JUST Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, February 12, 2003

¹

1540

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

Mr. Daniel Cere (Director, Institute for the Study of Marriage, Law and Culture)

¹

1545

¹

1550

The Chair

Mr. Laurent McCutcheon (President, "Gai Écoute Inc. et la Fondation Émergence Inc.")

¹

1555

º

1600

The Chair

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt (National Vice-President, REAL Women of Canada)

º

1605

º

1610

The Chair

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt

The Chair

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt

º

1615

The Chair

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt

The Chair

Mr. Bill Hawke (Member, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) Ontario)

The Chair

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

Mr. Bill Hawke

º

1620

Mr. Geoff Robbins (Member, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) Ontario)

º

1625

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Daniel Cere

º

1630

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Laurent McCutcheon

The Chair

Mr. Laurent McCutcheon

The Chair

Mr. Laurent McCutcheon

The Chair

Mr. Laurent McCutcheon

The Chair

Mr. Laurent McCutcheon

The Chair

Mr. Laurent McCutcheon

º

1635

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt

The Chair

Mr. Laurent McCutcheon

The Chair

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

º

1640

Mr. Daniel Cere

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Daniel Cere

The Chair

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

º

1645

Mr. Daniel Cere

º

1650

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Daniel Cere

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

º

1655

Mr. Laurent McCutcheon

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Laurent McCutcheon

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Laurent McCutcheon

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Daniel Cere

Mr. Richard Marceau

»

1700

Mr. Daniel Cere

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.)

Mr. Daniel Cere

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. Daniel Cere

»

1705

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. Daniel Cere

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Daniel Cere

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Bill Hawke

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Bill Hawke

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Bill Hawke

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Bill Hawke

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Bill Hawke

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Bill Hawke

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Laurent McCutcheon

»

1710

The Chair

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Laurent McCutcheon

Mr. Derek Lee

»

1715

The Chair

Mr. Laurent McCutcheon

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Robbins

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Daniel Cere

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt

»

1720

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

»

1725

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt

The Chair

Mr. Laurent McCutcheon

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

»

1730

Mr. Laurent McCutcheon

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Daniel Cere

Mr. Geoff Robbins

Mr. Bill Hawke

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

Ms. Sophie Joannou (Member, Board of Directors, REAL Women of Canada)

The Chair

Mr. Daniel Cere

»

1735

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt

The Chair

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt

The Chair

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt

The Chair

Mr. Laurent McCutcheon

»

1740

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

---

NUMBER 016

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, February 12, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1540)  

[English]

    The Chair (Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): Good afternoon. Bienvenu.

    I call to order the 16th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we're engaged in a study on marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions.

    We have as witnesses today, from the Institute for the Study of Marriage, Law and Culture, Daniel Cere; from Gai Écoute inc. et Fondation Émergence inc., Laurent McCutcheon; from REAL Women of Canada, Gwendolyn Landolt, national vice-president, and Sophie Joannou, member of the board; and from PFLAG Ontario, Bill Hawke and Geoff Robbins.

    Before we invite the witnesses to make their presentations, I would like to advise members and the witnesses that we had a discussion as a committee in camera, and we were a little bit concerned about the nature of the discussions that had taken place to this point in this exercise. And this is not to cast aspersions on anyone, any member or any witnesses.

    The issue is an emotional one, and feelings are strong on either side--even strong in the middle. I think we all have to be a little measured in the language we use, because the people sitting with you as witnesses, and around this table, have different views as well. Frankly, I'm very reluctant as a parliamentarian to do anything that would in any way stifle debate and the opportunity Canadians have to bring their ideas to Parliament. At the same time, I do believe in the dignity of people and the fact that we need to be quite measured.

    Now, I know that people have come with written material and so on, and I know that people have a tendency to want to read it when they've done that, but please think about the fact that we are in this room, all trying to do the right thing, coming from very different perspectives. Try to think about the language we use and the way we do this.

    I do not want to have to interrupt anyone. I desperately do not want to do that, because I don't like the message it sends, but I also want people not to feel offended or...and really, I say this to everybody. I'm not identifying any particular argument or side of the argument, quite honestly.

    With that, I'm sure we can move forward as good citizens of the country and reach some conclusion in this. I invite everybody to do that, with respect for everybody.

    I'm going to call upon the first witness identified on our ordre du jour, the Institute for the Study of Marriage, Law and Culture.

    Hopefully, the message has also been sent that we try to do the presentations inside of ten minutes. We have four different panellists, so we'll have a little tougher time getting everybody in. Please try to stay in the time limit. I'll keep you posted on how you're doing.

    Mr. Daniel Cere (Director, Institute for the Study of Marriage, Law and Culture): Okay. As you know, my brief is quite a bit longer, but I'll give a summary of a few points.

    I think the hearings really signal a new stage in public debate over marriage. In the last five years there's been an expanding body of argumentation for same-sex marriage that's been tabled in both our academies and our courts, and now in our legislatures. However, I think the current context of debate in all of these areas tends to screen out a number of important concerns.

    Across all cultures, marriage has been a unique and evolving form of life that struggles to negotiate the challenges of long-term, opposite-sex bonding. We are a sexually dimorphic species, and marriage bridges that sexual divide. Opposite-sex bonding generates human life through the fusion of sex difference. Marriage struggles to manage that massive procreative mainframe of human life. It promotes a social ecology that supports the rights of children to know and to be connected to a stable relationship with natural parents. It fosters rich and complex lines of geneology and kinship that weave through history and culture.

    Our courts and legislatures must exercise care in the regulation of this institution. Institutions like marriage are not just functional entities. They're primal social realities that shape human identity in quite deep ways. The full-court press for same-sex marriage has taken Canadians by surprise, or some Canadians, and arguments to maintain the existing definition of marriage seem often confused, stumbling, and poorly articulated. Academic voices raising critical concerns about the same-sex marriage redefinition are few and far between, but there are major concerns to be raised, touching to the very core of the identity of marriage in Canadian society. I'll outline a few of them.

    First, the same-sex claim on marriage pushes for a “unitive” definition of marriage. The argument here treats the unitive dimension as loving intimacy between two persons, rather than the bridging of sex difference. The Ontario court recently agreed with this view, declaring that, “...marriage must be open to same-sex couples who live in committed relationships--marriage-like in everything but name....”

    Advocates of this view argue that scholars discover no real difference between the dynamics of homosexual and heterosexual bonding. But if we follow their footnotes carefully, we see that the handful of scholarly authorities cited to support this thesis are typically proponents of something called “close relationship theory”, a new school of thought that searches for common core dynamics of human intimacy. This approach is fine-tuned to discover exactly what it predicts--namely, that all close relationships operate according to the same base, core values. But this turns out to be true for all relationships--sibling relationships, friendships, opposite-sex unions, parent-child attachments, same-sex unions, and so on.

    So by inflating the notion of the unitive to this kind of generic interpersonal intimacy, you effectively kind of bracket out the specificity of marriage as a form of life struggling with something quite unique--the challenges of bonding sex difference; the union of male and female.

    It leads to the second major claim, that the same-sex claim dismisses the procreative nature of marriage. According to this view, the existence of infertile married couples defeats any emphasis on procreativity. The logic here is that if infertile heterosexuals are in, then procreation is out. If procreation is out, then same-sex marriage is in.

    Now, human cultures have always affirmed the procreative nature of marriage, while typically extending marriage to all heterosexuals. Same-sex advocates don't enquire why this is so, and they conclude that there's flat contradiction here.

    Marriage embeds itself in the male-female pair bonding as the procreative matrix for human life, but the inherent procreativity of opposite-sex bonding, as we all know, is not mechanical. It's massive and powerful, but complex and variable. What marriage does is publicly affirm the procreativity of heterosexual bonding while embracing its complex plasticity, its variability, into the fold of the conjugal bond.

    The recent judgments by the Ontario and Quebec courts do deliberately sideline procreativity from any definition of marriage. In doing so, they effectively impose a definition of marriage fully consistent with the essential non-procreativity of the same-sex experience but deeply inconsistent with the inherent procreativity of heterosexual experience. This is bound to have legal ramifications in the future.

¹  (1545)  

    Furthermore, the same-sex claim also insists that one key element of gay marriages is for the sake of the children in same-sex unions. However, here, too, candid same-sex advocates also recognize that gay marriage will mean fundamental shifts for children.

    An eminent gay legal theorist, William Eskridge of Yale University, puts it this way:

In our legal culture the linchpin of family law has been the marriage between a man and woman who have children through procreative sex. Gay experience...delinks family from gender, blood and kinship. Gay families...raise children that are biologically unrelated to one or both parents....

    Now, across all cultures, the institution of marriage has worked to support the ties of natural parents to their progeny. In doing so, it enshrines in a sense a basic birthright of children to know, to be connected to, and to be raised by their natural parents. This is a right for all children, for gay children as well as straight children.

    It enshrines this right in a broad but quite malleable way. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that a child has the right from birth to know and to be cared for by his or her parents. The same-sex marriage project in a certain sense signals a society no longer confident to promote a form of life that specifically affirms the importance of this connection between children and their natural parents.

    Finally, same-sex marriage is presented as a relatively innocent add-on for gays and lesbians who want to be married. This add-on, it is argued, will make little difference to heterosexuals, who constitute, of course, the mass component of coupling within our society.

    But can this claim be true? Anthropologists alert us to the fact that institutions like marriage are not just functional mechanisms to fulfill individual needs; they are rich in multi-layered realities with internal purposes that speak to complex meanings and identities within human community. Marriage has been the unique cultural site for bonding that bridges the sex divide. A rich history and complex heritage of symbols, myths, and traditions cluster around this sex-bridging bond.

    The proposal to delete heterosexuality from the definition of marriage will change the internal meaning of this institution, no doubt about it. It will inevitably affect the identity of those who are shaped and sustained by this institution. Thoughtful gay and lesbian theorists readily admit this.

    Lesbian scholar Ladelle McWhorter puts it this way, that if gay people are:

...allowed to participate as gay people in communities and institutions [heterosexuals] claim as theirs, our presence will change those institutions and practices enough to undermine their preferred version of heterosexuality and, in turn, they themselves will not be the same. [Heterosexuals] are right, for example, that if same-sex couples get legally married, the institution of marriage will change, and since marriage is one of the institutions that supports heterosexuality and heterosexual identities, heterosexuality and heterosexuals will change as well.

    Predicting the exact ramifications of this change is difficult. Previous history would indicate that when core features of marriage are tampered with--for instance, monogamy, with shifts to polygamy, or permanence with major reforms in divorce law--we can safely predict that the impact will be significant, and in William Eskridge's words, “in a certain sense destabilizing”.

    This destabilization, the destabilization caused by redefining marriage in terms congruent with same-sex experience, will be felt most significantly not by the small number of gay and lesbian couples who might be interested in marriage but by the myriad young men and women struggling to forge meaningful, stable, opposite-sex bonds in their lives. Marriage is essential to that task.

    Persons of diverse sexual identities have a fundamental right to dignity and respect, and one may put forward alternative visions to sustain that identity. That's an option in a pluralistic society. However, mutual respect and recognition should not subvert the right of others to maintain and foster the integrity of their own forms of life. And marriage has been essential to heterosexual life, identity, and bonding. That point is conceded on all sides.

    In conclusion, we've seen a large layer of advocacy scholarship crystallize around the same-sex demand for marriage over the last few years, but it's thin ice for legal and political decision-makers to be skating on. The issues at stake in the debate are fundamental when you're about to signal to future generations that we are a society no longer comfortable supporting an institution specifically committed to the massive and complex reality of heterosexual bonding; that we are society that no longer feels comfortable in publicly affirming a form of life specifically dedicated to connecting children to their natural parents; that we are a society willing to risk disconnecting marriage from its deep rudders in long-term heterosexual bonding, procreativity, natural parent-child attachments, and willing to sit back to see where this good old institution will drift.

¹  (1550)  

    We can press on with the project, but our generation won't be the ones who will have to bear the costs and risks. These will be borne by our future generations.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. McCutcheon.

[Translation]

    Mr. Laurent McCutcheon (President, "Gai Écoute Inc. et la Fondation Émergence Inc."): Good afternoon. First of all, I would like to thank you for giving me this opportunity to express my views. I confess that I feel moved to be testifying here today, especially after hearing the comments I have just heard. As you know, if this was 30 years ago and I was appearing here at the age I am now, I would have been considered a criminal. That is what I would have been. It is Pierre Elliott Trudeau who decriminalized homosexuality. Until he did, we were criminals. Over the past 30 years, it has been recognized that people such as myself are not criminals, and today, we can even appear before parliamentarians. What I would like to ask you is to be open, to be understanding, to be aware that there are some things in people different from ourselves.

    I understand that this gentleman has many reservations about marriage for same-sex couples. I also understand that he has no knowledge or concept of what homosexuality actually is. I think he is simply speaking emotionally. I don't quite know why, but I would say that everything he says is based largely on ignorance.

    Please understand that, at my age, I am not here to plead for my future; I would say that my future is behind me. I am here to make an attempt to persuade you for the sake of young people, for the sake of new generations. I work with organizations that assist homosexual people. I have been doing volunteer work for 22 years, and in fact have devoted my life to it. Every day, I see people with huge problems. I see young people; I have studies that show that the risk of suicide among young homosexuals is 6 to 14 times higher than among young heterosexuals. Why is that? Because there are still people like this gentleman, like others in society, who reject homosexuality and do not wish to allow homosexuals to live their lives to the full.

    Allowing people to live their lives to the full means opening up the institutions, in my view. It means allowing homosexuals to live like other people. I do not see how access to marriage encroaches upon anything, or takes away anything. It is simply access to full recognition, to equality. The question of parenthood is something else again, but marriage is a legal contract.

    You have my brief. I am taking this opportunity to share my feelings with you. This is indeed an extremely emotional debate. It's the shock brought on by new ideas. We've seen this with people who have appeared before today, and we already have evidence of it today. Our society has changed enormously in recent years. Thirty years ago, I would never have thought that I could appear in Parliament to discuss marriage and homosexuality.

    When I was young, like some of you around the table who are of my generation—some of you are perhaps a little younger—I was educated just like you were. When I was a little boy, I was also told that homosexuality was bad, that it was a sin. I believed it. I was told that homosexuality was a dreadful thing; I believed it. I was told that it was a criminal act, and indeed it was. But fortunately things have changed, society is moving forward, and we have come to a stage where we need to say that we must continue making progress in our society, we must continue to evolve socially. The hardest thing, we know, is to accept that something different from you can even exist.

    We tend to define everything as a function of ourselves. If we are heterosexual, we believe that the universe is heterosexual. Some homosexuals make exactly the same mistake. I'm not here to tell you that homosexuality is superior to heterosexuality. I am just here to tell you that we are there, that we exist. If you prohibit us from marrying, we will not cease to exist. We will continue to exist. A society that can make a place for all its citizens can be nothing other than a winning society, an open society. Why reject a whole segment of the population? What is to be gained by denying homosexuals access to society's institutions?

    About 10 per cent of the population out there is waiting to hear whether the message that you in Parliament send out is positive or negative. Your decision will be either for, or against. Some of you here have children and even grandchildren, and don't tell me that you will never have to face this issue. At least 1 person in 10 is homosexual, so someone is going to have a child or grandchild who is a homosexual.

¹  (1555)  

    Do you want to make a place for those young people in society? Do you want them to be happy?

    I brought my brief with me, but I will go through my comments a little faster, since I have already given you a very long preamble. I'll go straight to page 8. This brief is founded on a number of values. One of the most important values resides in the fundamental rights people are being deprived of, and that interferes with personal development. How do you expect young people in society to aspire to equality and full recognition if they are still being denied access to institutions? This is a fundamental right cited as grounds for requesting access to marriage. The call line that I represent receives at least 20,000 calls a year from young people in difficulty or in distress. The most difficult thing homosexuals have to deal with is rejection, and I hope that the results which flow from this committee's work will not yet again constitute rejection.

    Another value that I discuss in this brief is social change. Thirty years ago, we could of course not have had a discussion like today's. It could not have been done, it simply was not possible. Society is changing, and evolving. I believe that now, in 2003, it is ready to make a place for homosexual persons, and to redefine the concept of marriage so that homosexuals can live their lives on a basis of equality, without discrimination. You have, I believe, seen many studies. It is my view that most Canadians are ready to rethink the definition of marriage.

    Another value we put forward can be found on page 9, at point 3. It is a fundamental right. Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and courts are beginning to say this loud and clear, sexual orientation is included in section 15 of the Charter as interpreted by the Supreme Court, even though it was not explicitly included at the time the Charter was adopted. The Charter now protects the rights of homosexuals. Thus, I believe that prohibiting marriage would be a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    Another aspect I consider fundamental is the role of the state and the courts. Though I cannot foresee the future—I don't have a crystal ball—I believe unequivocally that in view of the progress we have seen in recent years the courts will end up recognizing that marriage is an institution that should be open to all without distinction. Should the state—should parliamentarians—wait for the courts to decide? I believe that as parliamentarians, the onus is upon you to take the lead, to legislate so that homosexuals can have access to the institution of marriage.

    Another consideration I believe is important is freedom of choice with respect to marital status. Homosexuals and heterosexuals should always have freedom of choice with respect to their marital status. There cannot be just one marital status to which everyone has to conform. Some people will prefer not to marry, others will want to live as common-law spouses. In Quebec, there is such a thing as a civil union. I believe it important that we retain the notion of freedom of choice, and not impose a specific model on anyone.

    The sixth value, on page 12 of the brief, is same-sex parenting. In my view, this is the thorniest of them all. It is not the state that can decide whether homosexuals will have children. Nor is it for the state to decide whether lesbians will resort to artificial insemination. The children are already there; they exist and will continue to exist, and there will be more of them. The issue is to determine whether you, as parliamentarians, want to make a place for these and future children in society, and ensure they are protected. Prohibiting marriage will not eliminate the children. That sort of thinking is erroneous. The children are there, and are claiming their rights. They need rights, and they ask for your understanding and generosity.

º  (1600)  

    Accordingly, as far as this aspect is concerned, I am obviously proposing that, on behalf of the organizations I represent, the definition of marriage be changed to enable same-sex couples to participate in the institution of marriage. Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Merci.

    Now, REAL Women, for 10 minutes.

    Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt (National Vice-President, REAL Women of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    Marriage is an historical, worldwide institution that possesses an inherent meaning with universal characteristics. It is not, and has never been, simply a construct of common law. Common law merely encaptured the essence of marriage. Marriage universally is not a mere social construct, because social constructs change, but the heterosexual nature of marriage has not changed through thousands of years of recorded of history and through a variety of cultures. It's valued so highly for a very good reason--namely, the traditional marriage of a man and woman is essential for the survival of the human race.

    This is reflected in English, American, and European law, and it's reflected in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN International Covenant of Human Rights, and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. All of them define marriage as a man and a woman.

    Why has it been so valued throughout thousands of years and it's never been changed? Because marriage between a man and a woman serves society as no other relationship serves it.

    The purpose of marriage has three main purposes: it promotes the long-term cooperation between men and women; it perpetuates humanity through procreation; and it provides the crucible for the socialization and raising of children.

    Now, we know that marriage between a man and woman is the most stable of all human relationships. Statistics Canada pointed this out in 1998. It found that 63% of heterosexual couples who even live common law break up within 10 years, but only 14% of legally married couples do.

    We know that 0.05% of homosexuals live in a same-sex union, and we do know there are 8 million legally married couples, men and women, in Canada. Nobody has forced their hand, but they have done that, because that's what works best for men and women. Even so, we know that marital fidelity is what is most common in the traditional marriage, and we know that it is simply not present and almost unknown in homosexual relationships. This fact is acknowledged even by the homosexual community itself.

    We have material from the homosexual community we'd like to distribute. In XTRA!, their national paper, they say that nine minutes of sex with a stranger is as enjoyable as twenty years with someone else. In other words, their culture is noticeably different, and marital fidelity is not part of the homosexual culture.

    We know that marriage perpetuates humanity through procreation. By its very nature, men and women have the potential to create children, to give birth to children. We know that the same-sex union has no potential, no possibility of creating children, except in getting material from a man and woman outside of that union. The only way they can have children is legally through adoption, or through artificial reproductive processes. But it's the potential to have children; and the sexual act is different between a man and a woman, therefore, than between two homosexuals.

    Marriage also provides a crucible for the socialization and raising of children. A committed heterosexual marriage union provides the best environment into which children can be born and reared. Again, I'll quote a Statistics Canada study from October 1996, a longitudinal study of 23,000 Canadian children. My reference for it is in the back of the brief. It was established clearly--and this was not only in Canada, but also internationally, through a European study I've also referenced--that it's the man and the woman raising their children that is the very best for all children.

    This was encaptured by Mr. Justice Gérard La Forest, in the Nesbit and Egan decision of the Supreme Court in 1995, when he said that the heterosexual relationship is:

...firmly anchored in the biological and social realities that heterosexualcouples have the unique ability to procreate, that most children are theproduct of these relationships, and that they are generally cared for and nurturedby those who live in that relationship. In this sense, marriage is by natureheterosexual.

In fact, traditional marriage is the only unit in society that expands resources to care for children on a routine and sustaining basis.

º  (1605)  

    The question of homosexual parenting has come up, and I'd like to make this very important point. Again, I refer to page five of my brief when you get it. I think you should take a look at it, because it's crucial to what I'm saying about the raising of children. It's acknowledged that social science literature has stated that children raised in same-sex...do not suffer, and are not detrimentally affected. However, much of that material is a reflection of the unfortunate fact that today a high cost is paid by scholars for opposing and criticizing the politically correct pro-homosexual position.

    In fact, in the case of homosexual parenting, there is a total absence of substantial criticism of the literature. Now, this has been reviewed, all the literature on homosexual parenting, and the evidence from several studies does not establish that homosexual parenting is equivalent to heterosexual parenting. The unreliability of current studies on same-sex parenting was determined in a number of studies.

    For instance, as you'll see at the bottom of page five, Philip Belcastro did a study. There were three or four studies. Professor Richards Williams, an expert in psychometrics and empirical research in psychology, has also conducted research on homosexual parenting.

    He said that most of the studies supporting homosexual parenting use minimal standards of scientific regulation and do not have conclusions based on the facts. Researchers in fact have concluded definitively that anyone who says there are no significant differences in children reared by homosexual parents is not basing it on valid research.

On page six are some examples of why the research is invalid--samples of not significant number, studies involve subjects who are not randomly selected, and on and on.

    So that's important to know, that homosexual parenting is not equivalent to children raised in the heterosexual family.

    There is a worldwide justification for retaining the traditional definition of marriage. The justification is that the long-accepted and understood definition of marriage is strengthened by one single reality: all jurisdictions in the world, with the exception recently of the Netherlands, define marriage exactly the same way. Even those countries that have given same-sex unions some sort of recognition for domestic purposes have never said it was a marriage. Probably Norway, which is one of the most so-called progressive countries, said it best, that marriage is the most fundamental social unit and the national framework for bringing up children. Marriage has a unique status, and no provisions were proposed in Norway for marriage between homosexuals. They say that the terms “wedlock” and “marriage” relate to a heterosexual couple, not same-sex.

    Every country that has given civil union recognition has not given all the rights of marriage to homosexual couples. The reason for that is a very important one. The reason that same-sex couples are not legally married in other countries, with the exception of the Netherlands, is that same-sex unions are not functionally equivalent to marriage. They are not the same. They are different. They should be called whatever they want, but their relationships can never be called marriage.

    How do we know that? Well, one of the best sources to look to is the homosexual researchers themselves. I refer to a book written by a homosexual couple who lived together for 12 years, one a psychiatrist, one a psychologist. They wrote a book called The Male Couple. They pointed out the major differences between same-sex and a traditional marriage. In the same-sex union, there is sexual infidelity; the unions are of limited duration; there are differences in the financial arrangement between heterosexual and same-sex couples; their skill compatibilities are different; and their lifestyle is totally different, in particular with the prevalence of drug use.

º  (1610)  

    I could go on and list what they said in detail, but those were the major differences that homosexuals have found. Now, this is homosexual research done by homosexuals for homosexuals. It's not anything you can call biased. So there are really constructive differences.

    Same-sex unions can quite fairly be called consensual sexual liaisons, but they're not marriage. Homosexual advocates want to make it user friendly. Their cultural message is clear: they don't want to have the long-term bonding that traditional marriage is.

    A marriage between a man and a woman is a long-term--

    The Chair: Excuse me, but--

    Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt: I'll be finished in a minute.

    The Chair: Quite quickly, then.

    Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt: I describe marriage as a long-time union, tailored to the complex challenges and struggles of long-term, heterosexual bonding and to children to create the bridge between the past, present, and future generations.

    There's one other point I'll make, Mr. Chairman, if I may. What would happen if this committee decided to say that homosexual couples and lesbians could enter into traditional marriage? It would fundamentally change marriage. There would be loss of sexual fidelity, which is paramount in any marriage; the loss of monogamy in a marriage, in that one man and one woman for life would be lost; and perhaps one of the most significant things, it would fundamentally reform marriage. If you can say that two men, and two women, can enter into a marriage, then in principle there's no way you can argue that three people, or a father and a daughter, or a brother or a sister, cannot. They have the compatibility. They have the love. They have all the things that homosexual couples claim they have. There is no way you can stop, and it will fundamentally reform marriage.

    So public policy requires--

º  (1615)  

    The Chair: Mrs. Landolt, I--

    Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt: --that you look for the public good, and the public good is maintaining traditional marriage, not looking to the private interests of other couples, of homosexuals or lesbians.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Messrs. Hawke and Robbins.

    Mr. Bill Hawke (Member, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) Ontario): Mr. Chair, honourable members, thank you for this opportunity....

    Sorry?

    The Chair: Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Before you begin, would you please simply tell us what PFLAG stands for, please?

[English]

    Mr. Bill Hawke: Yes. PFLAG is short for Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. It's a support group.

    Thank you for this opportunity to speak. I'm Bill Hawke, and I'm here with my wife, Gail, and also Jeff Robins and his wife, Joyce. We're members of PFLAG Ottawa, which is a support group for parents, friends and families of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and trans-gendered people.

    Gail and I have two children. Our daughter is straight and our son is gay. We raised our children in a rural setting north of Winnipeg, giving them introduction to many different training opportunities, including the YMCA-YWCA, cultural activities, 4-H, and treatment of animals in a fair and a humane way.

    When our son told us he was gay, we had to educate ourselves as to what impact that had on his life. We found that he was still the son we understood before, but his sexual orientation was different from what we'd envisioned. He was still the son we loved, and would continue to love, so much. He was not different as a person.

    As he grew up, we were concerned about the opportunities that would be denied him because of his sexual orientation, and we were astounded to learn that the government was part of the restricting groups. Our two children, who in our eyes were born equally, are not treated equally by our government. Change has come a long way since we started on the road to adulthood with our son and daughter, but there remains a significant obstacle in our son's path.

    Our daughter lived in a common-law relationship for five years, and she and her partner were married last year. She had a private ceremony of her choosing, with a few friends, with a representative of the government officiating. Our son will not have that opportunity as the law currently stands. You are not allowing him to marry. Why?

    Our son lived in a common-law relationship also for six years, but had no opportunity to choose marriage with his partner. Mr. McKay was quoted as asking, "Have the people of the world been getting it wrong for the last two or three thousand years?” The answer is no. Up until a few hundred years ago, the marriage of two people that has evolved to today's ceremony was often performed for people of the same sex. The church persuaded the governments to stop performing this union for two people of the same sex.

    The bill of rights reinstated equality for all people, and the laws need to catch up. The last 2,000 or 3,000 years have seen unbelievable oppression of minority groups, people of colour, disadvantaged people, ethnic groups, and the list goes on and on.

    Canada is a leader in recognition of equality for all. We have come a long way, but we haven't done it yet. Equality for gay and lesbian people has improved, but there's more to do, and marriage is a significant part outstanding.

    Would our daughter's marriage be affected if her brother were able to marry his partner? How is that conceivable? A sister would not suggest that her brother have anything but equal treatment in the law. Would our marriage be diminished in any way because our son is recognized as an equal and allowed to marry? We see no effect. In fact, we'd be proud to stand with our son in the same ceremony that we celebrated 35 years ago when we pledged our lives together.

    How is the exclusion of the opportunity to marry fair for my two children? They are--why are they not?--equal. Why do both our children not have the same opportunities? Their sexual orientation should have nothing to do with the options available. They are brother and sister, son and daughter, equal in all respects except recognition.

    At PFLAG, we have people come to us after they have learned that their son or daughter, brother or sister, or friend has told them that they are gay or lesbian. They are having difficulty coping and understanding what this means to their life. Will they be safe? Will they be recognized? Will they be less equal?

    It would be very comforting to be able to say that to their government it does not matter, that they are still the same people and have all the rights, options, and recognition of heterosexual people, that sexual orientation doesn't matter.

    If it were a colour issue, we would not tolerate exclusion based on colour. Why is sexual orientation treated in a different way? Our son did not choose to be gay. It is part of his genetic being. This is not a choice. I know of no one who would choose to be gay or lesbian or bisexual or trans-gendered. Their road is too difficult. They suffer exclusion in all their daily activities. And to have their government participate in that exclusion is not acceptable.

º  (1620)  

    Would you exclude marriage from one of your children? Why are you doing it to mine? You can wait for the courts to give you direction or you can take the initiative and the lead and recommend change to the legislation now. It is your duty.

    Mr. Geoff Robbins (Member, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) Ontario): My name is Geoff Robbins. My wife, Joyce, and I are also members of PFLAG Ottawa. Joyce has three children who have regarded me as their father since at least December 28, 1985, the date the Province of Ontario recognized our relationship.

    Our younger son is gay, and our daughter and her older brother are heterosexual. When Richard was about five, his father's best friend, Martin, told Joyce that Richard was probably gay. Martin is gay, and when he was outed, Richard's father dropped him like a hot potato. They were in the army then, so of course Martin then was discharged.

    Joyce began attending Martin's church and met and made friends with a number of Martin's gay friends. So when Richard came out to his mother in 1983, about the time I came along, their relationship was essentially unchanged. He was still her son and she still loved him.

    I became a member of the same church and realized what Joyce did, that gays and lesbians have the same wants, needs, and feelings as straight people. My gay stepson, Richard, according to Joyce has become closer to me than his straight brother, in part because of the fear Joyce and I have of how society in general will react to him and be allowed to use the law as a means of treating him differently.

    When our church friend, Penny, was killed in a traffic accident in 1998, not only did we grieve for her but we also immediately and instinctively reached out to comfort Penny's widow. I know that term will grate on some ears here, but we know no other appropriate term to use. She cried and grieved just like a heterosexual, because she was just as devastated, in the same way and to the same extent that a straight wife would be. Penny and Leona's relationship lasted longer than my straight son's two marriages.

    We went to the memorial service the night before the funeral--and the church was full for both--to allow the friends of Penny and Leona, who had worked with them, to grieve publicly, even if they had to work at the mall or teach in the schools.

    On the way to their memorial service, Joyce asked me what to say to Leona. My response was, “There's nothing you can say. Just give her a hug.” The hugs were very long. It was months before they began to shorten, and we still really don't talk about this with her.

    A couple of weeks ago, Leona preached in our church and said that Penny's faith in God was still a major help to her, over four years later, and the congregation applauded.

    You, the members of justice committee, are in effect debating whether Penny and Leona were a real couple with a real love for each other. There are thousands of couples in this country who would react in the same way in a similar set of circumstances, and neither we nor our married daughter would be offended in any way if these couples were called “married”.

    In fact, Joyce and I refuse to denigrate those relationships by calling ourselves “husband”, “wife”, or “married”. We usually say, “The Province of Ontario has chosen to recognize our relationship”, because it is governments, federal and provincial, that have made a choice. We want those beautiful words back in our vocabulary.

    Penny and Leona had parents. All parents want the best for each of their children, and believe they shouldn't have to fight the government to get equal treatment for all their children. We think we have a right to expect that when our two sons find people they want to commit to for the rest of their lives, government will treat them in the same way--not special rights, just the equality the Constitution says they're supposed to have.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

º  (1625)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

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

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

    To borrow one of the witness' statements, I think we're all here for the next generation. That's what we're looking at.

    I note that one of the witnesses was somewhat critical of Mr. Cere's opinion, saying that it was made in ignorance, if I have the translation correct. I think we need to look at some of the comments Mr. Cere made.

    Perhaps, Mr. Cere, you could talk about some of your professional background. I think your research outlined in the paper, contrary opinions notwithstanding, is impressive. I think it reflects a scholarly and professional approach, and I think you conducted yourself in that manner.

    Now, Mr. Cere, beyond a research of the literature, can you offer us more in terms of your professional research, what kind of professional research, and perhaps touch upon what your institution in fact is all about? We didn't get much of that on the record.

    Finally, if you have a minute or so, address this issue of talking about a homosexual relationship as being the same as a heterosexual relationship in the context of marriage. I know you didn't say that, but others have said that. Another witness indicated that brothers and sisters have very close relationships, and of course if one dies, at a funeral the other cries. If a father dies, the son cries. I mean, there is something very human about that. What is different about a marriage? I think that is what we need to know.

    Perhaps you can offer us some insight.

    Mr. Daniel Cere: In terms of my background, my formation is in the area of social theory and ethics. My work in this area actually has largely focused on debates internal to the gay community, looking at people like William Eskridge, Richard Moore, and others who've been probing the question of redefinition of marriage for a number of years. In fact, that's where the major body of thinking is taking place right now.

    There is relatively little, I think, in terms of serious scholarly work in the arena of looking at marriage as an institution for opposite-sex bonding. Some of the scholars who have come to the defence--for instance, John Finnis, Gerard Bradley, Robert George--would be people I wouldn't feel comfortable with in terms of the kind of approach they bring to it, which is more of a traditional natural law approach.

    My own work has largely been going into the literature, taking a look at the arguments. As you see in my brief, I'm just beginning the process of sifting. One of the things we haven't seen in academia yet is a response. Academic movements tend to go in waves. We've seen about ten years of writing, work, and energy devoted to the argument, in this case, for redefinition, but we haven't seen a whole lot of argumentation on the other side as yet.

    Our little institute started off at McGill with people like our James McGill professor, Katherine Young, Margaret Somerville in ethics, Christopher Gray, me, and a handful of others, including Doug Farrell from religious studies and people who wanted to look at the marriage question and sort of spread out a little bit. Beyond that we've held a couple of symposiums, a number of conferences, and have done some writing in that arena.

    On the question you raised in terms of differences between opposite-sex bonds and heterosexual bonds and how marriage fits into this discussion, I think as you see in my brief, I don't use the words “ethics” or “morality” once. To me it's not the issue here. Really, the issue is an institution, and the cultural framing of a particular type of bonding, what we do, and how we begin to redefine that in significant ways.

    One of my big concerns, which I'm trying to sort of place on the table, is will this have some impact on in a sense the mainframe here, which is the men and women who are going to be opposite-sex bonding? We've seen a lot of destabilization occur in the last 20 years in the area of marriage, such as declining marriage rates, which is a big thing. It's not just divorce rates that destabilized marriage but also the decline of marriage as an institution. Less people are marrying. That has an impact.

    Opposite-sex bonding is a challenge. It's a big fact in human culture, a huge fact. It's essential to the procreative social ecology of human beings. It's a massive, complex reality. Marriage has been an institution trying to juggle that stuff, trying to work with it, trying to maintain it, trying to sustain it, trying to move toward more stable, long-term bonds, providing good contexts for procreative bonding and raising of biological offspring. That's a big, tough, complex challenge.

    With marriage you've had an institution dedicated to that, and I think one of the struggles we've been facing in the last 20, 30, or 40 years is a certain destabilization of that institution. We're seeing some negative trends. One of my concerns is, in the redefinition of marriage once more, will that continue the process of destabilization?

    In terms of some of our best theorists on the side of the argument that argues for same-sex marriage, I think William Eskridge is far and away the most prominent, preeminent spokesperson right now in this debate, but he too admits that this is going to have an impact, a certain destabilizing impact.

    So I think we have to look at the other side of the picture in this debate. Yes, there are hurting people in the gay and lesbian community, but there are lots of hurting people in the heterosexual community as well.

º  (1630)  

    So it's not just a case of individual people. Rather, it's a case of how an institution impacts in a society and cares for some major purposes and goals within that complexity of society.

    The Chair: Mr. McCutcheon wants to give an answer as well.

    Mr. Vic Toews: Well, no, I'd prefer to ask this witness one more question, because I think it's crucial--

    The Chair: You're over your seven minutes.

    Mr. Vic Toews: Then that's fine. I'll wait for my....

    The Chair: Okay.

    Mr. McCutcheon.

[Translation]

    Mr. Laurent McCutcheon: If I may, I would like to point out that, in my opinion, there are not many scientific answers to the type of questions that are being asked. There is no background history on marriage for same-sex couples. You cannot study this, it has never existed. So we are dealing with something new.

    I will leave it at that, the gentleman is not interested in listening to me. You can give the floor to someone else.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Marceau, seven minutes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Laurent McCutcheon: Sir, it is extremely impolite not to listen to the answers.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

    Mr. Laurent McCutcheon: I am deeply insulted. You ask questions and you don't listen to me.

[English]

    The Chair: [Inaudible—Editor]...and you indicated to me that you wanted to answer. I gave you the opportunity to answer--

[Translation]

    Mr. Laurent McCutcheon: I must say that I find it unacceptable for a parliamentarian to conduct himself in this manner. I am here as a private citizen. I show respect, I express my opinion. The gentlemen has asked questions and does not have the decency to listen to what I have to say. This is unacceptable in my opinion.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. McCutcheon, again, this is very emotional. I understand that it's emotional to you, and I understand that the interventions being made are not views--

[Translation]

    Mr. Laurent McCutcheon: This is not an emotional issue, this is a matter of education.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Toews is a member of Parliament, and he attends these committee hearings regularly. Unfortunately--and I say this about all members here--from time to time we become engaged. It isn't intended to be offensive.

    On behalf of all the committee, we'll make an effort to--

    Mr. Laurent McCutcheon: I'm sorry; if I could speak English better, perhaps he could listen to what I have to say. But because I speak French, he put the translating...on the table. It wasn't kind of him.

º  (1635)  

    Mr. Vic Toews: I want to put my comments on the record right now.

    The Chair: Very quickly, Mr. Toews, and that will be the last intervention before we go to Mr. Marceau.

    Mr. Vic Toews: I was speaking to my colleague about an answer that was given by the previous witness. I wanted to follow up. I was explaining what I needed to do. I will get to Mr. McCutcheon in terms of what questions I want to ask him.

    I also read the transcripts that are given. If Mr. McCutcheon is taking insult, I don't understand why he would be. But I need to consult with my colleague on this matter.

    So I don't see where the insult is. This is done on a regular basis in this committee, and I have a limited amount of time in order to make my point.

    The Chair: Both opinions having been expressed, I'm going to go to Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

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

    First of all I would like to thank you all for coming here today. You have given us your opinion. Unfortunately, my questions to you will be short and I would like short answers because there are so many things to be said about this topic.

    Ms. Landolt, at the very end of your presentation you said—and I was somewhat surprised—that to allow... First of all, are you married?

[English]

    Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt: Yes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Fine. Earlier, you said, at the very end, that allowing homosexual marriage would result in the loss of sexual monogamy. These are your words, I wrote them down. Could you explain why allowing two homosexuals to marry would cause you and me, who are heterosexuals, to be more prone to infidelity?

[English]

    Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt: The answer is not whether I'd be inclined to infidelity. That's not the issue. The issue is much deeper than that. The issue is, once you open up marriage to the homosexual community, lesbian and homosexual, their relationships are different. One of them is that sexual fidelity is not part of their relationship. There are studies I have quoted here, and we could give you their own material, that show they are not that way.

    As to the length of their relationships, they actually last about three years. Most marriages do not....

    So I'm not talking about individuals, I'm talking about the concept of marriage. It will change because those two basic principles of sexual fidelity...which is very important not just for the couple but for the children. But in the book The Male Couple, which I referred to, they said that it is not possible to sustain a homosexual relationship with one partner; it almost does not exist. And they all say that.

    So that changes the whole concept of marriage--not my concept but the whole principle of marriage, which is based on the fidelity of one man and one woman committed to each other for life. That's the whole concept. And it's swept away by allowing in a same-sex or lesbian couple.

    The Chair: Mr. Marceau, I'd just bring it to your attention that Mr. McCutcheon again wants to answer.

    Now, you can wait; I just wanted to give Richard a heads-up so that he wouldn't--

[Translation]

    Mr. Laurent McCutcheon: Ms. Landolt, I think that you can always find studies here and there. I am a homosexual man and I have lived with my partner, who is sitting here behind me, for 30 years. You can always consult other studies. I don't take drugs either. I know a lot of people personally and I have a lot of friends. Obviously, somebody may have said that. I am not denying that somebody said that, but I do not believe that this person's statements were based on anything scientific.

[English]

    The Chair: Let me bring it to the attention of the--

    Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt: If I may respond to that, Mr. McCutcheon, it's not a question of how long you've lived with your partner--

    The Chair: Mrs. Landolt, order.

    Let me bring it to the attention of the witnesses--and I direct this to all of you--to please direct your comments to me. Refer to other members or other witnesses in the third person, please, because it becomes less personal. It takes this discussion to the level where it should be. It's not personalities and particular individuals we're here to discuss but concepts.

    Now, Monsieur Marceau has control of his seven minutes, and he now has a question.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Cere, in your brief, you referred several times to concepts such as "intrinsic meaning", "fundamental nature", "fundamental characteristics" and "fundamental principles of marriage".

    I find that the basis for your argument is somewhat circular. You talked about the fundamental basis, the fundamental nature, the fundamental characteristic of marriage and that this can therefore not be changed. It seems a little bit circular, as arguments go. I would like to hear your comments on the matter, please.

º  (1640)  

[English]

    Mr. Daniel Cere: I think marriage is always in change. Any institution is in a constant flux of change. But institutions do have core elements to them that are defining features of the institution. The institution of Parliament has some core elements to it that I'm sure you can sort out in terms of democratic principles and issues of civility and law that are built into the nature of parliamentary practice.

    So marriage in that sense is not just an institution for some generic sense of intimacy. I think it has to have other defining features to make it an institution that has meaning, definition, character, and serve certain purposes. Now, historically, almost universally, the purpose it has served has been to try to culturally frame this challenge of dealing with this fairly large fact within the human experience--bridging the sex divide and all that this entails.

    I mean, when all is said and done, you have a significant, large segment of the species that has a heterosexual attraction, and drive is an important element. That sex bridging is a challenge. It's a challenge.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Indeed, that is an important point. You talked about bridging between opposite sexes, but you are at McGill, in Quebec, where society has evolved in a certain direction; 30 per cent of all couples now live in common-law relationships. Accordingly, this bridging between two different sexes no longer needs to be marriage. Beforehand, this had to be marriage, but society has changed a great deal. Most statistics, including statistics on young people, indicate that this bridge between the opposite sexes no longer needs to be marriage. That deflates part of your argument.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Marceau.

    Mr. Daniel Cere: Well, there we're into another discussion, of cohabitation and marriage, and the problem with that discussion is that we get into an empirical debate about what the outcomes are in these two different forms of bonding. Cohabitation doesn't do well on a number of indicators in terms of stability of the relationship. The statistics signal that it does do more poorly. Outcomes for spouses and for children in those relationships don't seem to signal that it is as strong a bond as marriage.

    So there remains, as Maggie Gallagher said, a case for marriage. When looking at cohabitation, there's a case for marriage.

    The Chair: Before I go to Ms. Jennings, for seven minutes, perhaps I can explain something to the witnesses. When we do this round, the questioner basically has the floor for seven minutes and puts questions. Sometimes at the six minutes and fifty seconds mark a great question is asked and four hands go up. Then I'm stuck. So I have a tendency to allow the witnesses to answer, even after the seven minutes. I might tell them to be brief, but I want them to be able to answer the question is they feel compelled to do so.

    That didn't come from your time, Ms. Jennings. Go ahead.

[Translation]

    Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): That's great, Mr. Chairman.

    Thank you very much for your presentations, which I found quite interesting.

    I have a question for you, Mr. Cere, and it pertains to the issue raised by my colleague Mr. Marceau, about certain terms that you used to describe marriage: "intrinsic meaning", "fundamental characteristics", etc.

    When you examine the definition of the family, you can see that there have been changes over the past few centuries. In the past, the traditional concept of marriage had a tremendous impact on our laws, on our legal frameworks. For example, in the past, in many societies and cultures, women were not deemed to be equal to men, since, it was said, they did not have the same ability for reasoning and decision-making. Because the concept of the family intrinsically included this notion that women were incapable and inferior, this was reflected in the legal frameworks of Quebec, Canada, the United States and many European countries. Before women married, they were not allowed to negotiate and sign contracts if they had a father or a brother who was alive. This opportunity was not available to them when they were married either, since this was reserved for the husband. The entire legal system was built on this intrinsic notion of the woman in an inferior role within the family.

    So the traditional notion of the family revolved around a man and a woman. I am not accounting for what some researchers have said about certain ancient societies where, it would appear, there was marriage between individuals of the same sex, because I do not think that this has been proven. However, I am saying that, today, things have changed. We no longer view same-sex couples as abnormal. At least, I do not view that as something that is abnormal and I don't see how changing the definition of marriage could weaken that institution. Quite the opposite, in my opinion I think that this would strengthen marriage. You have said that all scientific studies show that cohabitation is not as stable as marriage. Personally, I am in favour of the stability of marriage. I'm a lawyer and I am hoping that the marriage of same-sex couples will be recognized in the law. I think that it is up to society to find ways to encourage people, whether they be of the opposite or same sex, to make choices in their lives.

º  (1645)  

[English]

    Mr. Daniel Cere: That's a good argument, the argument about cohabitation as being a weaker form of union than marriage. It's an argument that I've pointed to in terms of...actually an argument in favour of looking at marriage in terms of same-sex unions.

    But if you take a close look at marriage across history, marriage, yes, has been subject to incredible change. To even speak of traditional marriage as a concept--well, where do you place it? Where do you place traditional marriage?

    But throughout those changes I think we've seen constant refining and trying to work with some core elements of the institution and some of the core elements, which I pointed to you. When it comes to the history of marriage, yes, there's change, but there's change that's development and there's change that does destabilize the institution.

    I would argue that polygamy would be an example of a change that destabilizes the institution. I would argue that the shedding of the patriarchal baggage in marriage is something that actually helps the institution focus on its core, on what it's about, which is the interpersonal sex bonding of male and female. That's the core of it.

    For instance, when Loving v. Virginia got rid of the interracial baggage, well, that's getting rid of the stuff that's extrinsic to the purpose of marriage.

    The difficulty with the redefinition of marriage to make the same-sex inclusion is that you really deflect marriage now from its unique feature, that it is an institution dedicated, in a certain kind of focused way, to opposite-sex bonding with all that entails. That's an important feature of human society, an important feature of our social ecology, and merits a little nod from society. That's all that marriage does, in a certain sense.

    There are all kinds of great relationships in human society. Marriage is not the gold standard. It's just one among many, in a certain sense. There are forms of human intimacy that we celebrate night and day in our movies, our films, our novels, and many of them are not marriages.

    In saying marriage is this, or marriage is dedicated to this, it's not denigrating same-sex relationships. It's just sort of a plea so that this institution continues it work, continues its development, continues its particular focus on striving to deal with this complex arena of human life.

    There's suffering out there, too, amongst heterosexuals who are struggling for bonding. It's a difficult, messy world out there. Marriage has become a less stable institution for them and it has less of a tug and pull on their hearts any more. I see this now; I have six children, and three of them are heading into this stage, into their twenties.

    It's a different world than the one I grew up in, 30 years ago. It's a much more difficult world for them. And part of that story, I think, is the way in which marriage has become a shakier institution.

º  (1650)  

    The Chair: Thank you. I'm now going to Mr. Toews.

    Mr. Vic Toews: Mr. Cere, I'm interested in your comment that the academic research literature is mainly from one side of the issue, mainly from the homosexual side, the gay side, and that the straight case has not yet been made in response to the case that has been made by the gay or homosexual community.

    Now, as a lawyer and certainly as a former constitutional lawyer, that creates a lot of concern for me. As you know, in constitutional cases you have to put together Brandeis briefs or expert testimony in order to buttress the arguments, because constitutional law has very little to do with law, it's more to do with legal public policy. So what you're suggesting to me is that the issue in fact is premature certainly for constitutional litigation.

    Just on that point, in addition to your institution, is there anyone on the straight side that you would respect in terms of credible, professional research doing this type of work?

    The Chair: Keep in mind that you have three minutes left.

    Mr. Daniel Cere: In a certain sense, no, there are not similar scholars comparable to William Eskridge, who has published half a dozen volumes on this issue. That's just one person on the side arguing for same-sex marriage. Your learning curve goes up quite sharply when you engage that literature, because it's deep. It's thoughtful. It shows a lot of work in that arena.

    I think it's kind of typical of academic cultures, though. When I was doing my doctoral work in the early 1970s, the major theme was neo-Marxism. That's nowhere to be found now because there was a kind of reaction to that. I think there will be a critical reaction at some point to this wave of scholarship, but it's not going to happen overnight. It's not going to happen even a year from now. I think it's going to take a little while to sift through the arguments.

    Now, that may be a little too late for legislators, but I think it's just the place we're in right now academically that a lot of the argumentation is being done on one side.

    In the whole area of sexuality, a lot of the debate has been coming from that side of the debate. And it's rich. It's deep. It's thoughtful. It's insightful. It should be read. But it also should be engaged, and we haven't gotten to that point yet.

    The Chair: Mr. Lee, for three minutes.

    Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Oh, three minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I guess it's my turn now to try to engage in some neo-Marxist, anti-disestablishmentarian logic.

    The Chair: Mr. Robinson wouldn't have wanted to miss it.

    Mr. Derek Lee: I want to congratulate all the witnesses. I think it's one of the best panels we've had in quite a while. I respect the work all the presenters and witnesses have put into this envelope.

    I just blew 30 seconds there, but I meant it.

    I want to put a question to Mr. McCutcheon, and it is pretty simple.

    Among those who advocate for same-sex marriage, I presume the paradigm presented for the future, legally and otherwise, suggests that gender becomes irrelevant in marriage. Is that correct? Gender becomes irrelevant as a prerequisite or denominator of a marriage arrangement. Is it fair to say that?

º  (1655)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Laurent McCutcheon: I don't think that any homosexual or heterosexual person can claim that sexuality is absent from a couple relationship. There is sexuality. However, the desire to have access to an institution like marriage is first and foremost a desire to have one's love and emotional relationship acknowledged by society. I told you that I had been living with my partner for 30 years. This is both a love and emotional relationship. This is not a sexual relationship.

[English]

    Mr. Derek Lee: No, I was trying to get you to comment on whether or not gender was relevant. You've come back to me saying that sexual orientation was irrelevant. That may be evident as well, but do gender and sexual orientation become irrelevant in the formation of a formal marriage? Would you agree with that?

[Translation]

    Mr. Laurent McCutcheon: I don't really understand the meaning of your question. Obviously, in a homosexual relationship, you're talking about two people of the same sex. I do not understand the meaning of the question.

[English]

    Mr. Derek Lee: I'm going to the place where you and others apparently want to be, where gender, as a denominator for two or more people getting together as a social unit, becomes irrelevant. It won't matter what your gender is, what your sex is, what your sexual orientation is. Wouldn't you agree that's the proposal for the future?

[Translation]

    Mr. Laurent McCutcheon: Indeed, we are saying that we want access to the institution of marriage, regardless of whether we are dealing with couples of the same sex or opposite sex. This is obviously what we are asking for; it seems to me that this is very clear.

[English]

    Mr. Derek Lee: Good. Thank you. And I understand that....

    Oh, Mr. Chairman, I barely had a chance.

    The Chair: What can I say? We'll come back.

    Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Cere, I found your brief extremely interesting. You say that marriage is perpetually in a state of change, that there are positive and negative changes, but you never quite say on what you base your arguments. In Loving v. Virginia, people at the time thought the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling was a negative change, and that allowing black people to marry white people would weaken the institution of marriage. When you say that this was a positive change, you are not making an academic judgment but a value judgment. If homosexuals are denied the possibility of marriage, if marriage is seen as a negative or positive thing in this instance, that is a value judgment, not an academic judgment.

[English]

    Mr. Daniel Cere: Perhaps it's a value judgment. I don't see it as so much a moral judgment as trying to get at what makes an institution tick, what's the purpose of an institution, and what it's really geared to in human culture and society. That's why I think Loving v. Virginia arguably was a great decision, because it was getting rid of baggage that was handicapping the institution, actually handicapping the opposite-sex bonding. You were putting roadblocks between opposite-sex bonding in terms of race. So that's a clear win for the core principles of an institution like marriage. But--

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: I don't want to be rude, but I will interrupt you because I have little time left.

    When you talk about the core principles of marriage, you say that it requires a man and a woman. We come back to the concept of tautology. Why can the core principle of marriage not be a union between two people who love each other? Why, as you say, must it be a union between two people of the opposite sex? That is a tautological argument. You say that things are so, and that the way things are therefore represent the fundamental nature of marriage. But maybe things are not so.

    I got married 10 years ago, when I was 23. At the time, my spouse did not want children. I wanted to consecrate my marriage with my spouse because we were two people who loved each other. The marriage had nothing to do with children. Why can that not be the core principle of marriage? Why can it not be two people who love each other, and sanctify that love in the eyes of the state, and sometimes in the eyes of their faith?

»  (1700)  

[English]

    Mr. Daniel Cere: At some point we need to sort of step back and look at a broader picture than individual choices, I think. Marriage certainly serves the personal bonding between male-female, but it also serves the bigger picture of the procreative nature of that bonding, for sure. That's been a big part of the framing of marriage, as the culture of framing of heterosexual bonding.

    I mean, sure, it's possible you can redefine marriage as loving intimacy, but it seems to me, when you've done that, you've created such a big category here that an institution no longer has definition. Institutions need definition, they need some focus as to the core principles. Institutions like banks and parliaments have purposes that they serve. To serve something as big and as generic as intimacy I think ultimately deflects the institution from what it's about, because the human condition, it's all about intimacy.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Ms. Fry.

    Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    I want to thank everyone for their presentations and to apologize for being late. I had to be at the health committee, and I've run from committee to committee.

    To pick up from where Mr. Marceau was going, you quote that in the institution of marriage, relationships are marked by needs and challenges for long-term intimacy and sexual bonding. Now, I read that as a “conjugal” relationship. Same-sex marriage is seeking to become part of that conjugal, it's not seeking to be part of all relationships--of fathers, and daughters, and sisters, and brothers. It is seeking to say this is also a conjugal relationship, so it fits clearly, I think, in your definition here of the institution of marriage.

    Second, you talk about multi-layered realities, and how marriage speaks to complex needs for meaning and identity within a human community. I have just heard probably the most touching examples of the need for marriage to do exactly that--to speak and to reach for meaning and identity within a human community--from Mr. Hawke and Mr. Robbins about their children's need to belong to this community of married people.

    You also propose that by allowing same-sex marriage it will destabilize an already unstable institution known as marriage. If the institution known as marriage is being destabilized, and no one wants to be married any more, surely when you have a set of people with the intimate sexual bonding relationship, who want to be part of the human community, reach out and say, “I want to be married”, they are actually reconfirming the strength of marriage. They're saying this is a very valid thing, and they want to be part of it. So I would argue that allowing same-sex marriages to occur will stabilize marriage even more.

    Finally, you make a very clear point about institutions. You pointed to Parliament as being a democratic institution, and that is one of the core and fundamental principles. As my colleague Madame Jennings said, Parliament was meant to be a democratic institution in days when women were not considered to be persons, and women could not vote, which opted out a whole 52% of human beings who had no democratic rights within a democratic institution.

    I would like to hear your reasons why you disagree with me that allowing same-sex marriages will stabilize marriage because it reconfirms its bonding of a conjugal relationship. As well, why do you believe there is any reason why that cannot happen? I mean, you argue that this will decrease marriage; I say to you that it will stabilize it.

    Mr. Daniel Cere: I don't think institutions as primal as marriage are charged up by just emotive energy that's packaged into the institution. That's part of the challenge that's before you--what is the nature of this institution, and how does it operate within the broad community of Canadian society?

    Ms. Hedy Fry: It's not before me. I am responding to your questions, and I would like an answer to my question, Mr. Cere.

    Mr. Daniel Cere: You're asking how it will be stabilized. We've seen a number of patterns of destabilization, I think, of the institution over the last 40 years.

»  (1705)  

    Ms. Hedy Fry: A heterosexual institution, a heterosexual institution that, I'm suggesting to you, might be stabilized by adding same-sex relationships.

    Mr. Daniel Cere: Yes, through interventions into the.... What are some of the core features? Certainly permanence is a core feature in the stabilization of that bond. Marriage tries to establish long-term opposite-sex bond--long term.

    Even William Eskridge, in his most recent book, Equality Practice, argues that we need to take a sober second look at divorce law, because he argues it's destabilized marriage. He would like same-sex couples to come into a more stable institution, and he argues that no-fault divorce has done some damage. Why has it done damage? Well, because it's targeted a core principle of marriage, a core feature, which is that marriage is about permanence, it's about long-term opposite-sex bonds.

    You're targeting here one of the fundamental cores of marriage, the male-female bond. It's a massive fact in human existence. It's a challenge to maintain it and to form it into something that will have some kind of permanence. We've seen destabilization, and I would argue that...well, I argue what I argue.

    The Chair: Mr. Sorenson, three minutes.

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

    Thank you to all for coming and for bringing your presentations.

    To Mr. Cere, part of what Mr. Hawke said, in speaking of his son and his homosexuality, was that it was part of his genetic being. I am wondering if you or...preferably you, could tell us if you know of any scientific evidence where science has found the gene that makes someone gay.

    Mr. Daniel Cere: You're asking the wrong person. It's not my area. I know there's a healthy debate within gay literature, from the essentialist side of the debate, John Boswell and company, to the more social constructionist side of the debate, Gayle Rubin and company. Interestingly enough, they seem to divide up, with the guys being on the more deterministic side and the gals being on the more social constructionist side. I don't know if that says something about gender difference in this debate. But no, I don't know if there's any clear answers to that.

    My suspicion is that the best answers are probably more interactionist, that there's a bit of genetic inclination plus, and all kinds of social construction stuff.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Hawke, do you know of any scientific evidence showing where they have located the gene that would cause homosexuality? If it's his genetic makeup, is there evidence to show that?

    Mr. Bill Hawke: I don't have things to quote from, but I've been exposed to information that has indicated that it is genetic. I certainly can research that and get it for you, if that's your wish.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Yes, I would appreciate that.

    Have you ever heard of anyone who has left homosexuality and gone back into the straight lifestyle?

    Mr. Bill Hawke: Probably more the other way--

    Voices: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: No, exactly my point.

    Mr. Bill Hawke: --but mainly because of the pressures of our society. People try to deny their orientation, and they marry and have children. Then they realize that really this isn't their sexual orientation, and they leave their partner.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: So maybe it's his orientation but maybe not his genetic makeup.

    Mr. Bill Hawke: I didn't say that.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: But you did say it was part of his genetic being.

    Mr. Bill Hawke: That's right, yes.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Maybe his sexual orientation but maybe not part of his genetic makeup, then, is that correct?

    Mr. Bill Hawke: I think they're tied together.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Okay, thank you.

    The Chair: Both Mr. McCutcheon and Mrs. Landolt want to answer this.

    Please keep it brief.

[Translation]

    Mr. Laurent McCutcheon: To my knowledge, no research has demonstrated that there are genetic factors. No studies have been able to establish why homosexuals exist, no more than they have been able to establish why people have blue eyes or black. Those are simply facts, the way things are. Some explanations have been attempted in the literature, some more seriously than others, but generally there is no answer to that question. I don't know why I am as I am. My parents were heterosexual.

    As for whether one can change one's sexual orientation, there is no scientific evidence for it. Some attempts to use aversion therapy have been used. This approach would be to make me so disgusted that I would no longer be capable of desiring a man. Some experiments along these lines have been conducted, but there is nothing else. Homosexuality is a fact, and there is no scientific explanation for it.

»  (1710)  

[English]

    The Chair: Mrs. Landolt.

    Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt: I have two points. First, Masters and Johnson found in their research that 69% of the homosexual couples...that they want to, have changed. It is changeable.

    For example, even our well-known member of Parliament Svend Robinson was happily married, according to a 1982 article in Saturday Night, and he changed to homosexuality. It seems it's acquired.

    In the study I referred to from The Male Couple, a homosexual psychiatrist and psychologist found that the differences in homosexuals...it's an acquired characteristic. He said that the gay man's “homing fantasies and longings for liaisons with their fathers may prove accurate for some male couples”.

    As well, the authors found that another characteristic of male couples was that they had experienced little or no male bonding during their formative years. This suggests that a homosexual's attraction to other men is based on psychological needs not met as a child from his father and other male influences rather than genetically based, as claimed by some homosexual activists.

    Again, this was by homosexuals for homosexuals, and that was their conclusion.

    The Chair: Mr. Lee, three minutes.

    Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you.

    To carry on...and I don't want to pick on you, Mr. McCutcheon, and I don't want to be seen to be picking on you, because I'm not. I admire your initiative here today, and I've listened carefully to your remarks.

    Getting back to where I was, if gender and sexual orientation become irrelevant to the institution of marriage, then haven't we undermined the whole definition or purpose of the institution, except for one purpose, and that is as a badge of recognition of relationships?

[Translation]

    Mr. Laurent McCutcheon: You may call that undermining, however, I would call it an evolution, a change. Obviously, up until now, marriage has been a heterosexual institution. For the past 30 years or so, we have started taking our place in society. There have always been homosexuals, but they have always been denied the right to exist. In the 30 years that they have been allowed to exist, homosexuals have had aspirations to develop fully and are requesting that the authorities open the institution of marriage to give them equal status.

    I do not think that we are going to undermine the institution of marriage. Quite simply I believe that marriage will become a much broader institution than it is right now, and I do not think that by doing this we will take anything away from it whatsoever. I would be very surprised to learn that a heterosexual couple feels diminished. Imagine if you were a heterosexual and married and that I, tomorrow morning, were given the right to get married. How would that take something away from you? How would you be diminished by the fact that I can now have access to the same institution as you? You can be proud to open the door to me, in a generous gesture, to allow all of society to have the same rights, or you can quite simply say that this is an institution which, traditionally, has always been heterosexual and therefore it should remain so for the rest of time. But you are putting a brake on evolution. The same question can be asked another way: evolution means that things have to change. That's what it means.

[English]

    Mr. Derek Lee: If, as I say, the remaining purpose of marriage becomes one simply of recognition.... I'm pretty sure, if I said today, “Let's just get rid of the institution of marriage altogether, we don't really need it because it doesn't have particular social purpose”, that those who are urging same-sex marriage would say, “No, no, we want it there for the recognition. We want to be like everybody else. We want to be equal. We want to be seen as equal.”

    I'm afraid that's where the debate is going. The people who are urging same-sex marriage want it only as an institutional vehicle for recognition in the battle for equality, not to keep marriage around for what it really is. And here I'm reflecting on the evidence of Mr. Cere.

    I'm nervous about that, I'm cautious about that, as much as I see the need for us all to recognize the validity, importance, and nature of homosexual unions.

»  (1715)  

    The Chair: Mr. McCutcheon.

[Translation]

    Mr. Laurent McCutcheon: But equality presupposes access to the same institutions; if not, you can't really talk about true equality. When you say that we are looking for equality, I would say that, yes, we are looking for equality, we want the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be applied. However, personally, I do not think that this will diminish the institution of marriage, which is a universal institution, in all countries, everywhere. This institution has always been recognized, but it has always been reserved for a man and a woman. However, some societies are starting to open up more, and this definition of marriage can be revisited. What we are trying to do here together today is to look at the possibility of broadening this institution, opening it up to include other individuals. This is, of course, a societal change. We are asking for a societal change.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Robbins wants to answer the question, and then I'll go to Mr. Marceau.

    Mr. Geoff Robbins: Yes, PFLAG advocates recognition, equal recognition, and equality under the law. I don't think that's a bad thing. I have also heard the question, what is the purpose of marriage? If you went around the room and asked everybody that, there would be no consensus on what it is. Some people would say procreation. I got married at 45, with no intention of having children. My wife had completed her family. We're happy. So procreation is not our purpose, but it may be for some others. That's fine. It's a free country.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Very quickly, Mr. Cere, I'm sorry, but the Netherlands have recognized homosexual marriage, contrary to what Ms. Landolt said. Belgium has done this as well. Do you know whether or not any research has been done demonstrating that heterosexuals have avoided the institution of marriage ever since homosexuals in the Netherlands have been given the right to marry? Just answer with a yes or a no.

[English]

    Mr. Daniel Cere: It's an excellent question. I personally have been trying to follow some of the data. It's really early, first of all, to be able to start to sift through that material to get any kind of evidence, but I think it will be very important to track over the next couple of years, both in the Netherlands and now Belgium, which has also passed legislation recognizing same-sex marriage.

    But that may well take a little bit of time. A year or two won't--

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Ms. Landolt, I have a question for you. I would like to go back to what Ms. Jennings was saying earlier. For thousands of years, a married woman was the property of her husband in accordance with the Christian concept of marriage since the time of St. Paul, who said that the woman should be subservient to the man, etc. However, you are saying that because marriage between a man and a woman has been like that for years, it should not change. But society has evolved to the point that women are no longer deemed to be minors when they marry. It was written in the Quebec Civil Code, to name but one document, that the married woman had the capacity of a minor child. Society changed. So my first question is as follows: doesn't this example quash the argument stating that, since marriage has been a certain way for thousands of years, it should not change?

    The second question that I want to ask you is somewhat along the same lines as the one I put to Mr. Cere. If we were, for example, to give Mr. McCutcheon an opportunity to marry his partner of 30 years, would that prompt you to divorce because you do not want to share the same institution as him?

    And, thirdly, do you think that young heterosexuals who are thinking about spending their lives together would no longer want to get married because young homosexuals would be entitled to do so?

[English]

    The Chair: Mrs. Landolt.

    Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt: You've raised several questions. First of all, I'd like to point out to the committee that in the Netherlands and Belgium, marriages are not the same as the traditional heterosexual marriage. They do not have extra-jurisdictional applicability. They only apply within their own countries. That's number one.

    Two, on the questions of adoptions and so on, there are other changes. They're not strictly the same as the traditional marriage. And we don't know their long-term results because it's just happened now.

    With regard to the issue you raised about marriage, traditional marriage has had one thing, and one only--that is, a man and a woman committed to each other for a lifetime and for the potential of creating children. If you marry at 55 or 95, it's still a man and a woman. The sexual union is different from that of the homosexual union, because there's always the potential that someone would have children even though they've had their family. It's a social policy of the state to promote the birth of children. That can only come from a man and a woman.

    The fact that women were property until 1882 under British or common law doesn't have anything to do with the fact that marriage has been stabilized. It's reflected in United Nations documents. It's reflected in our history, in every culture, in every faith. All those other things are extraneous.

    Sure, things have improved with men and women. Men couldn't vote until a reform act in Britain in the 1870s. Things have improved, but the fundamental principle of marriage.... Sorry, men without property couldn't vote until 1872. You had to have property.

    So things change, and they do get better. They do get better. Women have voted since 1918. Grand. Everyone likes that. But it has nothing to do with the fundamental principle of marriage, which is a man and a woman united together. It's a bridge between generations. Nothing has changed that.

    The question is, why has it never changed? Because it works. Because it's absolutely quintessential for the future of society that marriage be a man and woman, that the state promote it as a social policy because of their potential to have children. Nothing has changed. Everything else is extraneous.

»  (1720)  

    The Chair: Monsieur Marceau, if we--

    Mr. Richard Marceau: I had a question she didn't answer, though.

    The Chair: Yes, there was a third question, I remember. You're sneaky.

    Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt: I've forgotten, what was the third question?

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: My third question was this: do you believe that the very fact of granting homosexuals the right to marry would lead to a decline in the desire to marry among heterosexuals?

[English]

    Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt: I think what would happen is that marriage would be fundamentally different. It would become open and changed.

    I know Mr. McCutcheon has mentioned he'd be married for 30 years, but sexual fidelity is not the same as living together for 30 years. We know from every piece of information that homosexuals do not maintain a monogamous relationship. They have other parties in it. That changes it fundamentally.

    If you get married for any reason--for instance, we're friends, or we're lovers--other than a commitment by a man a woman for life, it changes the dimension. If I want to enter into marriage and bear children, the sacrifices I make are unique, as a woman and a man, by having those children. Therefore, if it's open to everybody, and marriage means everything, then marriage means nothing. It's important, important for the state and important for the couple who are making the sacrifices, to produce the next generation.

    That's why, if you open it up, it becomes absolutely meaningless. It has no purpose.

    The Chair: For the record, I'm sure Mrs. Landolt did not intend to infer, when she spoke of her opinions around fidelity, anything that would reflect upon Mr. McCutcheon.

    Ms. Fry.

    Ms. Hedy Fry: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I want to pick up on Ms. Landolt's comments about sexual fidelity not being part of a homosexual relationship.

    I practised medicine for 23 years before I came here. Because of the geographical area in which I practised, I had a large number of gay and lesbian patients. I would like to correct Ms. Landolt, from my own small experience, that not only were most of these relationships, far more than the heterosexual relationships I saw, sexually faithful; many of them were long-lasting. They lasted 20 years, 30 years, 35 years. The couples died together.

    I know that infidelity is part of heterosexual relationships and infidelity is part of conjugal relationships. To say that one relationship tends to be more or less faithful than another is actually false. I just wanted to pick that up....

    Let my finish my question, please, Ms. Landolt.

    You have suggested that because homosexual communities or families move back into a heterosexual relationship, it surely means that it is not genetic and it is changeable. I would say to you that it was societal pressure, in all of the cases I knew, that made people move from a place where they were discriminated against, where they were pilloried, where they did not feel part of the community, and subsumed their nature in order to go into a relationship that was unnatural for them. It was purely because of discrimination. It does not mean anything about people changing because they.... It was because of societal pressure that most people tended to live a lie, at least as far as my patients are concerned, in many instances.

    There is no gene discovered, but there are no genes discovered for so many things about human beings. Our genomic system is so vast that I think we would want to live many, many more generations before we discovered genetic causes for every single thing. But to be born in a certain way does not necessarily mean that it is genetic.

»  (1725)  

    Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt: First of all, you say that within your small practice you haven't seen any sexual infidelity. I would suggest that is not very apt, because homosexuals themselves agree that sexual fidelity is not a part of their culture....

    Excuse me, but may I respond?

    The point is, it is not part of their culture. They say so themselves. It's not me saying it. Studies show it, and they say so themselves.

    With regard to the gene, no study has ever shown that homosexuality is based on genetics. It's an acquired characteristic. Certainly they have been trying to find it and it is an acquired characteristic.

    I would suggest that the readings might contradict some of what you think. You don't know the sexual fidelity of your patients, but studies and homosexuals themselves say their culture is absolutely clear; sexual fidelity is not a part of it.

    The Chair: Now, Ms. Fry.

    Ms. Hedy Fry: Ms. Landolt, I did not say there were no fidelities among the homosexual couples I saw as patients. I said there was no greater proclivity among them than among the heterosexual couples I knew. In fact, it was the opposite. I found that many of the gay couples and lesbian couples I knew had a tendency to be more faithful to each other than the heterosexual couples I knew.

    So I didn't say--

    Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt: The only response I can give you--

    Ms. Hedy Fry: May I finish my--

    The Chair: Mrs. Landolt--

    Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt: --is that sexual fidelity is part of heterosexual relations.

    The Chair: Order, Mrs. Landolt.

    Mr. McCutcheon wants to answer. We're now at 5:30 p.m. We have two more people on the list.

    Go.

[Translation]

    Mr. Laurent McCutcheon: Very briefly, I think we should not shift the debate to the issue of fidelity. I do not think that heterosexual couples can claim that they have a monopoly on being faithful. There is unfaithfulness among homosexual couples, and I am convinced that there is unfaithfulness among heterosexual couples as well. Taking the debate in that direction is a mistake. Fidelity is not a relevant factor, and it is not the issue.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Toews.

    Mr. Vic Toews: I'm finding the discussion quite fascinating. I agree that the witnesses have been excellent, each of them. It certainly gives me much to think about.

    It reminds me that our courts, our Supreme Court and other courts in Canada, have stated from time to time, and especially in the context of section 15, our equality provisions, that identical treatment is not necessarily equivalent to equality. Sometimes true equality is a recognition of the differences between us. We've seen it in various contexts where differences, distinctions in law, are upheld in order to advance equality. We've seen that in the aboriginal context. Certainly my colleague Mr. Macklin, in the context of bringing forward legislation that has different sentencing criteria for people of aboriginal background, would probably maintain that's in order to advance the interests of equality.

    What I'm still confused about, although we've had a good discussion about it, is the whole issue of what is indeed the purpose of marriage. That's what I find everyone sort of coming back to, whether it's intimacy, fidelity, social stability, or procreation.

    I'm wondering if I could briefly ask each of the witnesses, just in a phrase, to say what you think the purpose of marriage is. Or can you?

    Maybe we can start with Mr. McCutcheon.

»  (1730)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Laurent McCutcheon: In my view, marriage is the recognition of a union based on love and affection, that can be lived in the full light of day openly in society, and not on the sidelines, in the dark. That is what I consider the purpose of marriage.

[English]

    Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt: Marriage has three purposes. One is that it is the institution to raise children, because we know they thrive best with the mother and father. Second, it's the social policy to create human life. Third, it's to work on the relationship between men and women, who are so different. Marriage is the institution that sets the boundaries, that sets the mores, that sets society in a particular pattern. So it has very many valuable purposes.

    Mr. Vic Toews: Dr. Cere.

    Mr. Daniel Cere: Off the top of my head, I guess I'd argue that it is a dynamic, ever-changing cultural institution that's trying to manage that huge fact of heterosexual bonding and the fact that this is also the procreative mainframe of human culture. It's desperately trying to struggle with that.

    Mr. Geoff Robbins: To me, it's the closest relationship you have with any other human being. It's long-term intimacy in the context of one human being and another human being.

    Mr. Bill Hawke: I see it as the dedication of your life to your partner in a public environment that may or may not be religious, your choice. That probably covers it.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Vic Toews: Madame Joannou has not....

    Ms. Sophie Joannou (Member, Board of Directors, REAL Women of Canada): I think it's a matter of love, but it's love that encompasses children. For me, being a mother, it's just part of the package.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Marceau is last on the list, but I'd like to ask a question. It sort of follows up on that. We're five minutes over, but we were ten minutes late starting.

    To Mr. Cere, when you made your presentation you talked about the fact, with some conviction, that this could change fundamentally the nature of marriage. I think you used the word “meaning” when you described one of the consequences to go toward marriage of homosexual couples.

    Now, I want to ask, is there a meaning of marriage? And is it not possible that there could be different meanings of marriage? I can think of the difference between a civil ceremony as it exists today, and a religious ceremony as it exists today, and a common-law relationship as it exists today. All of those people are recognized by the state as married at a point, and I'm sure each of them sees the meaning of that marriage being quite different.

    So does the fact that this would change the meaning of marriage necessarily break new ground, that the meaning of marriage would change?

    Mr. Daniel Cere: I obviously think it would. One of the things is that marriage doesn't exist in separate spheres within society, although we do have distinction between civil and religious marriage. In effect, our changes in the public sphere impact on everyone.

    We worked through the whole divorce legislation stuff and started working with the permanence element of marriage. If you look at divorce rates in evangelical churches, and how Catholic churches have this indissoluble marriage, they're all the same. Everybody takes the hit. Institutions like marriage don't operate on a kind of individual basis. Often, “How is it going to affect me?” is the harm argument. It's how it's going to affect a specific individual.

    Institutions like marriage are large cultural facts, and when the internal meanings of those institutions start to shift, it plays out in the culture in big ways, and no doubt this one will as well.

    Can you show evidence of harm? You can't. This is future...this is risk that you can't...but you can suggest destabilization. Practically everybody does.

»  (1735)  

    The Chair: Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

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

    Ms. Landolt, one argument you put forward in support of opposing homosexual marriage is that homosexuals would inherently tend to be more unfaithful than heterosexuals. If we were to take that view and carry the argument to its logical conclusion, as we should always do, a heterosexual person who tended to be unfaithful would not have the right to marry either.

    Logically speaking, if a homosexual cannot marry because he is homosexual, and therefore inherently unfaithful, a heterosexual person who is unfaithful... Please forgive me but I do know quite a few, fortunately or unfortunately, I don't know. It is their problem, not mine. Should we also deny marriage to unfaithful heterosexuals?

[English]

    Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt: That's not the issue. The issue is that it would fundamentally change marriage, because fidelity is what's common in the traditional heterosexual marriage. It's the exception when people don't do that.

    The fact is, with the homosexual community--and it's not the only reason--it would fundamentally change the concept of marriage, because fidelity, which is part of the traditional marriage.... Now, there are exceptions. Certainly we all know the exceptions, but it doesn't change the fundamental principle that in a traditional marriage of a man and a woman, it is exceptional when they are not committed to each other sexually. But it is the general principle within the homosexual culture that they would have outside relationships. As they say, they are emotionally committed but not sexually committed the same way.

    The whole point is, that's one ingredient. They would fundamentally change marriage.

    Second, when you open up marriage to brothers and sisters and polygamy, it's fundamentally changed, because when you use compatibility, when you use love as the reason and not the basic principle of a man and a woman, it's fundamentally changed. It reforms the whole concept of marriage.

    As I said before--

    The Chair: Mrs. Landolt--

    Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt: --if you open up--

    The Chair: Mrs. Landolt, order.

    I need to correct the record. We're not talking about polygamy or incest. I think it's important that we do not equate an activity that the state sees as legal and acceptable with those things that the state sees as not legal. I think that's important.

    I want to make that clear on the record.

    Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt: But the point is, Mr. Chairman, once you open it up to relationships other than that of a traditional man and a woman, then you have no principled, logical reason why it cannot be opened to other relationships. Now, you say polygamy is illegal, and incest is illegal--all of those things. But marriage is an institution that has been historically there before the common law. That is the principle, and you're going to change it fundamentally and reform it.

    This is the whole point of what I'm getting at: Is marriage to be as it always has been, for the purposes I've already said many times today, or are you going to open it up to any kind of relationship, legal or illegal? Because in principle, you cannot open marriage up to homosexuals or lesbian couples unless you open it up in principle to all sorts of other relationships.

    The Chair: Mr. McCutcheon.

[Translation]

    Mr. Laurent McCutcheon: For at least 30 years, I have been fighting to gain respect for my views. I want my opinion to be respected. I am asking for that again. I respect the views of opponents. I respect the views of Ms. Landolt, who is not comfortable with the idea of homosexual marriage. However, I do not much like her arguments. In using what she said as a basis for her arguments that homosexuals should not be permitted to marry, she is making a value judgment. She has a right to think what she does, but using faithfulness and unfaithfulness as grounds for permitting or denying marriage is not inherently logical. We know full well that almost 50 per cent of heterosexual couples separate or divorce, and are unfaithful. This is a weak argument, and a debate based on falsehood.

    I do want to respect your opinion, but I believe you should base it on genuine values. The ones you put forward are not in my opinion valid.

»  (1740)  

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    We have another day in. I want to thank the panel and I want to thank the members.

    To the committee, we'll be meeting tomorrow at 9 o'clock.

    The meeting is adjourned.