JUST Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, February 13, 2003

0905

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

Ms. Alison Huntley (Researcher, United Church of Canada)

Ms. Choice Okoro ( Program Officer, Human Rights and Reconciliation Initiatives, United Church of Canada)

0910

Ms. Alison Huntley

0915

The Chair

Msgr. André Gaumond (Archbishop of Sherbrooke, Member of the Executive, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops)

Ms. Marlene Smadu (Member of the Board of Directors of the Catholic Organization for Life and Family, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops)

0920

Msgr. André Gaumond

0925

Ms. Marlene Smadu

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Smadu

Msgr. André Gaumond

The Chair

Mr. Bruce Clemenger (Director, Centre for Faith and Public Life, The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada)

Dr. Franklin Pyles (The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada)

0930

Mr. Bruce Clemenger

0935

The Chair

Ms. Jean Ferrari (Canadian Christian Women Organization for Life)

0940

0945

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance)

0950

Ms. Marlene Smadu

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Ms. Alison Huntley

The Chair

Mr. Bruce Clemenger

The Chair

Msgr. André Gaumond

The Chair

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

0955

Msgr. André Gaumond

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Bruce Clemenger

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Ms. Choice Okoro

1000

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Ms. Jean Ferrari

The Chair

Mr. Bruce Clemenger

The Chair

Msgr. André Gaumond

The Chair

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

1005

Msgr. André Gaumond

Mr. Bruce Clemenger

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Ms. Alison Huntley

1010

Mr. Pat O'Brien

The Chair

Ms. Jean Ferrari

Mr. Bruce Clemenger

Mr. Pat O'Brien

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Ms. Choice Okoro

1015

Mr. Vic Toews

Ms. Choice Okoro

The Chair

Mr. Bruce Clemenger

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.)

1020

Msgr. André Gaumond

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ)

1025

Msgr. André Gaumond

Mr. Réal Ménard

Msgr. André Gaumond

Mr. Réal Ménard

Msgr. André Gaumond

Mr. Réal Ménard

Msgr. André Gaumond

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Bruce Clemenger

The Chair

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.)

1030

Ms. Marlene Smadu

The Chair

Ms. Alison Huntley

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

1035

Ms. Marlene Smadu

Mr. Bruce Clemenger

Ms. Choice Okoro

Mr. Vic Toews

Ms. Choice Okoro

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Ms. Alison Huntley

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

1040

Mr. Bruce Clemenger

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. Bruce Clemenger

The Chair

Ms. Alison Huntley

The Chair

Ms. Jean Ferrari

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Msgr. André Gaumond

1045

The Chair

Mr. Bruce Clemenger

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

Ms. Marlene Smadu

The Chair

Mr. Bruce Clemenger

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP)

1050

Msgr. André Gaumond

Mr. Svend Robinson

Msgr. André Gaumond

Mr. Svend Robinson

Ms. Marlene Smadu

Mr. Svend Robinson

Ms. Marlene Smadu

Mr. Svend Robinson

Msgr. André Gaumond

The Chair

Mr. Bruce Clemenger

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien

1055

The Chair

Msgr. André Gaumond

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Msgr. André Gaumond

The Chair

Mr. Bruce Clemenger

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

1100

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien

1105

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

1110

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

NUMBER 017

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, February 13, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): Good morning. I call to order the 17th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are undertaking a study on marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions.

This morning we have witnesses from the United Church of Canada, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, and the Canadian Christian Women's Organization for Life.

I would ask the panellists and members of the committee to be as temperate in tone as possible. This is a very emotional issue, and let's be conscious of everybody's sensibilities as we engage in this. That is not intended to stifle the discourse, it's simply a request to make it respectful.

Without further ado, I'm going to call on our first witness. We have four different groups here, this is a two-hour session, and we're going to be somewhat compressed, so I'm going to be pretty tight on the time. I'll be indicating when you're close to your 10 minutes, probably one minute away from 10 minutes. Those who have two presenters, please keep in mind the fact that 10 divided by two is five, at least in New Brunswick. I don't like to cut off someone who's only been given 30 seconds because the first one was too long.

I'm going to go by the order on the agenda, starting with the United Church of Canada, Choice Okoro and Alison Huntley. Please proceed.

Ms. Alison Huntley (Researcher, United Church of Canada): I'm a United Church minister. I have been doing extensive research for the United Church of Canada on the issue of same-sex marriages in particular, but also on gay, lesbian, and bisexual rights in general within the church, and I've done some resource preparation for the church.

Ms. Choice Okoro ( Program Officer, Human Rights and Reconciliation Initiatives, United Church of Canada): I work on human right issues, including aboriginal rights, gender justice issues, peace and human security issues, and gay, lesbian, and bisexual rights. I'm going to start with the background of where we're coming from on this, and then Alison will go into details on marriage. I'm going to give the lie of the land with justice and human rights in connection with sexual orientation.

The United Church of Canada is committed to equality rights for gays and lesbians within Canadian society, which means our theology and practice provide for the blessing of vows between same-sex couples. Therefore, we're asking the standing committee to recommend that the federal government adopt a legislative framework that provides the same civil recognition for heterosexual and homosexual couples. We're very clear about that.

The United Church is Canada's largest Protestant denomination, with more than 3 million members and adherents. We were formed in 1925, through the union of Methodist, Congressionalist, and 70% of Presbyterian churches in Canada. There are currently more than 3,500 United Churches across Canada. Our doctrine is set forth in two documents, The Basis of Union, 1925, and The Statement of Faith, 1940. As well, A New Creed of 1968 is an affirmation of faith used widely in our worship. As members of one body of Christ, we acknowledge our Reformation heritage and the teaching of the creeds of the ancient Church. Our membership in the World Council of Churches also links us to a worldwide fellowship of churches “which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour according to the scriptures.” The Statement of Faith of 1940 reminds us that “the church's faith is an unchanging Gospel of God's holy, redeeming love in Jesus Christ.” It also declares that each new generation is called to state this Gospel afresh “in terms of the thought of their own age and with the emphasis their age needs.”

The General Council is the national governing body of the United Church of Canada. It's members are both lay people and ordained ministers and are elected by groupings of churches representing every region in Canada. Decisions taken by those elected to the General Council become the policy of the church in matters relevant both to its internal life and to the public policy issues with which it is involved.

Since the mid-1970s the General Councils of the United Church have spoken on and acted on the need to achieve equality rights for gays and lesbians within the Church and Canadian society. In 1984 we affirmed acceptance of all human beings as persons made in the image of God, regardless of their sexual orientation. In 1988 the church affirmed that all persons who professed faith in Jesus Christ, regardless of their sexual orientation, were eligible to be considered for ordained ministry. In 1992 the General Council directed that liturgical and pastoral resources for same-sex covenants be made available to congregations. In 1997 the 37th General Council passed a resolution requesting that the United Church regional conferences urge all teachers' unions and associations to provide in-service education on gay, lesbian and bisexual issues in order to promote tolerance. To this end, the United Church recently published a new youth resource, which is an action resource for United Church congregations. In 1999 the United Church appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in support of Bill C-23, the modernizing of benefits and obligations, as a tangible expression of our commitment to the equality of heterosexual and same-sex relationships. In 2000 the 37th General Council of the United Church once again affirmed that human sexual orientations, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are a gift from God and part of the marvellous diversity of creation.

¿ (0910)

Ms. Alison Huntley: Each year the United Church of Canada blesses over 15,000 marriages in Canada. This figures includes the exchange of vows between same-sex couples. Theologically and liturgically, the United Church understands both opposite sex and same-sex couples as enjoying the same rights and responsibilities. In 2000 the General Council resolved to work towards the civil recognition of same-sex partnerships.

The United Church of Canada has made various statements regarding marriage. Prior to 1980 marriage was named as a union between a woman and a man. Subsequently, it was reported at the 30th General Council that the life and ministry of Jesus demonstrated what it means to be a full human being made in the image of God. The essential mark is total self-giving love to the other. In 1988 the General Council affirmed that all lifelong relationships--and note the omission of the term marriage--need to be faithful, responsible, loving, just, health-giving, healing, and sustaining of community and self. The implication is that these standards apply both to heterosexual and to homosexual couples, as the United Church has come to recognize that gay and lesbian members want to make the same lifelong commitments heterosexual members make and to make their solemn vows with communities of faith who will support them in their commitments.

As a Protestant denomination, the United Church is part of the Christian tradition that does not regard marriage as a sacrament, and procreation is not a defining aspect of marriage in the United Church. Nor does the church condemn people who decide to divorce. Divorced people receive the communion of the church and may remarry. Nevertheless, the United Church places an extremely high value on the seriousness of vows taken before God and in the presence of witnesses. The church urges congregations to help couples prepare for a life together and offers counselling and enrichment courses.

The most recent policy decision of the General Council affirming the relationship of same-sex couples was in the year 2000. At that General Council meeting, as you've heard, the church adopted a policy to affirm and work towards the civil recognition of same-sex partnerships. As a result, United Church congregations are beginning to record the services of same-sex couples in their marriage registers and are forwarding these registrations to provincial governments for licensing.

Regarding the options set out in the discussion paper, the United Church is opposing the first, that marriage remain an opposite-sex institution. While this option offers the possibility of civil union or domestic partnership legislation being created for same-sex couples, an alternative path equivalent to marriage, we, as an institution, feel that separation would not provide equality for same-sex couples. As mentioned earlier, the United Church support for civil recognition of same-sex partnerships is to ensure that same-sex couples receive the same value accorded heterosexual unions. A separate civil registry would not address the rights and equality concerns of homosexual couples or the United Church. History has shown us that the notion of separate, but equal is a fallacy. In fact, dual systems predicated on such a notion could become the basis for more intense, focused, and targeted group discrimination. Therefore, the United Church does not support this option.

The United Church does support the option of marriage being changed to include same-sex couples. The United Church has found that many of the alleged benchmarks for confining marriage to opposite-sex couples do not bar same-sex couples. Procreation can no longer be cited as a defining dynamic of marriage in western society. Others may argue that including same-sex couples undermines society's understanding of the family. The United Church seeks to support the diversity of families who uphold a secure environment for nurture, growth, and development and to contribute to the spiritual, social, physiological, sexual, physical, and economic wholeness of its members.

An option of leaving marriage to religions has never been formally considered in the United Church, and the proposal might be to leave civil recognition of marriage as an institution to governments and have religious groups celebrate marriages and same-sex relationships as they choose to do so, which would not preclude different religious bodies from celebrating in different way. We feel that there's a diversity of possibilities within that option.

¿ (0915)

The United Church, therefore, in its recommendation, asks the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to recommend that the federal government adopt a framework that provides the same civil recognition for heterosexual couples and same-sex couples, so that both are included in the definition of marriage or civil recognition is defined equally for heterosexual and homosexual couples.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

From the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops we have Monseigneur André Gaumond and Dr. Marlene Smadu.

[Translation]

Msgr. André Gaumond (Archbishop of Sherbrooke, Member of the Executive, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops): Good morning.

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops thanks the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for the invitation to make this presentation.

The Catholic bishops of Canada are the pastors of 12.5 million Catholics, grouped in 71 dioceses across the country. The overwhelming majority of adult Catholics are married. The Catholic church has a long and valued involvement with marriage, which is one of the seven sacraments in our church.

Our clergy celebrate about 35,000 marriages each year and are involved with lay people in pre-marriage and marriage enrichment courses as well as marriage counselling.

We are here today to support the continued recognition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. We believe that the fundamental purposes or characteristics of marriage are the good of the couple, and also the procreation and education of children, which in turn are for the good of society. Marriage thus has anthropological, personal, social and religious dimensions that have deeply entwined roots in our history and culture.

I forgot to mention that you have the text of the report. We are attempting to summarize it in our oral presentation.

[English]

Ms. Marlene Smadu (Member of the Board of Directors of the Catholic Organization for Life and Family, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops): Marriage is founded on anthropological presuppositions well established and rooted in the personal being of man and woman. Among these presuppositions are the social condition of the human being and the desire to be in relationship, the equality of man and woman, the complementarity and mutuality of the two sexes, and the love for the other who is sexually different and complementary. Sexuality, at its very core, is relational. It is a creative force opening one to communion. This creative force of sexuality is directed towards new life, the creation of human beings. The love of a man and a woman, in its sexual nature, is a mutual gift that overflows and is designed to bear fruit. The ultimate fruit is a child.

In regard to the personal dimension of marriage, more than simply a means to form an exclusive partnership of sexual intimacy, marriage calls a man and a woman to love each other ever more in truth, ever more intensely, and to build with their children a true community of love like the one that exists in God and between God and humanity. It is at this deepest level of love that the sacrament of marriage is rooted, a love that tends towards the fullest union, the fullest respect for the other, the fullest intimacy--“to be with”--and the fullest difference--“you are unique”.

In regard to the social dimension of marriage and procreation, emerging from and rooted in marriage, the family provides a stable environment and is the best place in which to raise children and to educate future generations. Marriage ensures the psychological and emotional stability that is so essential for children. It is within a family that the men and women of tomorrow's society become socialized and learn how to love. We believe marriage is a unique way of life of benefit to couples, to future children, and to society. Indeed, the 2001 census shows that 68% of children aged 0-14 live with married parents and 13% with common law parents, while 19% do not live with both parents. As Mr. Justice Gonthier said in the December 19, 2002, Supreme Court of Canada decision of Nova Scotia, the Attorney General v. Walsh:

The fundamental nature of marriage inheres in, among other things, its central role in human procreation and its ability to offer both children and parents a framework for the development of values within the family. Living together as a family and rearing children in this context is foundational to our society. Marriage and family life are not inventions of the legislature; but rather, the legislature is merely recognizing their social importance.

We know not every married couple has children, not all children are born in marriages, and not all marriages lead to stable and nurturing environments for children. We also recognize that with the help of new technologies and the interventions of a third party of the opposite sex, same-sex unions can have children. Exceptions, however, do not invalidate, but prove the rule. Individual practices and choices do not determine the objectives of an institution such as marriage that plays such a pivotal social role. The inherent biological fact remains that a marriage between a man and a woman will usually produce children, which no shift in thinking, social trends, or technology can alter.

¿ (0920)

[Translation]

Msgr. André Gaumond: Marriage involves both a profound personal commitment between a man and a woman who love each other, and a deep social commitment by the couple to society and by society to the couple. Marriage between a man and a woman is the basic unit of society, the social nucleus in which most children are born and raised.

In exchange for the irreplaceable role of the married couple in the upbringing of children, society in turn makes a commitment to recognize and protect them. This reciprocity has demographic, economic, social and intergenerational consequences that we as a society ignore at our peril.

In a decision upholding the opposite-sex requirement of marriage by the Supreme Court of British Columbia in October 2001, Mr. Justice Pitfield expressed the State's fundamental interest in the social institution of marriage in this way :

The State has a demonstrably genuine justification in affording recognition, preference, and precedence to the nature and character of the core social and legal arrangement by which society endures.

Marriage, as we know, is also a public commitment between a man and a woman with a profound significance for all faiths, and for Catholics, marriage is also a sacrament which signifies the union of Christ and the Church.

The love between a man and a woman is a human sign of their emotion and will, their understanding and memory. The basic meaning of the word "sacrament" is "a sign". It takes shape in a vow, a solemn statement, a promise. In fact, the church recognizes that there exists in the conjugal love between a man and a woman, whether they are Christian or not, a sacred sign of the love of God and the human potential for the fullness of communion. Since the beginning of the Church, the followers of Christ have insisted that the human reality of marriage is an expression of faith.

Here are some responses to possible approaches outlined in the discussion paper. The first one is : "Marriage could remain an opposite-sex institution".

The bishops of Canada, as pastoral leaders of the Catholic Church, want marriage to be maintained as an "opposite-sex institution". We affirm that marriage is a unique and exclusive public commitment between a man and a woman whose love overflows in fruitfulness, and ultimately brings children into the world. We believe that the transmission of marital love from generation to generation, communicated a thousand times over from one couple to another, from one family to another, is indisputable evidence of the greatness and grace of marriage. It deserves the support and protection of society and the Church.

We know that there are other relationships between adults that involve commitment, caring and emotional and financial interdependence. Should you also see fit to address the concerns of other adult interdependent relationships, we ask that you do so in a way that respects their human dignity but does not radically redefine and thus void the vital and irreplaceable social institution of marriage.

The second approach is : "Marriage could be changed to also include same-sex couples".

This is a non-viable option because, as we have said, procreation is one of the fundamental purposes of marriage.

¿ (0925)

[English]

Ms. Marlene Smadu: A question that is often asked is how granting the same-sex partners the legal right to marry would affect opposite-sex marriages. Marriage is both a personal and a social commitment. What is recognized is not only the personal commitment, but also the social commitment to contribute to the future of society by having and raising children. Allowing same-sex partners to marry would change the definition of marriage so that it would no longer be marriage, because by definition, marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Mr. Justice Pitfield said in the B.C. case, “The only issue is whether marriage must be made something it is not in order to embrace other relationships.”

Laws must be examined not only for their impact on individuals--

The Chair: Ms. Smadu, do you have any idea how much you're over time? I was trying to get your attention. Could you bring it to a close, please.

Ms. Marlene Smadu: I'll pass it on to the Bishop.

[Translation]

Msgr. André Gaumond: The third option is the following : "With the cooperation of the provinces and territories, Parliament could leave marriage to religious institutions ".

This is a very revolutionary concept that would require a great deal of time and reflection. We find it somewhat surprising, however, as it would make Canada the only country in the world without civil marriage in its legislation.

I will close by thanking you for welcoming us here today.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Now I'll go to the Evangelical Fellowship, Bruce Clemenger, director, Centre for Faith and Public Life, and Franklin Pyles. Again, 10 minutes please.

Mr. Bruce Clemenger (Director, Centre for Faith and Public Life, The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada): The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada welcomes the opportunity to appear before you today. With me is Dr. Franklin Pyles, the president of the Christian and Missionary Alliance, one of EFC's 33 affiliate denominations, which represent some 5,300 churches.

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

Dr. Franklin Pyles (The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada): I speak to you today as a pastor and on behalf of the pastors of our denomination, as part of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. I wish to express our understanding, briefly, of the institution of marriage.

Jesus laid out the foundational Christian understanding of marriage when he spoke for its permanence and referred to the creation account and interpreted its implications for marriage. I wish to note just three things from that. First, we see from from his teaching that God created an interdependent relationship between men and women and created marriage as the institution where the two can bond physically, emotionally, and spiritually and benefit from the outworking of their mutual interdependence. Thus marriage includes companionship and emotional bonding, and is the social, cultural, and religious context for the conjugal relationship, which is exclusive to male and female. This uniting of man and woman is distinguished from other types of social interaction and is described in scripture as becoming one flesh.

Second, the conjugal relationship is essentially a procreative act. Marriage encourages procreation. It is the place where procreation is to occur. I'll give more on that in just a moment.

Third, marriage is the place for the linkage between children and their biological parents. This linkage includes mutual emotional support and, in many cultures, material support. In other words, parents care for the children and children care for the parents in old age.

All the world's major religions and all cultures and societies have, from time immemorial, recognized marriage to be, in its essence, the union of male and female. This unitive understanding of the structure of marriage is not exclusively religious. McGill's Dr. Katherine Young, in surveying large- and small-scale cultures and religions, found that the requirement that marriage partners be of the opposite sex is one of the core universal features of marriage across cultures and religions.

Marriage is often referred to as an institution, which I would like to create a metaphor by saying it is an organic institution. It is not a sterile, empty construct, but is something organic, because within its context, actual life is generated and nurtured. Thus, it is not what a man and a woman may do, not an individual construct, but it is an ideal, an institution, a way of uniting a man and a woman in an exclusive sexual, intimate, and enduring bond in which the two, male and female, become one. Some marriages do not last and sometimes there is infidelity, but the idea of marriage is to encourage exclusive and enduring heterosexual bonding. The sexual union of male and female is the only natural way to procreate children. Some married couples do not have children, but these exceptions do not alter the reality that marriage usually produces children and that procreation necessarily requires the union of male and female.

¿ (0930)

Mr. Bruce Clemenger: In addition to being a social, cultural, and religious institution, marriage has been recognized in law and public policy. Governments and courts are not the authors of marriage. Outside Canada no court in the world has found that it was a violation of fundamental human rights to maintain marriage as a heterosexual union. In Canada there have been five lower court rulings, three of which have affirmed the heterosexual definition of marriage. Governments around the world have recognized the important role and unique needs of marriage and have maintained a distinction in law and afforded differential treatment to marriage, as compared to other forms of cohabitation.

Numerically, marriage is the most popular form, with 70% of families being married couple families. Marriages last generally twice as long as common-law relationships. Marriage is a safer place for women and children. There is less risk of spousal violence. Children living with two married biological parents are much less likely to experience family breakdown, neglect, and abuse or witness violence.

The unique characteristics of marriage make it the most desirable form of heterosexual bonding in the context of the procreation, raising, and nurturing of children. When the distinctiveness of marriage was weakened through changes in policy towards marriage or the treatment of other relationships, the rate of marriages in Canada began a steady decline. The difference and uniqueness of marriage as a societal institution must be maintained in law and policy or we fear the decline in marriages will continue, with all the attendant social consequences.

One impulse for the redefinition of marriage is to address what some consider to be unequal treatment. Extending protection through legal recognition of other groups does not require the redefinition of marriage. Pluralism is premised on the ability to acknowledge differences between things and relationships. A definition makes a distinction in order to preserve a thing's essence. Without language to describe these differences, we'll advance the erosion of diversity and pluralism. The very definition of marriage distinguishes it from all other relationships. In attempting to redefine marriage, the prevailing approach is to define it in terms of a function, and then consider as marriage any formal relations that share some or all of these functions. If marriage is restructured following a functional approach, how broad will marriage become? On what rational policy basis would gay and lesbian relationships be included in marriage and other domestic relationships be excluded? The Law Commission of Canada recommended a dramatic increase in the number and forms of adult relationships to be recognized that are distinguished by mutual care, a deep commitment, and economic and emotional dependency. How broad will the category become?

We're also deeply concerned about the implications of a redefinition of marriage for religious freedom. If this option were taken, religious groups would need to push for additional protection of religious freedom from those who do not recognize same-sex marriages as valid. Clergy who perform marriages do so as agents of provincial governments. Some clergy, as a matter of conscience, would refuse to perform marriages under a system that recognizes marriages other than the exclusive union of one man and one woman. Most others are concerned that as agents of provincial governments, their ability, as a matter of conscience and religious freedom, to refuse to marry same-sex couples would be challenged under human rights codes and the charter. Some 94% of marriages in Ontario and 76% of marriages nationally are performed by clergy.

Rather than reinventing marriage, governments should affirm marriage and provide it with the legal and economic support it needs. Marriage as a union of one man and one woman must remain a distinctive institution, socially, culturally, and legally. It is the most reliable, stable, and preferred basis for heterosexual bonding and the procreation and nurturing of children. Restructuring marriage by reducing it to an expression of commitment among adults will not strengthen marriage as we know it. When in society, law, and public policy the distinctiveness of marriage has been eroded, the rate of marriages in Canada has steadily declined. Redefining marriage solely in terms of committed relationships between two persons we think will further erode the distinctiveness of marriage. The onus should be on those seeking to reinvent marriage to show the positive social consequences of redefining marriage.

We endorse including an explicit definition of marriage in federal law as a union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Replacing marriage with a civil registry for domestic relationships would mean marriage could not be promoted or protected in law and public policy. The legal recognition of the social, cultural, and religious institution, we say, would be lost. We're concerned that fewer marriages would take place. Effective public policy requires legislators to make distinctions. Legislators will need to consider the implications of a policy framework, such as option three, that only recognizes the civil union of multiple adults.

Thank you.

¿ (0935)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Now I go to the Canadian Christian Women's Organization for Life, Jean Ferrari, for 10 minutes.

Ms. Jean Ferrari (Canadian Christian Women Organization for Life): Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I hope you won't feel that this is going from the sublime to the ridiculous when I finish. I want to thank you for giving us this opportunity to express our views, but I have to give you some background.

I am a doctor, have a degree in public health, and have completed my training in internal medicine. I worked for the government for 26 years in immigration medicine, when it was a good immigration medical service, and since retirement I've been keeping up to date with my profession by attending medical courses and international health conferences, also keeping an eye on the United Nations.

Changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions would destabilize society by weakening the very foundation of it, the family, which the Habitat agenda defined in 1996 as the basic unit of society. In the next few minutes I'll try to explain how this will occur, based on scientific fact. Some of the things I have to say are not appropriate to little old ladies, so I hope you'll understand my reluctance.

Basically, only three things are essential for life, air, food, and water. Sex designed by the Creator for the preservation of the species is good in its place. Unfortunately, in the past century it's become an obsession for many people. As a consequence, sex is too often freely available on the web, on television, in the marketplace, as well as in the bedroom, but it is not a requisite for life, never has been, and overemphasizing its importance threatens our civilization with the same fate that befell the Roman and Greek empires. Let me explain.

Indiscriminate sex is fraught with dangers, the breakup of one's family, as well as the possibility of acquiring diseases like, among others, cancer of the genitalia related to human papilloma virus and HIV/AIDS, which is endemic, with no real cure in sight. Available medications that prolong life do not kill the virus responsible for AIDS, and no effective vaccine is available. Whether or not one can be developed is a moot point, and if you want to talk about that, maybe you could ask about it at the question period.

Some say condoms will protect against venereal disease. In an October 7, 2002, article, “A Treatment for Teen Sex”, Time magazine featured a story about Dr. Patricia Sulak, an obstetrician/gynecologist, who was promoting condoms in her practice until the day her son entered a class where he would be exposed to sex education. Dr. Sulak was apparently asked to look at the program. She was so appalled at the scientific information it contained that she set out to completely rewrite the program, and in the process, she began to promote abstinence as the only certain way of avoiding venereal disease. Her program is so popular that it's been adopted in 44 states, and this year Dr. Sulak will be honoured by the American Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The Time article also reported comments by one of Dr. Sulak's disgruntled colleagues, who sniffed that she, Sulak, could at least have provided the alternatives of homosexuality and masturbation, but these are not viable alternatives either.

Two years ago, during the AIDS summit in New York, at a satellite conference sponsored by the New York City Department of Public Health the commissioner reported that the vast majority of AIDS cases in New York State occur in young homosexual men and IV drug abusers aged 15 to 24. Often the two lifestyles go hand-in-hand. It took a mother, Dr. Patricia Sulak, whose son was being threatened by scientific misinformation and its consequences to step in and make a difference.

The Canadian sex education program, based on the American model condemned by Dr. Sulak, needs a major revision, as Canadian parents have been saying all along. One might ask if a homosexual or lesbian mother who truly loves his or her child would be able to protect her by telling her, don't do as I did; abstain until marriage, then be faithful to your spouse and avoid AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.

¿ (0940)

Somebody should tell UN AIDS about the unreliability of condoms. At an AIDS conference held during the world summit on social development in Johannesburg, South Africa, September 2002, Dr. Piot, its director, and colleagues were still promoting condoms, this on a continent where AIDS is ravaging the population, except in Uganda. A Harvard study reveals that Uganda has reduced its incidence of AIDS by 50% over the years 1992 to 2000 by promoting abstinence before marriage and marital fidelity.

In case you think Uganda is an aberration, consider other countries that do not have a problem with AIDS. For example, in Qatar there's never been a case of mother-child transmission. In all of Morocco there may be 200 cases, and the story is the same in other Muslim countries. Why is that? Homosexuality is considered to be a grave evil. If anyone is caught in the act, body parts are lopped off. That shouldn't be a surprise: they cut off hands of thieves. This has been verified and it's a pretty powerful inducement to abstain or leave the country if one must have one's kicks.

In Cuba in 1985, when soldiers returned from the wars, Cuban physicians thought six soldiers had hepatitis and solated them in sanitoria. It soon developed that they were suffering from AIDS, but quarantine was continued until they had been treated. As of two years ago the incidence of AIDS in Cuba was considered to be as low as that in the American bible belt. Again, it appears that those trapped in the homosexual lifestyle are leaving the country.

On the other hand, millions of people over the centuries have lived celibate lives. The Catholic Church refers to this as chastity, and it has been the source of their strength, moral and physical, and has allowed them to carry out great things for humanity. Think of Mother Teresa and the monk Gregor Mendel and his peas, the founder of modern day genetics.

In Canada, in a great display of magnanimity, we have granted rights to accommodate vocal, affluent minorities, not on the basis of common sense, but in a show of tolerance. In so doing, we have opened the gates to a disease that has reached endemic proportions and shows no signs of abatement. In fact, a report on NBC a couple of days ago indicates that the incidence of AIDS is rising again. If we, as Canadians, and our elected officials are not concerned about this, we have a real problem.

Consider that HIV, in its natural state, the retro virus, is a relatively benign virus that “has been with us since the dinosaurs”, according to Dr. Paul Sandstrom, who is the associate director of the AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases lab of Health Canada. After weighing the evidence, I am convinced that HIV/AIDS is a designer virus that has developed as a result of passaging. Passaging is is a technique used in labs to alter viruses, for whatever reason--think Saddam Hussein. It may be carried out in vivo, which means in living animals and humans, or in vitro, in the lab, where monkey kidney cells or bone marrow are used. With in vivo, for example, if 100 monkeys are sick, blood is drawn from one and injected into a healthy monkey. When that one becomes sick, blood is drawn and injected into another healthy monkey. This may go on two or three times. Blood is then drawn from the last sick monkey and injected into 100 healthy monkeys. The second group becomes sick and dies more quickly than the first group did. This is passaging, turning a relatively benign virus into a lethal one.

In Canada we've legalized this lifestyle, but thank God, bad laws can be repealed. The most stable unit of society has been discussed. I think Stats Canada in its study did not indicate how long people had lived together. For common-law relationships it's not as long as normal biological relationships. For homosexuals I think it's six months to a year.

¿ (0945)

In summary, I have demonstrated that legalizing an unhealthy lifestyle is in no one's best interest, least of all in the interest of the groups lobbying for it. Where does one draw the line in granting rights? A man has the right to swing his fist until it comes in contact with someone else's nose, then he loses the right. Granting any group a right that will destabilize society is not an option. Laws based on bad cases are bad laws. Thank God, they can be repealed. No judge worth his salt will judge a case based on emotionalism, the quivering lip and the teary eye, or on invective labelling whoever is considered to be the enemy hateful. This is not logic.

You members of the committee have the obligation to act in the best interests of the constituents who have elected you and of Canadian society as a whole. This is what we will all be held accountable for when we appear before the judgment seat of God, not whether we were successful, but how hard we tried.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Toews, for seven minutes.

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

Yesterday we heard a presentation from Dr. Daniel Cere of McGill University, and I think it's worth raising here as well what he said:

The inability of current academic theories to recognize significant differences between forms of homosexual and heterosexual bonding, differences that generate very disparate social ecologies, should raise serious questions about the conceptual blinders of these theories. Our courts and legislators should resist pressure to build laws on views and theories that may be new and fashionable, but are still awaiting the tests of time and rigorous academic debate. This is particularly so when these new theories and perspectives seem so oddly out of step with core features of marriage pervasive throughout history and across cultures.

He goes on to state, in talking about marriage itself:

In human societies marriage has been a unique vehicle for culturally affirming or valorizing a special role of a particular type of heterosexual bonding. Anthropology alerts us to the fact that communal institutions like marriage are not just functional mechanisms to fulfil individual needs and aspirations.

I conclude his comments with the following:

Changing core features of marriage must impact the self-identity of those whose lives are shaped by this institution.

In other words--and I'm summarizing here--marriage is a particular institution designed to specifically deal with heterosexual relations, relations between men and women. In that sense, it doesn't discriminate against homosexuals, it is simply not relevant to their intimate relationship.

I was specifically interested in Madam Smadu's comment on the anthropological issues, which I think are worth exploring. I'm wondering whether you could elaborate on that, whether you agree with this, whether you can make additional comments.

¿ (0950)

Ms. Marlene Smadu: Clearly, the position of the Catholic Church is that marriage is multidimensional, including the anthropological dimension. If I could quote another writer, John Witte, he says marriage is actually the parent of society, not its child, and so has existed through the years and through the ages in many very disparate cultures, often cultures in isolation, but it has become a foundation upon which we've built our society. So clearly, the anthropological dimension is an important part of our overall understanding of marriage. In the Catholic Church it's all of those dimensions together that create the uniqueness of marriage and the synergy that is marriage.

Mr. Vic Toews: In respect of anthropological evidence, could you give the committee some direction on that? I may have put you on the spot, but I'd be more than happy to hear from you later, if you want, and any of the witnesses who can provide evidence on both sides of that discussion. I'm just wondering whether any of the other witnesses have any comments in respect of the anthropological aspects of marriage as a unique institution that deals with the bonding between two sexes, as opposed to people of the same sex.

The Chair: Ms. Huntley.

Ms. Alison Huntley: Until the 12th century marriage was a legal function; only in the 12th century did marriage start to take place within churches. Under Roman law concubinage was very common, and one of our famous Christian saints of the tradition, Augustine, in fact had a concubine and a child. For centuries weddings continued to take place in homes and taverns, and the Church's involvement was minimal. The United Church, in researching some of this historical background, which you have in the appendix to the material that was provided, shows that marriage as a civil institution existed long before marriage as a religious institution and that the civil society has a responsibility for maintaining the rights and structures. Hence, the government has a responsibility to ensure that justice and rights recognition are dealt with.

Religious freedoms become a quite separate issue when dealing with that. Religious freedoms, for example, in the case of the Catholic Church, to not marry divorced people, have always existed. It becomes the Church's issue to deal with its own religious authority and structure in that context, and the civil society deals with the rights and justice issues for the whole body.

The Chair: Mr. Clemenger.

Mr. Bruce Clemenger: Dr. Pyles referred to Dr. Katherine Young of McGill University. She submitted an affidavit on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada in the Halpern case in Ontario, and she's done a longitudinal study of all cultures and societies in respect of their understanding of marriage. We've talked to her conclusions in our brief, but we have a copy of her affidavit, and you may want to invite her as a witness.

The Chair: Monseigneur.

[Translation]

Msgr. André Gaumond: Marriage has a legal dimension. It is a legal recognition of a basic structure, that of the family, a foundation on which all societies are based. Of course, there is a purpose to marriage, an individual objective that relates to individual good, but it also has a very basic objective that relates to the common good. That common good is the good of society. If marriage is not recognized as an expression of the common good through its social and collective dimensions, then there will be no justification for limiting it to couples, to a man and a woman, each one being of a different sex.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Monsieur Marceau, seven minutes.

[Translation]

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

I will start by saying that I am not a theologian, and I will ask my questions with the utmost respect. If I ask you about something that you have said, please do not consider it as an attack on religious or personal positions that you may have expressed. I believe it is very important to understand that in this type of debate.

I find it striking that three groups that accept Jesus Christ as the Saviour have such diverse opinions on the value of marriage, on what marriage represents. We have the United Church on one side and on the other, your church, Mr. Clemenger. And then we have Msgr. Gaumond, who is against allowing same-sex couples to marry.

Would that not be the best example of the fact that in a pluralistic society like Quebec and Canada, we should allow people whose opinions differ to have a relationship without involving the dogma of the Catholic Church, for example?

¿ (0955)

Msgr. André Gaumond: Sociologically, it is not that surprising; but it is still astonishing. It is astonishing to see that people who share the same religious choices do not agree on issues that are so fundamental and so fraught with feeling and emotion as this one, at this point in history, but, sociologically, it is not hard to understand. There is no absolute truth in this debate. We are constantly seeking to better understand the will of the Creator for his creation and the organization of our lives, of our morals, in accordance with what he has given us.

From a sociological point of view, I am not at all surprised to see that we don't always share the same point of view on the same issue. I do not find that shocking in the least. It is normal for us to try to find a more homogeneous concept of such important realities. In a pluralistic society, should we strive to achieve the most common denominator? I am almost afraid to use such expressions for fear of expressing a value judgment. But would the solution be to strive towards the most common denominator so that everyone would be the same? We are talking about nature, that which is natural, and the nature of differences. There is a difference between a man and a woman. I think that is essential. It's obvious. There is a difference between fatherhood and motherhood. These differences are part of the very structure of human reality. I think that is something that plunges us headlong into this difference, something that marriage recognizes as coming from nature.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Monsignor...

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Marceau, Mr. Clemenger wants to answer too.

Mr. Bruce Clemenger: Part of our argument is that we understand marriage as a religious institution, but we also believe it has been understood social and culturally from time immemorial. In other words, the religious institutions appearing before you today did not invent marriage. We are recognizing marriage. What we're saying is that marriage is something beyond religious traditions, beyond societies and cultures. It's an ideal. It's something we think should be cherished and supported and protected. None of our comments said anything about denial of recognition of other forms of relationships. We live in a diverse society. In that diverse society we can recognize the dignity of all people. But that diverse society requires us to make distinctions and say there are different types of relationships. Our argument is that marriage, for the purposes of an enduring and exclusive heterosexual bonding, is tried and true, something that has lasted for millennia, and something we think is deserving of protection.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Okoro.

Ms. Choice Okoro: I want to say thank you, because we want to recognize the voice of same-sex partners and unions that want society to validate their relationship. The reasons you're giving, to me, involve the whole issue of diversity. And this is not the first time we are having this conversation. What we do here is going to be reviewed in the next 20 years, because there's a rights issue here. Heterosexual couples have their relationships validated, celebrated by society, and same-sex partners are asking for the same. I think one of the reasons there's still a difference now is where policy is at. We recognize the disparity here. We do not have a popular position, but thank God, issues like this are not a question of popularity, but a question of rights, of society allowing the validation, the recognition, and the celebration of healthy, God-given, life-fulfilling relationships. In the United Church we have access to those communities. That's where we're speaking from.

À (1000)

The Chair: Mr. Marceau, quickly.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Three superior courts, those of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, said that the definition of marriage, namely "the legitimate union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all other persons", was discriminatory. One of the three courts said that the discrimination was justified under article 1 of the Charter. If, as several legal expert witnesses have said, the Supreme Court—and it is quite possible that it will go as far as the Supreme Court—decided one day that the definition of marriage, namely "the legitimate union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all other persons", is discriminatory and unconstitutional, would you be in favour of using the notwithstanding clause to keep that definition?

[English]

The Chair: To whom was the question directed?

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I would like to have a two-word answer from everyone.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Ferrari wanted to speak first.

Ms. Jean Ferrari: Somebody over there said the relationship between two men is the same as that between two women. It is not. The method by which men have what you might call intercourse is totally abnormal. This is why you have passaging happening. The rectal mucosa is very fragile.

The Chair: Ms. Ferrari, Mr. Marceau has asked a very specific question. You'll have an opportunity, I'm sure. I'm looking to see who wants to answer it.

Mr. Clemenger.

Mr. Bruce Clemenger: The short answer is, yes. However, when you look at the three options, retaining marriage, perhaps adding a domestic partnership regime, redefining marriage, and having some type of civil registry, I would suggest that given the analysis, say, of the Law Commission of Canada, which basically concluded that if you followed the logic right through, there's really no way to make the distinction, if you're going to expand marriage, you need to call all domestic relationships marriage, and there's really no valid reason to limit it to two people. If you going to redefine marriage and keep it at two people, if you're going to do anything other than eliminate marriage and create a civil registry of multiple, more than two, adults, I would think at some point you're going to get challenged on the basis of the equality arguments. What I find interesting is that only in Canada have courts found it to be an issue of equality. I think in Europe the courts have not found it to be a matter of equality or human rights, but a matter of public policy.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Monseigneur.

[Translation]

Msgr. André Gaumond: If the situation arose and if the Supreme Court made a ruling like the one you described, we would certainly continue to affirm our position; in our view, it is rooted in nature and confirmed by history. As for the possible use of the notwithstanding clause, it would depend on the ruling, on the political relevance and on our desire to be prudent, as well as on the practical relevance of such a measure at that time. I worked a great deal on the history of the notwithstanding clause in Quebec as it affects confessionality and I could see how complex a prudential ruling would be.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. O'Brien, for seven minutes.

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today.

I want to quote page 7 of the brief by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, citing Justice Pitfield: “The only issue is whether marriage must be made something it is not in order to embrace other relationships.” I'm reminded of the comment of one the characters in Alice in Wonderland that a word will mean exactly what I say it means in any circumstance, nothing more and nothing less. I'll be very clear on my own personal view, because I've certainly shared it with my constituents repeatedly. For me, same-sex marriage is an oxymoron. It would be inconceivable to me personally, as an MP, that this government or any Canadian government would seek to redefine marriage.

With that succinct personal view, I want to ask Monseigneur Gaumond, in fact all the witnesses, do you support any form of civil recognition of same-sex relationships? Do you see any value in it? Do you have any openness to any kind of recognition of those by the state? Or do you feel that any kind of state recognition of same-sex relationships would not be proper?

À (1005)

[Translation]

Msgr. André Gaumond : The responsibilities of the state and government are obviously not the same as those of the church. The state must organize relations between people within its territory based on common good, peace and respect of each individual's basic rights. It is up to the state to find ways to organize those relations and to recognize these types of unions.

We continue to assert that marriage—and we insist a great deal on that—given everything that it represents in history and its current role in society, and in relation to—and we have not yet talked about it; it could be another chapter—the protection of children, in other words, the entire question of parenthood [parentalité], to use a pedantic term, which is still an institution that absolutely must be preserved.

[English]

Mr. Bruce Clemenger: There is a lively debate among our members about whether legal recognition should be extended to other forms of domestic relationships, so as an association, we have not said in principle that we're opposed, neither have we promoted it. However, the consensus seems to be that we shouldn't use marriage to recognize those other domestic relationships. If they are recognized, and the purpose is to recognize commitment and economic and emotional dependency, we don't see why sexual intimacy should be a criterion or requirement of that domestic partnership.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you.

My second question relates to one I asked the witnesses a couple of meetings ago. I think Mr. Clemenger put it very well in his comments when he asked how broad marriage will become. I asked that of some witnesses before, and they chose, basically, not to answer that question. I'd like to put it to Ms. Huntley. Has the United Church of Canada considered that question? If so, do you have a position? Would multiple relationships be something you would support as some sort of marriage under any new redefinition of the term?

Ms. Alison Huntley: Short answer, no, long answer, a story. It would not be supported under current policy. It came up in big discussions when were deciding about the ordination issue, this assumption that homosexuality implies multiple partnerships, and we clearly made that distinction in our understanding of what homosexuality is.

As for the story, Rachel is in four-year-old heaven as a flower girl at her aunt's wedding--a frilly dress, brand new white shoes, flowers in her hair, you get the picture. But in spite of the careful preparation her mother has given her, she is confused about the gender of these two who are about to be married. Both are women. In earlier discussions with her mother about the possibility of same gender relationships, Rachel concluded emphatically, “But Mom, when there's a prince, there has to be a princess.” She spends most of the day of the wedding trying to figure out if her aunt's partner is really a woman, but at the end of the day, she's convinced that she is. The ceremony proceeds with two United Church ministers, family members, presiding, and it's just like any other wedding on a sunny Saturday, except for the gender. At the end of the day the contented little flower girl is helped out of her dress and into her pyjamas, and she takes a moment to arrange the wonderful fancy socks with the ruffles standing up in her new shoes. As she does so, she has a private conversation with them, as though they are some imaginary wedding party. You can be the girl, she says to one shoe, and to the other, you can be the boy. No, no, you can both be girls.

The shift conceptually from understanding relationships as restricted, the way we have boxed ourselves in, towards an understanding of openness opens her to a whole life-giving possibility for her future, and I think that's the conceptual shift the United Church has made, out of the box of defining homosexuality in a particular way towards a new understanding of what it means to be human and in a relationship.

À (1010)

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you, I appreciate your answer. I didn't know, frankly--and that's why I asked the question--the United Church had considered this question of multiple partners, whether that could be a marriage, and decided that you could not support that.

I wonder if the other witnesses would care to comment on that same point. I don't think any of you are lawyers, but how comfortable are you, and indeed how comfortable is Miss Huntley, if we start to deconstruct the definition of marriage that served this country and our civilization very well for so long, so the words become anything we choose them to mean? How comfortable are we, as a society, that the courts won't agree with the United Church and say it's fine? If marriage as we now know it is off the table, it's totally off the table. I'd like to hear from some of the witnesses on that comment.

The Chair: I'm going to Ms. Ferrari first, Mr. Clemenger second.

Ms. Jean Ferrari: I think, if you're going to recognize any same-sex relationships, with all the financial benefits that accrue, you should recognize mother-daughter and father-son.

Mr. Bruce Clemenger: Marriage, again, in that ideal is rooted in the dimorphic nature of humanity, with two sexes and marriage as a union of a man and a woman. Once you break from that, if now marriage becomes rooted in pursuit of recognition of diverse relationships or affirmation or recognition of love and care between people, you have to ask if the twoness is still a requirement. As a parallel thing, from the London Free Press last week, there's an application for a third parent; there is the biological mother, the biological father, the mother is a lesbian, her partner wants to adopt the child. So the question is, why not three parents? Polygamists are going to ask, what about our sexual orientation? I'm not sure what a bisexual marriage looks like, but does that require more than two? If the thrust is the recognition of our diverse forms, the logic of equality, the way it's been interpreted under the charter, is going to continue to stand up. I'm not sure how to break it, how to stop it.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: London, Ontario, happens to be my home city, and that's one of the reasons I asked the question.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Toews, three minutes.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you.

I'm very troubled by the rights theory for extending the definition of marriage. Speaking as a lawyer, a former constitutional lawyer, I think it gives a very narrow legal focus, and given the anthropological and other social considerations we've heard here today, it is perhaps misleading. As a lawyer, I look at multiple relationships as in the Mormon context; some Mormons, of course, still believe in them, but as a church, generally, not any more. But if Muslims immigrate to this country, on what rights theory could you deny the legal recognition of multiple partnership marriage? At present it's not allowed, but under the rights theory there is no basis for distinguishing that. That's why I'm so concerned that we are moving into a legal understanding of what marriage is and not understanding the deeper anthropological and sociological underpinning of marriage.

That's why I go back to Dr. Cere's paper, in which he talks about the inability of current academic theories to really grapple with this. They haven't really dealt with this. Isn't the whole discussion about fundamentally changing this institution a little premature, certainly for parliamentarians, or indeed in the law courts? I'll open it up to anyone.

The Chair: Ms. Okoro.

Ms. Choice Okoro: I just wanted to connect to an example you gave using Islam. Originally, I come from a part of the world where female vagina mutilation happens. Some have immigrated here, where there are laws that don't allow it. So I'm hoping that conversation can happen, because not all issues are right. I'm just concerned that in this conversation we recognize who we are as Canadians. We do have conversations, we debate issues, and we engage with the outside.

À (1015)

Mr. Vic Toews: I'm not denying that we should have this discussion. In fact, I'm encouraging this discussion. I think this is a healthy discussion to have. I'm just concerned that as lawmakers, we pass a law to fundamentally change our society and this institution at this time, given the very shallow nature of the academic research.

Ms. Choice Okoro: In issues of rights and justice, this is not the first time we've had this conversation about who will marry. We've had it in the States, in the south--what races can you mix up? The whole fear is that we're opening a Pandora's box if we let this happen. This is not the first time. The assumption is that if you open something up, there are other implications. The whole premise of this healthy conversation you're talking about is the need to simplify it sometimes as an issue of rights. There are, as we speak, healthy relationships among the United Church constituents asking for their relationships to be celebrated and legalized, and that is what it's about for us.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I'm going to let Mr. Clemenger answer, then I'm going to Ms. Fry.

Mr. Bruce Clemenger: I'm wondering whether this is properly framed as a discussion of rights or is really one of social policy. As legislators, you need to make distinctions. What we're saying is that marriage is a unique, distinctive institution and the language should remain for you to address it in law and public policy. I find it a curious argument to say the definition should be changed as a matter of human rights. If similar groups are treated unequally, you don't redefine one group to include the other necessarily, you address the inequality. So if there's inequality between men and women, you don't redefine man to include woman, you treat women as equal to men. If there's inequality between blacks and whites, you don't redefine white to include black, you treat blacks as equal to whites.

What we're talking about is social policy. As to the evidence and the long-term effects of continuing to dismantle marriage or reduce marriage to a functional approach, and then extend the benefits and obligations attributed to marriage to other relationships, we don't know what the social consequences are. There are only two countries in the world that have redefined marriage, and one was only two weeks ago. So we don't know what the consequences are. I think the onus is on those who research marriage to give evidence that this restructuring of marriage will not result in a decline in marriage rates, which has happened since the 1970s, when divorce laws changed and common-law relationships were recognized as well.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Fry, three minutes.

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

I want to base what I'm going to say on the historical fact that this is a very valid thing for a government and a legislature to do, if in fact marriage has always been something that was a civil right and only became a religious matter after the 12th century. And I want to look at the four dimension of marriage as articulated very well by the Catholic bishops.

You talked about the anthropological dimension of marriage:

Among these presuppositions are the social condition of the human being and the desire to be in a relationship...the personal willingness of the spouses to share their entire life project, what they have and what they are...such communion is the fruit and the sign of a profoundly human need.

That profoundly human need, that relationship, the social condition of the human being, applies to all human beings, not merely to men and to women, to seek that anthropological dimension.

Second, the personal dimension is a proclamation to the community “that they will not only share their lives, but be faithful and true to a word solemnly given and honoured”, and it is an extension of “love like the one that exists in God and between God and humanity.” Again, that personal dimension of marriage seems to me to have nothing to do with man and woman, but to be profoundly bound with the love of God for human beings.

The third piece was the social dimension of marriage, which speaks about the fact that “the family provides a stable environment and is the best place in which to raise children and to educate future generations”, ensuring “the psychological and emotional stability that is so essential for children.” Well, we do know that same-sex couples have children, whether by previous marriages or through reproductive technologies. So it is possible to have children. Therefore, that profound rootedness, the emotional and psychological stability of families, also should apply.

The only one in which you may have a good argument, I believe, is the fourth one, which speaks to the fact that marriage in the Catholic Church is a sacrament. I suggest that we are not prepared to discuss here--I am not, anyway--encroaching on the religious belief that speaks to marriage as a sacrament, because all religions do not believe it's a sacrament--the United Church doesn't. We, as a legislature, can address the three components of marriage and leave the fourth one for the churches to decide who should participate in a sacrament and who shouldn't.

As a Catholic, I believe, when we partake in the body and blood of Christ, we do not stop homosexuals from participating in the body and blood of Christ, and we know there are homosexual priests in the Catholic Church. I suppose we're making a decision, and I will not argue as to who we choose to give sacraments to within the Catholic Church. We don't discriminate in other areas within the Catholic Church.

I would like to hear a comment on why, since those three components, the anthropological, social, and personal, do apply, we should logically and rationally deny marriage to same-sex couples?

À (1020)

[Translation]

Msgr. André Gaumond: Marriage is a very natural phenomenon : in my view, that is the crux of the matter. It is an undeniable fact.

Marriage is the recognition of a structure that stems from nature. We have no control over nature. It is given to us and we have to accept it. We believe that nature was bestowed upon us and that we can discern God's will through it. Recognizing marriage means recognizing God's role in the organization of society.

Marriage is something experienced by humans. It therefore has many ramifications and all sorts of complexities. That is to be expected. But the bottom line is that we must recognize a structure that is enshrined in nature. The legal notion of contract falls far short of that.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Monsieur Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Obviously, when you are a parliamentarian, you think that you have to start the debate from some premise : there is no state religion in Canada. I also took courses in constitutional law. It is impossible that in the arguments you presented this morning, which are interesting from an anthropological perspective and are nuanced... I would like to see your appendix. First of all, you can see how marriage has been perceived differently over time. I do not think you can use arguments that relate to the essence of marriage. The legislator cannot base his arguments on that premise. There is no state religion in Canada. Different groups have different values, but marriage is not an institution that exists through the very essence of things. As legislators, we are concerned about two things, namely the equality of individuals, because the Charter exists. The Charter is used as the basis for legislation and it imposes obligations on us as legislators.

You did not answer the other question, which I think is just as important. We cannot discuss this from your religious perspective. That is a personal matter, and everyone has his or her own ideas on that. As far as I am concerned, I think that religious impulses exist, but I think that love exists as well. I would like to know whether Msgr. Gaumond and the other witnesses can see that if the religious impulse exists, the loving feeling exists as well. Do you think it is qualitatively different if you are dealing with two men or two women? I don't know whether you have ever been in love. I do not mean to be indiscreet, but when I am in love, as a homosexual, I do not feel any different from you, I do not feel any different from the heterosexuals around this table. As soon as you recognize that the loving feeling exists, there are people who want to commit to marriage and who want that feeling to be recognized by the legislators. And that will come. There won't just be legal guidelines; there will be guidelines that carry the same weight as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is not a matter of public policy. It is a question of the right to equality.

Let's treat ourselves to a discussion on feelings, since we will not be seeing each other very much or perhaps never again. I would like to know whether you think the loving feeling exists. If so, does it exist between two men or two women?

À (1025)

Msgr. André Gaumond: I will not be relating my personal experiences.

Mr. Réal Ménard: We do not want to be indiscreet.

Msgr. André Gaumond: I would be rather inclined to say that the loving feeling is a fact of life.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Between two men?

Msgr. André Gaumond: There is no need for anyone to be scandalized by that. Philosophers have historically done a great deal to shape the Catholic doctrine, especially from the Middle Ages on. There is a very fine line between friendship and love in the erotic sense of the term, etc. I do not think we should get into that discussion here this morning.

Mr. Réal Ménard: But answer my question.

Msgr. André Gaumond: It seems to me your question is on recognizing a union between...

Mr. Réal Ménard: No. Let me reformulate my question. Do you think that the loving feeling exists between same-sex partners?

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Ménard, it's finished.

Monsieur Clemenger wants to answer. We'll be back to you.

Mr. Bruce Clemenger: Yes, I believe love exists between people of the same sex, and that love has very different forms, erotic love, friendship love, just as there are different types of love between people of the opposite sex. The question, though, is the role of the government in recognizing domestic relationships and in recognizing marriage. Is the state trying to celebrate or affirm love between people or to look at what those relationships are, how they contribute to society, whether they should be recognized as law?

Marriage was first recognized in law in Canada as social policy, to address the social fallout of breakdown of marriages between men and women. Women were economically unequal to men. The idea was that we needed to put protections in law for women in the breakdown of relationships. The same thing applied with children being vulnerable in a relationship. It wasn't a recognition of the love between the people, it was a recognition that this societal institution, which has a religious influence, but is broader than religion, which has a legal significance, but is broader than law, contributes this distinctive thing to society and has done so since time immemorial, and so we want to keep thus.

The Chair: Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Thank you, Chair.

I wanted to pick up on Ms. Smadu's comment that marriage is the parent of society, not a child of society. I think that picks up on a comment by Mr. Justice Gonthier who says, “Marriage and family life are not inventions of the legislature; but rather, the legislature is merely recognizing their social importance.” We seem to be trapped in this question of rights, almost a cart before the horse question. The courts have arrogated to themselves this decision over the course of the last four or five court cases, yet I'd like to suggest to you that courts are probably the last place we should be dealing with this issue. Dr. Cere made note of some significant components. How is it that a rights dialogue is going to deal with the fact of sexual difference, the significance of sexual complementarity, the important place of male-female bonding in human life, the procreativity of heterosexual bonding, the unique ecology of heterosexual parenting, which bonds children to their biological parents, and the rich genealogical nature of heterosexual family ties?

So particularly to Ms. Smadu, but to the other panellists as well, I'd be interested in your comments on how courts are going to deal with this incredibly complex layering of meaning that is marriage when you are limiting yourself essentially to a rights dialogue, sections 1 and 15 of the charter.

À (1030)

Ms. Marlene Smadu: Thank you, Mr. McKay, for the opportunity to respond to that. I think your opening remark about the importance of having this dialogue is something we would affirm. I think it is not in the best interests of the citizens of Canada for it to be dealt with as individual court cases, but rather through this kind of dialogue, where you, as parliamentarians, can hear from a variety of citizens, which is one of the characteristics of our pluralistic society in Canada, different perspectives on this very complex issue of marriage. As we've said in our paper, one of the ways for us, as Catholics, to understand marriage is to look at its four dimensions, not because any one of those four dimensions is sufficient in itself to characterize marriage, but it's when all of them are present together that it's considered to be marriage.

So I think this is a very important dialogue. I think it is an issue for the legislature to consider. You have many demands and many people looking at this from the point of view of rights, and our paper would ask you to consider it rather from the perspective that it has been an institution for thousands of years in many forms throughout the world. In fact, through marriage and through the development of societies in many parts of the world, we've actually created the opportunity for us to be here in the way we are in Canada.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Huntley.

Ms. Alison Huntley: I certainly agree that courts are not the place for this debate, because it is complex, and I agree that policy-makers need to be setting policy. However, we are implying in some of the discussion that homosexuality is a new invention of the 20th century, and of course, it's not. Sexual relationships have always varied, and there's always been some portion of human populations that is homosexual, whether that's been acknowledged or not.

I think where the issue of rights comes in is in the fullest sense of what we mean by family. There are many commonalties between the United Church understanding of family and our brothers and sisters in the Roman Catholic tradition: the nurturing of children, certainly, the providing of security, economic, social, spiritual, psychological, are very fundamental to our understanding of what a family unit is. I think the only major area of difference is that we don't limit our understanding of family to heterosexual parents and children. We include in our sense of family the possibility of lesbian parents and so on, this whole full range of human partnerships that meet the spiritual, social, psychological, sexual needs of the partner. I think it's really in our understanding of what it means to be family that we would differ, on that issue of gender and whether we limit that to same-sex.

I also wanted to point out that as a legislative body, the Government of Canada has stepped into this terrain before, when homosexuality was legalized, and all the fears that were presented at the time that legalization happened, that this was opening a Pandora's box, that if we legalize homosexuality, we're going to be legalizing child abuse, etc., haven't manifested themselves. We still manage to keep intact a law that protects children; in fact, we've strengthened it over the years, rather than diminishing it. So as we open ourselves to the possibility of legislative change, we are, in fact, moving forward in a way that's quite in continuity with the history of the Government of Canada.

The Chair: I think I should explain to everybody that when I invite Mr. Toews to speak for three minutes, that includes the question and the answer. If he takes it to two minutes and fifty seconds, and then says all the panellists can respond, I'm going to have trouble getting in the people who haven't spoken yet. So please, make the questions as concise as possible, and if you take it to three minutes, and then you ask a question of everybody, you'll lose the opportunity to do a supplement.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you.

I think decriminalizing of homosexuality was quite another thing when compared to the issue we're talking about here: what defines marriage? I think we need to focus on what the purpose of marriage is.

My comments are directed at the Catholic representatives and EFC, because of positions they've taken in the question and answer session. If marriage is a heterosexual institution, would you agree that there's a need for Parliament to offer some kind of alternative legal framework for other relationships in our society? Does the Catholic Church or EFC have a position on that, outside the institution of marriage?

À (1035)

Ms. Marlene Smadu: I think Archbishop Gaumond did respond to this in some form previously. We believe in the inherent dignity of all human beings, and we believe the support that needs to be offered people in a variety of relationships is an issue for the state. Our discussion here is the issue of marriage and what it means to us as Catholics, but if the state sees fit to create other kinds of unions or relationships, to support children in those relationships, to support the potential vulnerability, that, we believe, is the right of the legislature.

Mr. Bruce Clemenger: As I indicated previously, as an association, we have not endorsed or opposed the development of domestic partnerships or other forms of relationships. People in our denominations are quite divided on that issue. Some see it as an issue of public justice, others feel that we need to be recognizing marriage alone. However, there seems to be a consensus that if other forms of relationships are recognized in law and public policy, domestic partnership regimes, civil unions, civil registry, or whatever you want to call them, we're not sure sexual intimacy needs to be a requirement of that.

Ms. Choice Okoro: Any alternative legal framework we'll say no to in the United Church. We're looking at equality.

Mr. Vic Toews: So if this committee recommends that marriage continue as a heterosexual institution, the United Church would say no to regulations outside the context of marriage?

Ms. Choice Okoro: Yes.

Mr. Vic Toews: What about the children in these other relationships, if marriage is defined as a heterosexual relationship and children occur in that relationship? There are other relationships that may have children, lesbian relationships and other gay relationships. Shouldn't there be some regulation of the relationships between those children and their parents in regard to society generally?

The Chair: Ms. Huntley.

Ms. Alison Huntley: There should be, and part of the reason we want an equal institution for both gay or lesbian families and heterosexual families is to protect children from things like what happens in the school yard. What happens if you create separate institutions for one group over another? The civil rights movement in the States is a classic example of what happens if you create separate water fountains for different groups. You don't end up with equality, you end up with increased hatred and discrimination, and that's what we're opposed to. I think, fundamentally, that's where it comes from, protecting children and adults from the abuses of homophobia.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Fry.

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

To follow up on the concept of the legal dimensions of marriage under the anthropological, social, and personal headings, we've talked about broadening marriage, and that meant broadening it to all sorts of relationships. I see marriage as fundamentally a conjugal relationship. I do not see this as opening it up to brothers and sisters and uncles and aunts and siblings living with each other and parent and child relationships. Fundamentally, if you see this as a conjugal relationship and you recognize, as Monsieur Ménard was saying, the concept of erotic love within a conjugal relationship, as well as other dimensions of love that come with couples, you're also allowing the children of those families, as was just so beautifully said by Ms. Huntley, to have a sense of stability within society, a sense of belonging to society, that they are not second class children, that their reality as children of parents is a truth and is to be respected in ways that children of heterosexual parents are respected. So I'd like to hear a comment from Mr. Clemenger, because I know you'd like to comment on it.

À (1040)

Mr. Bruce Clemenger: As a policy-maker, what would the state's test of erotic love be? How do you determine whether erotic love exists in a relationship in order to decide whether it should be marriage or not?

Ms. Hedy Fry: There are seven dimensions for conjugality that are inherent. That would fulfil those requirements for conjugal relationship.

Mr. Bruce Clemenger: But I'm asking, as legislators, how do you define marriage in such a way as to be able to distinguish the existence of erotic love?

The Chair: Mr. Clemenger, it will be hard enough to do this with only one side asking questions. I understand that it was rhetorical, but I'm not sure Ms. Fry understood it that way.

Does anyone else want to put an answer to Ms. Fry's question?

Ms. Huntley.

Ms. Alison Huntley: In a sense, it's an obvious answer. The way heterosexual couples present themselves for marriage, there's no real test by which you have to prove you're having sex in order to get married, or are intending to, or whatever it is. There's a framework already that tells us how to approach this and what to do. I don't see what the problem would be with defining conjugal relationships in a more broad sense to include same-sex on the same terms as heterosexual.

The Chair: Ms. Ferrari.

Ms. Jean Ferrari: Since it's been determined that children in unstable relationships have difficulty in school, leave school early, have difficulty getting or keeping a job, and have difficulty with relationships, I wonder about the advisability of allowing anything but stable couples--and I mean people who are married--to adopt children. I know some children are inherited by the mother who suddenly decides she'd prefer a lesbian relationship, and the same with men, but these children are in very unfortunate circumstances, and one wonders how much the parent, so-called, really loves the child to subject the child to that kind of relationship.

The Chair: Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Chairman, during the first round I began by saying that I was not a theologian. It always surprises me when I hear Mr. McKay, for instance, say that it is not up to the courts to decide. In theory, if it is not up to the courts to rule on the law, then it is not our place to make laws. Since I am not a theologian, I can only be guided by legislation, since I am a legislator. Marriage does not exist in a vacuum. It is a legal concept, so that becomes our frame of reference.

Mgr. Gaumond, today, in the Catholic Church, a divorced person does not have the right to remarry. Some people may think this is discrimination. But nobody forced the Catholic Church to unite in marriage a divorced person by imposing legislation. The Catholic Church does not recognize the ordination of women and there is no legal way to force the Catholic Church to change its dogma into allowing the ordination of women.

Can't we make the same analogy with regard to homosexual marriages? The state distinguishes between the religious and civilian institutions and could decide it will allow homosexuals to marry. But the Catholic Church is not obliged to do so, just as it is not obliged to marry divorced persons or ordain women. In our society, there is a basic separation between the church and state. A religion cannot impose its point of view on society as a whole.

Based on the principle of the separation of church and state and the fact that we live in a pluralistic society, is it not possible to recognize homosexual marriages without infringing on the religious beliefs of our witnesses, which I nevertheless deeply respect? If religious orders fear infringement, could the committee not decide to call for the creation of a provision similar to section 367 of Quebec's Civil Code, which states that a minister cannot be forced to perform an act which goes against his beliefs?

The Chair: Monsignor.

Msgr. André Gaumond: The separation of church and state is taken for granted and this principle must be maintained in absolutely the clearest and most obvious way possible. For many years now, this has been taken for granted and established as one of the bases of western thought. It is unassailable.

Why does the church continue not only to impose its perception of the reality of marriage onto its faithful, but also to ask and strongly desire that it be recognized by society? Let me come back to the distinction you made a little earlier with regard to life outside the church.

In this case, we are dealing with a natural situation and we feel that lay legislators ought to have the duty to respect the essence of this structure. This explains why we have an opinion on the subject.

À (1045)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Monseigneur.

Mr. Clemenger.

Mr. Bruce Clemenger: To answer the last part of the question, if you redefine marriage, we would want legal protection to ensure that clergy are not required to marry people who would represent a violation of conscience. Under the current situation, we would expect some type of challenge through the Human Rights Commission. Clergy who marry are actually licensed by the province to do so, they're providing a public service, and so we anticipate a challenge on the right to protection.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We've had a number of witnesses who said the sky will not fall if same-sex couples are admitted to the institution of marriage, it's really not our problem, it's overexaggerated, it won't debase the currency of marriage, and things of that nature. Yet you, Ms. Smadu, say “the reciprocity has demographic, economic, social, and intergenerational consequences that we as a society ignore at our peril.” Then you go on to quote Mr. Justice Pitfield: “The state has a demonstrably genuine justification in affording recognition, preference and precedence to the nature and character of the core social and legal arrangement by which society endures.” The simple question is, what's the peril?

Ms. Marlene Smadu: It relates to the description of the four dimensions of marriage, particularly the social dimension related to procreation, in the fact, as I said earlier, that marriage existed before many of our societies existed, and it was the foundation, the building block of society as we know it. We know in the Catholic Church there is much to be done in supporting married couples and ensuring that the institution continues; we have a lot of work to do, some of which is going on. It is that cornerstone of society, as Monseigneur Gaumond has said, the natural ability to procreate within a heterosexual relationship that creates not only children, but an environment for children and an ability for society to continue to exist and to extend itself. I think fundamentally redefining marriage means marriage as we know it now does not exist, and I think many things done in society would come under scrutiny. Mr. Clemenger has talked about some of the possible patterns in the way many relationships are organized. Much of the care and protection of children occurs within marriage, which is an important and unique commitment of married couples to the state, to society as a whole.

The Chair: Mr. Clemenger.

Mr. Bruce Clemenger: Around the time of the 1970s in Canada we had changes in divorce laws, we had benefits and obligations extended to common-law opposite-sex couples. During that same time the rate of marriage in Canada declined. We're submitting that marriage is an important institution in respect of the sexual bonding of male and female in the context of procreation of children. I think decline in marriage rates should be of concern to you, as legislators concerned about social policy. We need to understand whether the weakening of the distinctiveness of marriage will lead to fewer people becoming married, if it's no longer esteemed in law and policy and in our society in general, and there will be attendant social consequences. We think marriage needs to be retained as being a distinctive institution and the equality needs of other relationships should be addressed through alternative categories.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Clemenger.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I do want to apologize, both to my colleagues and to the witnesses, that I had to leave, but I had to go to the House to table a private member's bill that, in fact, would extend marriage to same-sex couples. In tabling that bill, I made the point that in my view, far from weakening the institution of marriage, affirming the right of gay and lesbian people to marry will strengthen it, by making it more inclusive and by recognizing the diversity of Canadian families. That is a position I've held for some time. I've tabled the bill, the witnesses are well aware of that position, and I've had the privilege of having this dialogue with a number of the witnesses in the past.

As to procreation--and the witnesses keep coming back to that--and sexuality, there's absolutely no evidence that in the Netherlands, which has extended the right of marriage to gay and lesbian couples, heterosexual couples have started having fewer children as a result of that, that the number of children being born there has gone down, that anybody is procreating any less because same-sex partners are allowed to marry. There's certainly no evidence that there has been a decline in the rate of heterosexual marriage because this institution has been opened to gay and lesbian people. So I have to question the fundamental argument being made here by a number of the witnesses--of course, not the United Church, and I'm delighted to see the United Church is taking a position in support of same-sex marriage. Explain to me how, in any way, extending marriage to same-sex couples is going to mean less procreation or that fewer heterosexual partners marry.

My other question, to the Bishop or Dr. Smadu, is with respect to sexuality itself. I just want to understand clearly the position of the Catholic Church--I think I understand it--that as a gay man, I should never have sex. You say sex is only possible within the institution of marriage. You say I should never be allowed to marry. So I assume you are saying to all gay and lesbian people in Canada, according to the doctrines of the Church, you should never have sex. Is that correct?

À (1050)

Msgr. André Gaumond: Yes.

Mr. Svend Robinson: That is your position.

Msgr. André Gaumond: According to the doctrine of the church, yes.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Could you respond to the issue of procreation and marriage, Dr. Smadu?

Ms. Marlene Smadu: I feel like a broken record, as I keep saying the same lines, but our position on marriage is that it is multidimensional, and it's when all those dimensions are present together that we create the institution of marriage within the Catholic Church. Procreation is an essential part of marriage, in the eyes of the church. It is not always possible, there are times when procreation won't occur, but it's that openness and that vitality of life.

So what difference would it make to me if there were same-sex marriages?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Would there be less procreation?

Ms. Marlene Smadu: It relates then to the social dimension, and perhaps the anthropological dimension, of marriage, in that it serves the function in society, given the definition it has now, of a building block, a foundation, and if you fundamentally change the definition of marriage, it has an impact on all people who are part of that institution. I'm not familiar with the length of time the Netherlands has had this law, and I'm not sure whether there is evidence or trends can be seen.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Briefly, what is the position of the Catholic Church on priests who are gay? I understand the position is that you are allowed to be gay as a priest as long as, like any other priest, you don't engage in sexual activity.

[Translation]

Msgr. André Gaumond: You are right. That is exactly our position.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Clemenger wants to answer.

Mr. Bruce Clemenger: My concern is not there will be less procreation, but that there will be less procreation among heterosexual couples in the institution of marriage.

The Chair: Mr. O'Brien. There's a notice of privilege, so please keep it very short. We're supposed to be done in five minutes.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I'm not sure Mr. Robinson heard Dr. Cere's presentation, but I'd encourage everybody to read it if they haven't heard it. He cited several leading homosexual people who are themselves researchers on this important topic. He said, of course changing the definition of marriage will fundamentally change marriage itself. So do you believe marriage as we know it now requires and deserves special protection in law from the state?

À (1055)

The Chair: Monseigneur Gaumond.

[Translation]

Msgr. André Gaumond: My answer is yes, because in our view it is extremely dangerous to destructure the ancient institution of marriage, given its relation to society and its importance to society, in particular because of the family's responsibility to raise children.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you. I have a question for Monsignor Gaumond. I do not want to beat this thing to death, but I think you touched upon the nub of the issue when you said that the most important thing is the fact that it is part of nature.

Isn't that a value judgment, a religious value judgment which lies at the heart of this debate? If, as a practising Catholic, you believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman and that this is part of nature, you can't really argue with that. But someone else may believe that two men or two women can love each other and have a married relationship. Therefore, doesn't the argument which says that this is part of nature lie at the heart of a religious belief? And this where you have to distinguish between society and religion. Church dogma and societal beliefs do not mix.

Msgr. André Gaumond: In my opinion, this is not a religious value judgment or a religious judgment about values. It also has nothing to do with beliefs. It is, however, an anthropological view, a basic anthropological view. The way we see it, it is an anthropological reality.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Clemenger wants to give a very short answer, and then we're going to go to Mr. Ménard's question of privilege.

Mr. Bruce Clemenger: Marriage is rooted in the biological reality that we exist as male and female; marriage is the exclusive and enduring sexual bond between male and female, which also is procreative and does not intentionally forfeit the right of children to know and intimately experience their biological parents. It's kind of a package. I think it has religious significance, but it is also rooted in basic biology.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I want to thank the committee, I want to thank the panel. I think this has been very informative.

Now I would excuse the witnesses and entertain Mr. Ménard's question of privilege.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for you, because I know you take your job to heart. When people talk about you on the Hill, they say that you are an extremely conscientious chairman, but in the last two or three meetings, I find that you have become much more controlling with regard to our deliberations with witnesses. The nature of this issue sometimes leads us, as parliamentarians, to reword questions and choose which witnesses to put them to. In the interest of time and the members' interventions, I would like the chair to be a little less directive. I would have appreciated being given the opportunity to reword my question.

If a witness does not answer my question, I should have the right to reword it and insist on an answer. That's my privilege. If ever it happened that I showed a lack of respect for the chair or for a witness, I would understand your intervention, but outside of these two parameters, it seems that you should not involve yourself in exchanges between members and witnesses. But you are still my friend. You are a very good chairman and I know you want to do a good job.

Á (1100)

[English]

The Chair: I want to respond to Mr. Ménard. I don't think it's necessarily a question of privilege, but I do accept his intent. This is our fifth or sixth day of hearings. In every instance we have taken them right to the end of our time. In order for me to protect the right of all members of Parliament to have the opportunity to speak, I need to make sure the rules are observed, because if we don't, at the end of the exercise people who would like to speak won't have an opportunity to do so. With the specific case this afternoon, I have a tendency to recognize witnesses beyond the three minutes or the seven minutes, though I advise them that they should be brief, because we've asked them to be here to inform us and we have lots of opportunity ourselves. However, I do not allow committee members to put questions after their time has expired, because they might prompt a five-minute answer, and I don't like to cut witnesses off, and then the last three people of the morning get to ask no questions at all.

This isn't just for Monsieur Ménard, but all members of the committee. Let me advise you now, if it's your intention to probe a question, you'll have to ask the question and give yourself enough time to probe the answers, rather than taking the question to the three-minute mark and leaving it to the panel. The panel begins to answer, and then we have some follow-up. The follow-up is gone after the three-minute mark. As I said before, I try to accommodate the witnesses more than the members, because the members have all kinds of opportunity. If anyone has an objection to this, we can go back to the question. The rules on the seven-minute round and the three-minute round were established by the committee.

Mr. Toews.

Mr. Vic Toews: I do share some of Mr. Ménard's concern. I want to recognize, Mr. Chair, that you've been doing an excellent job generally, but sometimes, given the limitations of our time, a question put to a particular witness may not be open to the entire panel, for reasons of our own. I want to ask someone one question and a follow-up, and I don't want to hear from the rest of the panel, because I have specific reasons to ask that. So perhaps we, as committee members, should make that clear and get you out of a difficult position. I would just ask you to consider that, or we can extend the time to seven and five minutes, for example, because three minutes is very short., and we're not observing the three-minute rule.

The Chair: In the event that a member specifically addresses their question to a particular witness, it is my practice to limit the answer to that witness, but sometimes, Mr. Toews, it's impossible. You're looking at the answerer, and if someone over here indicates to me, as chair, I would put it to you that someone else would like to answer. Then it's up to you.

Mr. Vic Toews: All right, that's a fair process.

The Chair: Because I'm the only one who knows they've put their hand up.

Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I don't envy your task with these hearings, and I know you'll handle it well. I've chaired the defence committee here for two years, and we've all sat on many committees and chaired many committees. My experience is that as long as the committee members understand how it's going to be interpreted and it's utterly consistent for everybody, that helps to maintain the perception that it's fair. My view is that if it's a seven-minute round--and that's been the practice on every committee I've served on, whether I was in the chair or not--that includes questions and answers, and it's seven minutes as quickly thereafter as possible. The chair makes the point that the time is up, and that's it. If we don't adhere to that principle, some of the people who serve on this committee--and I've had to chair when they've been present--are quite expert at taking almost all their time, so that if the chair then allows more time for answers, you've expanded the amount of time.

So I would just urge, if there is not a clear understanding of how that's going to be interpreted, that we revisit it, but I think, if it's seven minutes, it's seven minutes for my questions and my answers. I second Mr. Toews' comment. In the committee yesterday there was an unfortunate situation. One gentleman felt slighted, and frankly, the question wasn't even directed at him. He was quite out of line, and you brought him to realize that he was out of line and took offence when none should have been taken.

Á (1105)

The Chair: I'm prepared to listen to other opinions, but after the practice of this committee since I've become the chair, if a witness wants to respond and was invited to do so, but you're at the six-minute mark, your question is complicated, you want to say something, and then basically the member says to the panel “and anyone who wants to can answer”, you have a minute left, you have seven panellists and I haven't been able to call you to heel, because you're still under your seven minutes, I'll entertain maybe three, I'll be conscious of the sides of the panellists--it's my job. So if I get two in and the same argument and there's someone sitting there with their hand up on the other side, I would have a tendency to want to recognize that, because I think it informs our debate.

So far I think we've been able to do this reasonably well. I intend to continue to do it that way. I would ask you to allow me to exercise some judgment as to how we proceed. I'm aware of how many names are on the list, I'm aware of who's putting their hand up or passing me messages, that kind of thing. No one else is aware of that. You have to give me some latitude.

Mr. Sorenson.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): I would also underscore that it's a tough responsibility you have. Today Mr. Toews wanted to continue questioning a couple of witnesses, so he kept questioning, and that's what each party has to work out. They have to be able to work out within their ranks how to give those who want time the ability to speak. Many of us didn't speak today, and it's not that we're whining about it, it's because we've deferred to somebody else. So between Richard and Réal they're going to have to work those things out. I don't think you were unfair in your time allotment.

The Chair: Ms. Fry.

Ms. Hedy Fry: I think Kevin makes a good point, but there was one glitch. Quite often on your side and with the Bloc and the NDP you have a particular position you all hold, so you can defer to one person. I think on the Liberal side we see there are different opinions, and it sometimes creates a problem when the person who gets a seven-minute go has a particular side to the problem and the person who doesn't hasn't. I'm not second-guessing you, because I think you do a great job, Andy, I'm just saying this is such a complex issue that sometimes, in order to ask a question, you have to probe the complexity of the argument made by your witnesses. I don't know how we do that. It then leaves the answerers little time to answer, and I know they're here to help us. I still feel Mr. Toews's suggestion of five minutes for your second round of questions might be better, but I defer to you on your decision.

The Chair: I don't have any difficulty at all, but I can tell you, that will mean members on this side will not get questions. The reason it's three minutes is to get that deep.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: I think it's as fair as we can have it. I do appreciate that the chair has the ability to recognize that there are others who want to expand on the question. Give him a little latitude--that's what the chair has. If Mr. Ménard feels he's been unjustly treated, we take that under advisement.

The Chair: Anyone who wants to can become a Tory. You'll have lots of time.

Á (1110)

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): I want to take friendly exception to what Hedy said. Just because there may be four of us here who may share some philosophical commonalty, it doesn't necessarily mean I don't have a question that differs from what Vic might want to ask, but I defer to him because it tends to be more important and have more relevance. Just because I happen to agree with him philosophically, it doesn't mean I don't have a question.

The Chair: Mr. Macklin.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): To tidy off that debate, maybe one of the possibilities is that you, Mr. Chair, if a member wants to continue his line of questioning and another member on that same side has a time allotment, could ask if that member is prepared to defer.

The Chair: I think it's understood, it can't happen in that time. We're not splitting any time. We haven't split any times since this started. If you get seven minutes, you're not saying, I'll take half and give the rest to someone else. It's not happening. When Monsieur Ménard has his questions, he will have to make arrangements with Monsieur Marceau that in the next round he can finish. That's up to them.

Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: In this particular case, he had asked a question of Mgr. Gaumond and you gave the floor to Mr. Clemenger. He wanted to find out about the Catholic church's position. For Réal, Mr. Clemenger's opinion was less important than Mr. Gaumond's. That's what happened.

[English]

The Chair: The fact that Monsieur Ménard was almost at five minutes on a three-minute round was the problem. I think, in Monsieur Ménard's mind, he was asking the question directly to the Monseigneur, because he was looking at him, but to the rest of the panel, they're going like this, and all I want to do is bring to Monsieur Ménard's attention that someone else would like to answer. If he decides, no, I want to pursue this with the Monseigneur, that's fine, but not at the five-minute mark on a three-minute round.

Meeting is adjourned.