisions very closely followed jurisprudence on article 1 and if the Supreme Court of Canada follows the jurisprudence that it established so far, it will be in agreement and will uphold these decisions, I think.

What may prove to be more problematical is the measure for redress adopted by the Supreme Court. Will it invalidate the Marriage Act as it now exists, something I think would be very unlikely, or will it prefer the reading-in approach, to introduce a less discriminatory definition of marriage, that is of capacity?

º (1620)

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: I thank you. I thank the panel very much.

That in fact ends this portion of these proceedings. I'm going to take a slight break, but before I do, I want to explain now what's going to happen. When we reconvene in about five minutes, we will hear two-minute presentations from seven people. As you can well imagine, we can only take so many people in panels in the course of an eight- or nine- or ten-hour day. If you saw there were some panels that only had two, that would simply be by virtue of a last-minute cancellation. We try to have three-person or three-group panels. I think for anything more than that, quite frankly, you'll have to get a new chair to time manage.

What we've done is this. For those people who wish to appear but asked to do so later, we've offered them the opportunity to make a two-minute statement for the record, and that opportunity was up until noon. We have seven people. I'm going to name the people who will be making a two-minute statement. Then I'm going to suspend for a few minutes to allow the microphone to be set up and so on.

They are—and I apologize for the pronunciation, but I'm reading writing here and I may not be right—Doug Tatten, Sheila Watters, Mario Bourgeois, Kim Furlotte, Allison Comeau, Haifa Miller, and Glen McAllister.

I'm going to suspend for five minutes while we set up, and please, would those people who will be making their presentations make themselves available.

º (1621)

º (1630)

The Chair: I call back to order the 34th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We are going to be engaged in—with apologies to Mr. Bullard—the open mike part of our program.

I made a mistake in reading out the names, so their names are quickly: Sheila Watters, Mario Bourgeois, Kim Furlotte, Allison Comeau, Haifa Miller, Glen McAllister, Reverend Kimberley Gilroy, Greg Dabourn, Pierre Bourgeois, Reverend Brenda McKnight, Danny Jardine, Wendy Sweet, and James LeBlanc. Now, understand that everybody has two minutes. I'm going to be quite firm on this because we have 13 people.

I would call to the mike Sheila Watters and I would also ask Mario Bourgeois and Kim Furlotte to be ready. Two minutes.

Ms. Sheila Watters (As Individual): I probably won't take two minutes, you'll be happy to know.

I would like to address something that has been brought up this afternoon, and that's the matter of choice. Paul Macklin in particular brought the question up.

As a gay identical twin, I thought I should speak to the issue. My sister and I have as close a genetic connection as any two individuals could have and, I could say, as identical an upbringing as any two individuals could have. I am gay and my sister is heterosexual. I gather that sometimes is not the case, that commonly twins tend more to the same orientation. But that's not the case with me and my sister.

I'd like to steer away from the argument of nature versus nurture on this, because to me the fundamental thing is that I can guarantee to you it was not a choice I made to be gay. It's ludicrous to me to think that somebody who's not gay could tell me that it is a choice, and I have heard that. I can't imagine there is one gay person in this room who could stand up now and say they made a choice to be gay. Those of us who are gay are the only ones who know what's in our minds and in our hearts to be able to say that.

Is the two minutes up? I surprised myself.

The Chair: That gave you some idea that two minutes comes a lot quicker than you think.

Mario Bourgeois.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Bourgeois (As Individual): Thank you.

I will start in French because in 1969, as a minority in New Brunswick, we obtained recognition of our right to two languages in our province. We were a minority and we obtained this rights.

Today I am here to tell you that I am part of the homosexual minority, I am gay: I did not choose to be gay, I was born gay and I decided to accept it, end of story.

I have so many things to say. Let me turn to the first point. As a social worker, I work with young people at risk. In my profession, I realize that the choice we make here today will have an effect not only on us, as gays and lesbians, but also on our children. When we start saying that gays and lesbians are not equal to heterosexuals, it amounts to saying that they are not full-fledged persons.

There are children who grow up as gays and lesbians and I think that someone mentioned that the suicide rate was higher among them. I think that it is something to be mentioned and noted. Why? Because we are not included in society. We grow up believing that we are not full-fledged members of society. We grow up in the belief that we are mistaken about our decision on who we are.

º (1635)

[English]

On another point, parents state that they are gay and lesbian to their children, and then those children go into school and are told that their parents are not human beings with full rights. How do these children grow up and how do they believe in themselves? I know several youths who have questioned themselves very much on their sexual identity, not because they questioned who they were but because of how society questions them.

Merci.

The Chair: Thank you.

Allison Comeau, Haifa Miller, and Glenn McAllister.

Ms. Allison Comeau (As Individual): I'm speaking as part of a committee from the Unitarian Fellowship in Fredericton.

The issue at stake is fairness. Present law disallows marriage for same-sex couples. In not being able to choose to marry, millions of Canadians are disadvantaged, both materially and intangibly. Consequently, Canada itself is weakened by having so many families unable to claim the strength that marriage offers them.

This unfair division of Canadian families into two unequal lots does not fit in with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, nor does it match our sense of ourselves as Canadians—fair-minded citizens who embrace the pluralities that define us. For you, our legislators, the choice is clear. Justice requires of you to make things fair.

In fact, Canada works because you fulfill this duty to its citizens. We applaud you and thank you for this work. Luckily, this time the easiest thing to do is also the most fair and the least expensive. We, the Social Responsibility Committee of the Unitarian Fellowship of Fredericton, urge you to give same-sex couples the legal capacity to marry. Anything less would not be justice.

Allowing same-sex couples to marry is fair, legislatively easy—you just change the definition—and cheap. Simplicity, fairness, and low cost in one fell swoop. Hello. How often are parliamentarians given such perfection in a course of action?

One, there is no demonstrable harm to anybody if the Marriage Act were to change to include same-sex couples. People might feel hurt, but there is no demonstrable harm.

Two, there is no loss to opposite-sex couples if the benefits they currently reap are extended to same-sex couples.

Three, fairness in the Marriage Act will benefit everybody—opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples, the children from all these families, and all families without children. We don't need to be afraid of this change to a word.

Does that sign give me a minute more?

The Chair: No. That means you're done.

Just in a sentence, finish, if you would.

Ms. Allison Comeau: Okay. We don't need to change a word and we don't need to let people hijack the word as if they're the only people who can define it.

[Applause]

The Chair: I know people are going to be very supportive of things that are said, and again I would ask everybody to hold their enthusiasm until we are finished.

Did I skip over Kim Furlotte?

Kim Furlotte. Sorry about that.

Ms. Kim Furlotte (As Individual): Oh. I guess one more way we've been forgotten.

The Chair: Sorry.

Ms. Kim Furlotte: Just to touch back, there was one person who talked about fidelity. To let you know, I've been with my partner for three and a half years, and we are in a very monogamous relationship. If there was any infidelity there, we would not be together any longer.

The other issue I'd like to touch on is Bill C-250. Somebody brought up that if it were to go through, it would be an infringement on their religious beliefs. How is protecting me or protecting my partner or our fellow friends from literally being beaten to death...? People out there have been beaten to death. I did not plan to speak today, so I didn't do my research. One person I can think of is from the States—Matthew Shepherd. He was beaten to death because he was a gay individual.

This is the only thing we're looking for with Bill-250—not to stop you from believing in your religion or practising your religion. I just want to bring that forth today.

º (1640)

The Chair: Haifa Miller, Glen McAllister, and Reverend Kimberley Gilroy.

Ms. Haifa Miller (As Individual): My name is Haifa Miller. I am the mother of three children, one of whom is gay. I am a dedicated member of my church. I was raised in a Christian family where the love of Jesus was a guiding principle of faith.

Jesus was a rebel in his time. He had the courage to go into the temple and upset the tables of the money lenders to teach His love. We need that kind of courage today. Your committee needs that kind of courage to do the right thing.

I have two daughters and one son. What you decide in this committee will affect them. My oldest daughter is gay and will, if your committee is courageous, have the same rights as my younger daughter and my younger son. In every way she is a beautiful human soul in the eyes of the Lord Jesus. Under Canadian law, she needs those same rights for marriage, family, and community. I have heard good people here say, we will give gays the same rights as the rest of us, but they can't use the word “marriage” because that word is sacred and to be used only for heterosexual unions.

I say shame on you--you who think Jesus would agree with treating his children differently, unequally. Shame on you who would take away the goodwill associated with this word “marriage” from your brothers and sisters and children and grandchildren. Shame on you for not loving your fellow humans enough. Shame on you for not following the teachings of one of the greatest teachers humankind has ever known, Jesus. Did He teach us to love each other? You bet. Did He teach us to judge each other? No.

Government must protect the rights of all citizens. Does this committee stand for the rights of all Canadians? Does this committee stand for equal rights under the law? This is a complex question only if you forget everything you were ever taught by your mother about being nice to others and fair in your dealings with others. This is a complex question only if you forget everything you ever learned from Jesus and His love.

The Chair: Can you bring it to a close in one sentence?

Ms. Haifa Miller: I just want to say one thing. The voluntary union for life of one man and one woman is the current definition of marriage. Who are we kidding?

The Chair: Glen McAllister, Reverend Kimberley Gilroy, and Greg Dabourn.

Mr. Glenn McAllister (As Individual): Hi, my name is Glenn McAllister. There are a few in the room whom I recognize, and I'm glad to be here.

I first want to say I thought I was a gay man for, God, 20 some years. Not to discriminate against anybody in this room, but I believe I'm a sexual being. I have had a relationship with a woman and I've had a relationship with a man. I've been married to a woman and I've been married to a man. With the supremacy of God, under the charter, I'm very thankful that God loves us all. I don't know where I'd be without God in my life.

At the same time, I believe God sees us all as equal. I would hope that as human beings we all see each other as equal, and not because of marriage--not because of gay marriage, not because of straight marriage, whatever you want to call it--but because we are human and we are special to God.

I see that Bill C-23 at the present time recognizes--as far as the Income Tax Act is concerned--that opposite-sex couples have rights of common-law partners and opposite-sex partners. I feel that marriage between a man and a woman, from personal experience--because I have experienced both--should be set apart. It should be recognized as something special. I think a man and a woman are created differently emotionally, spiritually, and physically.

At the same time, though, to respect everyone in our society, I think everyone deserves to be respected equally.

Thank you.

º (1645)

The Chair: Thank you.

Reverend Kimberley Gilroy, Greg Dabourn, and Pierre Bourgeois.

Ms. Kimberley Gilroy (As Individual): Honourable members of the federal government, honourable chairperson, and fellow Canadian citizens, I am opposed to any changes to the current act, especially in regard to the term “sexual orientation”, on the basis of the following.

First of all, I want to say we need to remember God's grace in our discussion, not just legalisms.

First, I believe the term “sexual orientation” is too broad a definition and has a potential to open a Pandora's box that will not easily be closed. We've seen that on the news with child pornography. The list goes on and on. Our precious children aren't being protected fully the way they should be.

Second, as a Christian evangelical minister, I believe the Holy Bible tells us that this is not what God intended. Genesis 2:24: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” To put it in a nutshell, many of you have talked about how God loves us all. He does. God loves the sinner, but He hates the sin, and that is black and white.

Third, the essence of why many people came to Canada was to have religious freedom and freedom of speech. As a fifth-generation Canadian and a granddaughter of a World War II veteran, I cherish my freedom and I believe we should all take it seriously. We need to all have free speech in the future, including those who could be persecuted by the changes in this bill. The freedom of one can infringe on the rights of another.

I am a first-year nursing student, and part of our required reading, recommended by the faculty of UNB, was the article titled--and I'll mail it to you--Isolated and Invisible: Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered Youth. One thing in there did say that research has not proven it is genetic. Many still believe it is choice, and the opinions go across Canada. Many know that different reasons lead people to their choices. As well, we all know that experiences can have an effect.

As the true church of God, as well as citizens, if we truly care about our fellow citizens, we will share the truth with them.

The Chair: Thank you.

Greg Dabourn, Pierre Bourgeois, and Reverend Brenda McKnight.

Mr. Greg Dabourn (As Individual): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd just like to comment on a comment that was made earlier by Mr. Toews. He felt that Bill C-250 and the gay rights movement in general were an attack on Christianity. I just want to say I can sympathize with his feelings. I know how it is to be attacked, because I was attacked.

The first time I was attacked I was ten years old in the school grounds. A group of kids bigger than me pushed me on the ground, kicked dirt and snow in my face, and called me a fag and a queer. Then I was attacked by the principal because of the incident. He gave me a detention because I was the cause of the problem. I was attacked by my church when I went and heard these things being said about my feelings. All that time I just stayed silent and did nothing, as many of us did.

So when he says he feels attacked, I can understand how he feels--or if people here feel attacked, because I've been attacked so much, as many of us have.

For many years we stayed silent and said nothing, but now we're learning new things. We're becoming community leaders ourselves. We're learning how to counter-attack and fight back. We will continue to do so. We will continue to improve our skills at doing so. And yes, our rights movement will prevail and we will move forward.

Thank you.

The Chair: Next are Pierre Bourgeois, Reverend Brenda McKnight, and Danny Jardine.

Mr. Pierre Bourgeois (As Individual): Although my mother tongue is French, I will speak English.

Shortly after I came out I decided I would give up my soul-searching to find out why I was gay, because it was expending too much of my energy. The earliest memory I have about what was to become my sexual orientation was same-sex fantasy, and it did not only concern sex. Being over 50, my sexual awakening happened during the late 1960s and early 1970s during the sexual revelation, or what I think of as the heterosexual revolution. Being a good boy and having no positive role model of a gay relationship, I struggled with my sexual orientation and eventually married a woman. The result was three beautiful children of whom I am very proud.

º (1650)

But as they say in French, chassez le naturel, il revient au galop. My wife and I separated after 13 years. I met my life partner six years later, and that event changed my life for the better. I know what a commitment to a relationship is today because it is one that I renew with my spouse every day.

But that commitment in New Brunswick has no legal standing as of today. That is why I respectfully ask the committee to present Parliament with the recommendation that a law recognizing same-sex marriage be adopted.

Thank you.

The Chair: Next are Reverend Brenda McKnight, Danny Jardine, and Wendy Sweet.

Ms. Brenda M. McKnight (As Individual): Ladies and gentlemen, one thing that surprised me during the course of this discussion this afternoon is that the fact that marriage began in the church wasn't mentioned. Marriage began in the church because it is in God's word. The church was following the word of God and His word for us, His manual, if you like, for the human creature.

Canada is now a more secular society than a Christian one, although it began as a Christian society. I find this all very concerning; it really troubles me. Monsieur Richard Marceau said earlier that religious leaders are so concerned about saying they can't marry someone because religious freedom is in the Constitution. But discrimination is a word that's very much bandied around these days, and I believe I can see the time when I might be very afraid to refuse to marry anyone because they were a same-sex couple.

Now, I have no problem with same-sex couples, individuals, in my congregation. I will show them the love of God as much as I possibly can, but I cannot go beyond my faith, which says I must believe in and stand by the word of God as it is written in the Bible.

I would much rather see marriage become a civil institution administered by the government, whether it's the provinces or the federal government. Perhaps leave it to the churches to choose whether to bless those unions. That would save a lot of ministers from very difficult situations.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Now we have Danny Jardine, Wendy Sweet, and James LeBlanc.

Mr. Danny Jardine (As Individual): Hello, my name is Danny Jardine. I don't really have much prepared because I didn't plan to speak today. I'm going to speak very quickly because I want to comment on everything I heard today.

I'm a gay man. I've been in a relationship for two years. Both I and my boyfriend--I'm probably also the youngest speaker here today--are very active members of our community and our church. In fact, Andy Scott sat at a table with my boyfriend last weekend at the UNB Fredericton awards ceremonies.

I wanted to comment on some things here. In general, I think people should look more holistically at the Bible. The Bible teaches love, respect, and compassion, and they should not take it in such a literal sense. There is no gay agenda. It's been mentioned many times today. Gay people have always been there. It's just that now they can actually feel free to speak about what's on their mind.

There have been some studies mentioned, or some comments made, by some of the members and the panel about bigamy and polygamy being linked somehow to homosexual relationships. As they stated against other members, I'd like to see their studies on that. I don't know why the panel isn't more informed of some of these issues, but there are many sites out there that say homosexuality is biological--lots of studies. I can get you them all, but you really should have someone who does that.

There are also studies that show pedophilia is much more common among heterosexual men. There are studies out there--numerous ones.

Finally, I would like to comment on the choice thing. A couple of years ago in Saint John I was punched on the side of my face coming out of a gay bar. I had to have plastic surgery. A bone was broken in four places and I had a big dent in my face. If that punch had been a little bit higher I could have died or been blind.

We don't choose. If we choose, I would have quickly, after that moment, chose a different path in life. We are born with it, and that's how we are.

º (1655)

The Chair: Now we go to Wendy Sweet and James LeBlanc.

Ms. Wendy Sweet (As Individual): Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today.

I did a few years ago present a brief to the Royal Commission on Reproductive Technologies. I also helped organize a seminar on AIDS in the late 1980s, and I did a lot of research for both of those, which did take some of this into consideration.

There are obviously a lot of biological and physical differences between a man and a woman. For thousands of years the world has known husband and wife, mother and father with children, as a traditional family.

I have a question for you. Why now do we have a federal committee, after thousands of years, to amend the Constitution to allow for gay and lesbian marriages? Why in the last few years have the numbers increased so greatly that we're sitting here today? We have seen the breakdown of society, probably relating to prayer being taken out of the schools. This is what they are saying. Now we are further eroding the sanctity of marriage. The consequences are unknowable for our children, our grandchildren, and for generations to come.

Most of us know and love a gay or lesbian person, or people, and our hearts go out to them, but again, according to my research in medical journals that I have read, it's a very small percentage, less than 1% of the population, where this is not a choice. With all due respect, there have been psychological studies, but these are statistics that I read in The New England Journal of Medicine.

There is discrimination against traditional marriage, one man and one woman. I think they're saying there's discrimination against the same-sex marriages, but by the same token, aren't we being discriminated against?

Whose rights--

The Chair: Time is up.

Wendy Sweet: And what about our rights?

The Chair: Thank you.

And finally, James LeBlanc.

Mr. James LeBlanc (As Individual): It's funny. I hear that they say homosexuality is a choice. In that case I chose to be dyslexic, I chose to be left-handed, I chose to have astigmatism. I also chose to be gay--which I doubt.

In regard to this whole idea of marriage, if Canada did decide that homosexuals were allowed to get married, would the world suddenly stop? Would everybody suddenly die? I don't think so. The world will go on. People will live, and God will still be in control.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. I thank everybody.

I think there are faces here I've seen since I arrived at 8:30. I think I see our first panellist. You have helped us in this exercise. As you can well imagine, this is complicated. I think the one thing most people have agreed on is that they don't want to be us.

I would encourage you to follow our work. We're leaving now for Sudbury, Ontario--in fact, tonight. We'll be in Sudbury in the morning and in Toronto for two days, Thursday and Friday. We will continue to do this into the better part of April.

For clarification, this is not a special committee that was struck to deal with this issue. This is the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for the Parliament of Canada, and this is one of the things we've been asked to do as the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I think it's important you know that. We were doing the Divorce Act, we're doing, as I mentioned, Bill C-250, and probably four or five other things we've been asked to do, probably before this summer.

The exercise we've gone through here today is not an easy one. Lots of people are here with very strong feelings. Once again I have to say, as a Canadian, I'm pleased we're able to be here together, as Canadians with very different views, to discuss this and do it in a way that is, for the most part, respectful--I shouldn't say I think it's respectful; I know it is. Some of this is very hard for people to take on both sides of the issue; I can see it in the faces. I can see the restraint in the faces, and it is appreciated.

I want to thank John, Gloria, and Mark Jenkins, who own this place. I don't think they anticipated the numbers. Thank you for your creative chair placement. And thanks to Darlene O'Donnell, the manager, who was able to accommodate us in a last-ditch way.

I want to thank the translators and all the support people here, who don't often get.... Sorry, interpreters. From now on, every time I say “translators”, I am going to donate ten dollars to their favourite charity. The word is “interpreters”, I'm told--and if anyone laughs, he's going to be doing the same thing.

Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.