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

Monday, April 7, 2003

0905

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

Mr. Sean Foreman (Nova Scotia Rainbow Action Project)

0910

Ms. Marie Paturel (Nova Scotia Rainbow Action Project)

The Chair

Mr. Hugh Swandel (As Individual)

0915

0920

The Chair

Mr. Derrick Bishop (Chair, Newfoundland Gays and Lesbians for Equality)

Ms. Nena Sandoval (Clinical Sexologist, Health Care Corporation of St. John's; Newfoundland Gays and Lesbians for Equality)

0925

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Derrick Bishop

The Chair

Mr. Sean Foreman

0930

The Chair

Mr. Hugh Swandel

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Sean Foreman

0935

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Sean Foreman

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.)

0940

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Sean Foreman

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Marie Paturel

Mr. Sean Foreman

The Chair

Mr. Hugh Swandel

0945

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Nena Sandoval

Mr. Vic Toews

Ms. Nena Sandoval

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.)

Mr. Sean Foreman

0950

Mr. John Maloney

Ms. Nena Sandoval

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Hugh Swandel

Mr. Richard Marceau

0955

Mr. Hugh Swandel

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Nena Sandoval

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Nena Sandoval

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

1000

Ms. Nena Sandoval

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

1005

The Chair

The Reverend Lewis How (Rector, Parish of St. George, As Individual)

1010

The Chair

The Reverend Philip Taylor (Evangelical Pentecostal Church)

1015

1020

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Chuck Cadman)

Ms. Angela Lambert (Assistant Coordinator, Gander Status of Women)

1025

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Chuck Cadman)

Mr. Vic Toews

1030

Rev. Lewis How

Mr. Vic Toews

1035

Rev. Lewis How

Mr. Vic Toews

Rev. Lewis How

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Rev. Lewis How

1040

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Rev. Lewis How

1045

The Chair

Rev. Philip Taylor

The Chair

Ms. Angela Lambert

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney

Rev. Philip Taylor

1050

Mr. John Maloney

Rev. Philip Taylor

Ms. Angela Lambert

The Chair

Rev. Lewis How

Mr. John Maloney

Rev. Lewis How

Mr. John Maloney

Rev. Lewis How

1055

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Ms. Angela Lambert

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Ms. Angela Lambert

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Ms. Angela Lambert

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Rev. Lewis How

1100

The Chair

Rev. Philip Taylor

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Rev. Philip Taylor

1105

The Chair

Mr. Charles LeBlanc (As Individual)

1115

The Chair

The Reverend Glenn Goode (Temple Baptist Church)

1120

The Chair

Rev. Glenn Goode

1125

The Chair

Mr. Ross Boutilier (Safe Harbour Metropolitan Community Church)

Mr. Brian Mombourquette (Safe Harbour Metropolitan Community Church)

1130

Mr. Ross Boutilier

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

1135

The Chair

Rev. Glenn Goode

The Chair

Mr. Ross Boutilier

The Chair

Mr. Charles LeBlanc

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Charles LeBlanc

1140

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Brian Mombourquette

Mr. Ross Boutilier

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Rev. Glenn Goode

Mr. Richard Marceau

1145

The Chair

Rev. Glenn Goode

The Chair

Mr. Brian Mombourquette

The Chair

Mr. Charles LeBlanc

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Charles LeBlanc

1150

The Chair

Mr. Ross Boutilier

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Rev. Glenn Goode

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

1155

Rev. Glenn Goode

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

Rev. Glenn Goode

The Chair

Mr. Ross Boutilier

1200

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Brian Mombourquette

Mr. Ross Boutilier

The Chair

Mr. Brian Mombourquette

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Rev. Glenn Goode

Mr. Richard Marceau

1205

The Chair

Rev. Glenn Goode

Le président

Mr. Brian Mombourquette

The Chair

Ms. Tamatha Trenholm (As Individual)

The Chair

1305

Ms. Tamatha Trenholm

The Chair

Prof. William Ryan (The Nova Scotia Coalition for Traditional Values)

1310

1315

The Chair

Ms. Kim Vance (As Individual)

1320

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Prof. William Ryan

1325

Mr. Richard Marceau

Prof. William Ryan

Mr. Richard Marceau

Prof. William Ryan

The Chair

Prof. William Ryan

1330

Mr. Richard Marceau

Prof. William Ryan

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney

Prof. William Ryan

Mr. John Maloney

Prof. William Ryan

Mr. John Maloney

Prof. William Ryan

Mr. John Maloney

Prof. William Ryan

Mr. John Maloney

Prof. William Ryan

Mr. John Maloney

1335

Prof. William Ryan

Mr. John Maloney

Ms. Kim Vance

The Chair

Ms. Tamatha Trenholm

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

Ms. Kim Vance

Mr. Vic Toews

Ms. Kim Vance

1340

Mr. Vic Toews

Ms. Kim Vance

Mr. Vic Toews

Ms. Kim Vance

Mr. Vic Toews

Ms. Kim Vance

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

The Chair

Prof. William Ryan

The Chair

Ms. Kim Vance

1345

The Chair

Ms. Tamatha Trenholm

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Kim Vance

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Kim Vance

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

1350

Prof. William Ryan

The Chair

Prof. William Ryan

The Chair

Ms. Tamatha Trenholm

The Chair

Ms. Kim Vance

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

1355

The Chair

1400

Mr. Scott Campbell (Co-Chair #1, OUTLAW)

1405

The Chair

Ms. Nola Etkin (Abegweit Rainbow Collective, Prince Edward Island)

Mr. Randall Perry (Abegweit Rainbow Collective, Prince Edward Island)

1410

Ms. Nola Etkin

Mr. Randall Perry

Ms. Nola Etkin

Mr. Randall Perry

Ms. Nola Etkin

1415

The Chair

Mr. Herman Wills (Life and Family Issues)

1420

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

1425

Mr. Scott Campbell

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Scott Campbell

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Scott Campbell

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Scott Campbell

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Scott Campbell

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Scott Campbell

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Scott Campbell

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

1430

Mr. Herman Wills

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Herman Wills

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Scott Campbell

Mr. Richard Marceau

1435

The Chair

Mr. Scott Campbell

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Scott Campbell

1440

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Nola Etkin

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Nola Etkin

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Nola Etkin

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Nola Etkin

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

1445

Mr. Randall Perry

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Nola Etkin

The Chair

Mr. Don Codling (Pastor, Bedford Presbyterian Church)

1505

The Chair

Ms. Gemma Hickey (General Director, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Gays and Transgenders, Memorial University)

1510

1515

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Ms. Gemma Hickey

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Ms. Gemma Hickey

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Ms. Gemma Hickey

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Ms. Gemma Hickey

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

1520

Mr. Don Codling

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Don Codling

Mr. Richard Marceau

1525

Mr. Don Codling

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Don Codling

The Chair

Ms. Gemma Hickey

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Gemma Hickey

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Don Codling

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Don Codling

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Don Codling

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Don Codling

1530

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Don Codling

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Don Codling

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Don Codling

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Don Codling

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Don Codling

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Don Codling

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

1535

Mr. Don Codling

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

1540

Ms. Gemma Hickey

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Gemma Hickey

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Gemma Hickey

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Gemma Hickey

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Ms. Lara J. Morris (As Individual)

1550

The Chair

Mr. Edward B. Paul (As Individual)

The Chair

Ms. Brenda Richard (As Individual)

1555

The Chair

Ms. Maureen Shebib (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Kindred (As Individual)

1600

The Chair

Mr. Bob Fougere (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Reginald Bone (As Individual)

1605

The Chair

Mr. Reginald Bone

The Chair

Ms. Jane Morrigan (As Individual)

The Chair

Ms. Diana Read-Miedema (As Individual)

1610

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

NUMBER 033

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Monday, April 7, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): I call to order the 33rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee is continuing its study on marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions.

Welcome, and to my parliamentary colleagues, welcome to the Maritimes. Bienvenue.

Today we have, for the first hour, four panellists--two organizations and one individual. From the Nova Scotia Rainbow Action Project, we have Marie Paturel and Sean Foreman; appearing as an individual, Hugh G.W. Swandel; and from NGALE, Newfoundland Gays and Lesbians for Equality, we have Derrick Bishop, its chair, and Nena Sandoval, a clinical sexologist from the Health Care Corporation of St. John's.

The way we are going to proceed is that each group or individual has seven minutes to make an opening presentation. I will at six minutes indicate that you have one minute left. After you have gone by your seven minutes, I will indicate, with increasing franticness, that you are over time.

I would hope that you'll try to keep in tight order. We have a number of panels today, each for one hour, and any time you take beyond your hour, it is simply time denied to those who follow.

I'm going to go first to the New Brunswick Rainbow Action Project, Marie Paturel and Sean Foreman, for seven minutes.

Mr. Sean Foreman (Nova Scotia Rainbow Action Project): Thank you, and good morning, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee. It's my pleasure to welcome you this morning to Halifax for today's proceeding.

My name is Sean Foreman. I am presently the chair of NSRAP, and I'm a lawyer here in Halifax with the firm of Merrick Holm. To my right is Marie Paturel. Marie is the director of NSRAP, a lawyer, and presently the equity officer of the Nova Scotia Barristers' Society.

The Nova Scotia Rainbow Action Project is a provincially based organization that seeks to foster change in our communities and our society at large so that people of all sexual orientations are valued and included. We achieve this through community development, networking, outreach, and political action.

We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning and to make our submission on an issue of fundamental importance to many gays and lesbians in this province and across the country. We have reviewed the discussion paper, “Marriage and the Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Unions”, and we have been following both the debate surrounding the recognition of same-sex marriages and the presentations made before this committee.

Before proceeding further, we would like to make our position very clear. The federal government must pass legislation to remove the opposite-sex restriction on legal marriage, extending the freedom to marry to same-sex couples. Allowing same-sex marriage is a legal, constitutional, and social imperative that is consistent with Canada's respect and promotion of substantive equality rights for all of its citizens.

We ask that this committee recommend to the federal government that the second option outlined in the minister's discussion paper be adopted fully, and that legislation be passed to allow same-sex couples the legal capacity to marry. No other recommendation will meet the true requirements of equality.

We know that this is a contentious issue. Our marriage laws are being defended on the basis of the need to protect society, defend the family, protect religious freedoms, and, of course, when all else fails, the argument that this is how it's always been.

Legal regimes have changed even with vocal political opposition, and we as a society have been better for it. It's our submission that it's time for another change in the legal regime of marriage, and, as was shown in the past, we as a society will be better for it.

I'm going to briefly summarize our four broad submissions as to why we should extend marriage to same-sex couples and provide substantive equality to gays and lesbians in Canada.

The first is equal recognition. Marriage is an institution that uniquely conveys the nature and legitimacy of committed romantic relationships. Gays and lesbians should not be denied this form of expression. The continued exclusion of same-sex relationships from marriage and the invention of a different word or scheme to describe our unions continues to represent gays and lesbians, and our relationships, as abnormal, and as less worthy than heterosexual unions.

It is through the ritual of marriage that couples, including same-sex couples, publicly declare their love and commitment to each other. For same-sex couples who are deeply religious, the ritual of marriage also meets a spiritual need. The legal recognition of same-sex marriage confers legal, social, and spiritual acceptance to same-sex relationships.

The second submission is choice. Canada is a country where individuals are afforded the right to choose their own religion, their philosophy of life; to practise freely in their religion; and to choose with whom they associate, and how they will express themselves. Many same-sex couples have gone through religious ceremonies celebrating their love and recognizing their commitment to each other and their families. The government should respect these choices made by individuals and religions to the greatest extent possible.

Marriage, again, is a basic social and cultural institution and, at least for heterosexual couples, a basic human right. Same-sex couples should have the same right to choose as all Canadians. In the same sense that today many heterosexual couples are choosing not to marry, there may be same-sex couples who also choose not to marry. However, the choice for those couples who believe in the institution of marriage and who wish to strengthen and affirm their social, legal, and spiritual bonds by entering into marriage must be affirmed.

Next is discrimination. Same-sex couples--all gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered persons, for that matter--still face stigma and prejudice in our society. Progress has been made in recent years. However, we are still subject to verbal and physical assaults. Many grow up in isolation and fear, and kids who are not heterosexual still face significantly higher suicide rates. The refusal to recognize same-sex marriage reinforces discriminatory and prejudicial attitudes

¿ (0910)

Instead of sending a message that all Canadians are to be treated fairly and equally, regardless of sexual orientation, the message sent by the current exclusion from the institution of marriage is unmistakable, that same-sex couples are unworthy of equal recognition and that a distinction must be made between same-sex and opposite-sex couples in order to protect the institution of marriage.

Limiting the regime of marriage to opposite-sex couples flies in the face of true substantive equality. Opening marriage to same-sex couples is a proactive step in bringing federal laws into conformity with the equality guarantees of the Constitution.

In our view, it is time for Parliament, for once, to act first, before the courts, and stop wasting taxpayers' money, and to stop forcing individual Canadians to push these matters through expensive litigation.

Finally, in terms of family, love, and dignity, many same-sex couples wish to marry. They want to do so for the same reasons as opposite-sex counterparts: to publicly proclaim and celebrate their love and commitment; to affirm their spirituality and religious beliefs; to protect their children and families; and to ensure legal and social recognition.

Marie.

Ms. Marie Paturel (Nova Scotia Rainbow Action Project): I'll be very quick. I just wanted to touch on the issue of registered domestic partnerships, or RDPs. I know that option was in the discussion paper.

RDPs have been established here in Nova Scotia, and NSRAP did support that and did help to present that information to our members. We did so while fully understanding that it was not the same as the legal institution of marriage. We did so with the realization that we would still have to fight for the legal institution of marriage. And we did so without giving up our rights to advocate and fight for the legal recognition of same-sex marriages.

The RDP system, if it's set up as a separate institution to marriage, or as a kind of “and” or “if” thing to marriage, as an equal but separate regime...which has been disgraced as a human rights issue.

The Chair: Thank you.

Hugh G.W. Swandel for seven minutes.

Mr. Hugh Swandel (As Individual): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am here simply as an individual. I represent no group, and I am expressing my own opinions.

I hope our justice minister realizes that our Supreme Court has more or less ruled on the topic before this committee, in the M. v. H. decision, and left us, the citizens, with very few options, if any. This decision is a very deeply flawed and ill-argued judgment that should have been challenged. Unfortunately, there is no mechanism that would allow this.

M. and H. are two women who lived together for many years in a lesbian relationship. Their relationship deteriorated, and M. left the common home and sought, among other things, support from H. pursuant to the provisions of the Family Law Act of Ontario. She also served notice of a constitutional question challenging the definition of “spouse” in section 29 of this act.

This act begins with a preamble, something apparently unusual in Ontario legislation. It reads:

Whereas it is desirable to encourage and strengthen the role of the family; and whereas for that purpose it is necessary to recognize the equal position of spouses as individuals within marriage and to recognize marriage as a form of partnership; and whereas in support of such recognition it is necessary

and so on.

The Family Law Act dealt with marriage. Very soon after its enactment, the legislature recognized that the numbers of common-law relationships were increasing and that these were the functional equivalents of marriages. The legislature amended the act to bring these couples within the support obligations. It became the Family Law Act. It was written in gender-neutral language, and it's the definition of spouse in section 29 of this act that M. challenged.

Section 29 states that in this part:

“spouse” means a spouse as defined in subsection 1(1),

--which basically was if you were married, or thought you were married--

and in addition includes either of a man and woman who are not married to each other and have cohabited,

(a) continuously for a period of not less than three years, or

(b) in a relationship of some permanence, if they are the natural or adoptive parents of a child.

The Family Law Act defines cohabiting as living together in a conjugal relationship, whether within or outside marriage. The Oxford English dictionary defines conjugal as, “of or relating to marriage, matrimonial; of or pertaining to husband or wife in their relation to each other”. Justice deCarteret Cory, who, along with Justice Iacobucci, wrote the majority judgment, chooses to say that the definition of cohabit “clearly indicates that the legislature decided to extend the obligation to provide spousal support beyond married persons”--and he underlines “beyond”.

In the context of the Family Law Act and its history, the legislature was not going beyond marriage but was bringing common-law relationships within the ambit of marriage rules. He continues:

Obligations to provide support were no longer dependent upon marriage. The obligation was extended to include those relationships which:

(i) exist between a man and a woman;

(ii) have a specific degree of permanence;

(iii) are conjugal.

Same-sex relationships are capable of meeting the last two requirements

Notice that we have lost the first condition that the relationship was between a man and a woman. He continues:

Though it might be argued that same-sex couples do not live together in “conjugal” relationships, in the sense that they cannot “hold themselves out” as husband and wife...I am in agreement with the reasoning and conclusions of the majority of the Court of Appeal.

And here he quotes the reasoning of the earlier judgment, which cited the case of Molodowich v. Penttinen in 1980:

[It] sets out the generally accepted characteristics of a conjugal relationship. They include shared shelter, sexual and personal behaviour, services, social activities, economic support and children, as well as the societal perception of the couple.

It goes on:

While it is true that there may not be any consensus as to the societal perception of same-sex couples, there is agreement that same-sex couples share many other “conjugal” characteristics. In order to come within the definition, neither opposite-sex couples nor same-sex couples are required to fit precisely the traditional marital model to demonstrate that the relationship is “conjugal”.

Note that we are now assuming that we can apply the term “conjugal” to same-sex couples. Using this mode of reasoning, we could have wheelbarrows classed as trucks, zircons as diamonds, and water as gasoline--or even a single-malt scotch.

¿ (0915)

This is not reasoning, as that arbiter of common law, a reasonable person would accept. It is an assault on common sense. He has taken the word conjugal and robbed it of its meaning. He has excised the male and female dimensions that make conjugation physically possible, and in so doing has robbed the union of male and female of any significance. He is, in effect, telling us how we are to perceive physical reality.

We must not allow our right to think to be constrained by court decisions that rob the words of everyday speech of their meaning to suit judicial conclusions of questionable validity.

The simple biological fact is that same-sex couples are physically incapable of conjugality. Does this mean that same-sex couples are worthy of less respect than opposite-sex couples? No. It means that if our respect for couples is premised on their conjugality, then same-sex couples are of no interest in this context, because they do not come within the ambit of our concern.

There seems to be an attitude in the judiciary that legislatures are incapable of detached and responsible decision-making. The Family Law Act is an example of good law-making by a legislature working to encourage citizens to behave as citizens should in a free and democratic society. It's saying that we should behave with responsibility, and specifically in this fundamental relationship, the conjugal union of a man and woman.

This is an evolving process. We still have work to do. The preamble speaks of equality within marriage. But is equality enough? I do not think so. Equality is a seductive word, and most certainly within a conjugal relationship that fulfills its biological purpose....

There's no greater injustice than treating unequal people equally. Justice Bastarache speaks of the “reach” of equality. Equality does not have a reach. The truth is, there are differences among us and between us, and recognizing them is not an offence against justice, but quite the opposite; it is equity.

¿ (0920)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Swandel.

To NGALE now, Derrick Bishop and Nena Sandoval, seven minutes.

Mr. Derrick Bishop (Chair, Newfoundland Gays and Lesbians for Equality): Thank you.

I'm Derrick Bishop, with Newfoundland Gays and Lesbians for Equality. I am a psychiatric nursing instructor at our provincial mental health facility.

Canadian society can be described as a mosaic of cultures and belief systems. As a society, we respect and recognize the equality of persons of different racial, ethnic, religious, and cultural backgrounds, as prescribed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, gays and lesbians in Canada have suffered historically due to discrimination based upon sexual orientation. Gays and lesbians have been denied the same basic rights as other Canadians despite the fact that they contribute to society at all levels.

Within the past two decades, Canada has implemented reforms that guarantee gay and lesbian persons some semblance of protection under the law. Many of these changes have occurred as a result of gay and lesbian individuals or couples taking legal action. The courts have recognized time and time again that gays and lesbians have been denied rights afforded to all other Canadians. The courts have even pressured federal and provincial governments to ensure that laws are enacted to protect the rights of gay and lesbian persons. It appears, therefore, that Canadian courts would place the impetus of the major changes to marital laws on the shoulders of the provincial and federal governments, which is why we are appealing to you now.

Much of the current discrimination against gays and lesbians comes from fundamentalist religious and right-wing political organizations. The religious right in the past has justified racial prejudice, gender inequity, and slavery based upon selected texts of biblical scripture. Historically, religious groups have harboured many of the prejudices that exist against gay and lesbian persons, not only on the basis of scripture but on the erroneous belief that homosexuals are somehow a threat to society--for example, that homosexuals are pedophiles in spite of the empirical research that concludes that the majority of pedophiles are heterosexual.

The American evangelist Jerry Falwell even went so far as to say that liberal American ideas about homosexuality led to God's allowing the events of September 11. Such attitudes have also been used to deny gays and lesbians the right to raise children. Conversely, some Canadian churches, such as the Anglican diocese of New Westminster in British Columbia, recognize same-sex unions. These changes are reflective of a greater tolerance in the Canadian community around such gay and lesbian issues.

In our experience during the orientation of theological students to our provincial mental health facility in Waterford Hospital, there has been a consistently overwhelming acceptance of gay and lesbian rights. On a one-to-one level, individual clergy members have endorsed gays' and lesbians' right to marry, while the doctrine of the church takes a negative stance.

Same-sex marriage has been so controversial in recent years because most people are in favour of it. Years ago, no controversy existed, because no one supported them openly. Acceptance of same-sex marriage has also been supported in recent-day Canadian polls.

Ms. Nena Sandoval (Clinical Sexologist, Health Care Corporation of St. John's; Newfoundland Gays and Lesbians for Equality): I'm Nena Sandoval, clinical sexologist. I've been a therapist for 23 years and have specialized in sexuality for over 15.

The medical establishment once classified homosexuality as a mental disorder to be treated through electroconvulsive shock therapy, medication, and psychotherapy. The failure of treating, or converting, the homosexual individual was largely responsible for the 1974 removal of homosexuality as a mental illness from the diagnostic and statistical manual by the American Psychiatric Association.

In more recent years, we have learned that sexuality is generally a complex phenomenon influenced by a myriad of elements, and not categorically one thing or another. Humans tend to be complicated sexually, no matter toward whom they are romantically attracted.

There are same-sex couples who have children. Wouldn't the marriage of same-sex couples offer their children the same security as heterosexual couples who have children? Research has indicated that children of same-sex couples have the same positive social relationships as children of heterosexual couples.

Marriage identifies to the community that the persons involved are committed to each other in a loving relationship. Some persons argue that granting the right to marry to same-sex couples will diminish the institution of marriage. Marriage for same-sex couples should have no greater impact upon heterosexual marriage than the decision to recognize that women are not property, that women should be allowed the right to vote, or that contraception is legal.

In my practice as a sexologist, seeing couples constitutes about 50% of my practice, and I have seen many same-sex couples, with children and without. Same-sex couples are no different from their heterosexual counterparts in their want to seek counselling, to improve their coupleship, to learn coping strategies for day-to-day stresses, and to be better parents.

I am sure that if couple counselling was openly available and advertised to same-sex couples, many who felt the need would actively seek such counselling to maintain their relationships. There is a growing number of therapeutic handbooks for counsellors and therapists about gay and lesbian issues, which reflects the need and demand for total inclusion. The argument, therefore, that same-sex coupleships do not last can be counter-argued by the fact that the resources to assist the relationships have not been readily available or accessible.

Practically every day in my office, individuals of various religious, ethnic, and sexually oriented backgrounds ask me if they're normal. “Normal” is a word I try to avoid, since it is, in my experience, a subjective term. In the clinical world, normal is whatever makes the individual happy and healthy without breaking the law. Because of individual ethnic, moral, and spiritual and experiential differences, clinicians defer to provincial and federal laws when speaking about sexual normality.

When individuals expect others to conform to their individual ideas of what normal is, it reflects a lack of understanding and empathy, and expresses an attitude of intolerance.

Thank you.

¿ (0925)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Cadman, for seven minutes.

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'd like to thank the witnesses for coming today.

Just a brief question. Well, first of all a comment.

Mr. Bishop, you mentioned the archdiocese of New Westminster. I have to add that there was a major split among the members of that diocese, to the effect that some did actually split off from the diocese. I know that because it's the next constituency to mine.

A number of individuals who have appeared before this committee from an academic perspective have suggested that we might want to move a little bit slower on this, because there isn't enough evidence and there hasn't been enough study on the impact this decision may have, regardless of how we go, on future generations and on society over the next number of years.

So it's not suggesting that we shouldn't make that decision, just that we should take it a bit slower and make sure we have enough evidence and enough study done to support it

I'd just like to hear some comments from everybody on that.

Mr. Derrick Bishop: With regard to the archdiocese of New Westminster in British Columbia, I guess historically, if we look at the United States, there was a split back in the 1860s over the issue of slavery. I don't believe we can justify slavery, no more than we can justify the fact that women should not be allowed to vote, or that they would be considered as property.

In terms of the time, I personally am gay, and I am 48 years old. If I should ever want to marry, time is running out on me. I may expect to live to be 80 years old, hopefully, but maybe not. I think equality is something we should all have and should not have to wait for. I should have it in my lifetime, and it should be afforded to all other Canadians as well.

The Chair: Mr. Foreman.

Mr. Sean Foreman: Thank you.

There are three cases before the courts that I'd like to remind the committee about. It goes back to my comment that our submission would be that Parliament, our elected representatives, should for once be taking the lead on this issue and making a decision. These cases are going to move through the courts, and in a short period of time, again, the Supreme Court of Canada probably will be dealing with this issue and in our view will be dealing with it favourably toward same-sex marriage, when you look at the analysis of those existing decisions.

So I would ask the question in return, what needs to be studied? I'm not really sure what impacts are of concern. Do we wait 10 or 20 years to try to have some academic understanding of what the societal change would be? I don't think our understanding of equality and substantive equality allows for that.

As well, in terms of the legal reality, we're not content to sit back and wait another 20 or 30 years for these issues to be studied--which is, quite frankly, in our view just an excuse to not deal with the issue.

¿ (0930)

The Chair: Mr. Swandel, did you want to comment?

Mr. Hugh Swandel: Yes.

I always have problems with the use of the word “equality” in this context, because no two human beings are equal, no two human relationships are equal. What we should be talking about is not equality but equity.

I certainly don't see any equality between a same-sex relationship and an opposite-sex relationship. The opposite-sex relationship is the one from which new life comes, and that's what compels society's interest in it, as far as I'm concerned. There's nothing in a same-sex relationship of the same potency that would engage society's interest. It's something that exists between the two people. Society looks at the heterosexual relationship because it's out of this that life comes.

That's a big responsibility, and that's why we have marriage, whether it's formally assented to or whether it's just an arrangement between the two people. It's the relationship of relationships. It's humanity we're talking about. A same-sex relationship doesn't seem to have any part in that, as far as I'm concerned.

The Chair: Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I'm fine, thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Marceau, for seven minutes.

[Translation]

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

First, I would like to thank the presenters of this morning. It was very interesting.

My first question is for Mr. Foreman. Since the beginning of this committee’s work on the subject, many presenters have come and explained to us that legal recognition of same-sex couples in any way shape or form could lead to dramatic consequences, possibly destroy civilization and seriously affect the heterosexual population.

I would like to first address the state of registered domestic partnerships in Nova Scotia. Since registered domestic partnerships have come into force in Nova Scotia, to recognize certain rights to same-sex couples, has there been a decrease in heterosexual activity in this province? Have we seen a decrease in the birth rate? Have heterosexuals hurriedly changed team and magically become homosexuals? Has all this been occurring since then?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Foreman.

Mr. Sean Foreman: Thank you.

It's an interesting question, and the easiest way to answer it is simply to say no. We're sitting here this morning; life went on, life goes on. The introduction of RDPs in Nova Scotia was almost effortless in the sense of coming into effect legally, and the impact on society essentially has been that it has allowed gays and lesbians, those who have chosen to do so, to opt in to various pieces of legislation.

My characterization of an RDP is “separate and not quite equal”. It allows any two people to opt in to pieces of legislation, but it certainly isn't marriage. And the world has not ended; I mean, it goes back to one part of my submission, that we've had 20 years of developments in rights protections for many different groups. The same arguments may have been made against interracial marriage and other such issues, and the world has gone on.

¿ (0935)

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I am not questioning the analogy of interracial marriages, because it is true that these have demonstrated just that. However, do you believe that we could draw a parallel with what has happened in Nova Scotia and in Quebec, where civil union was recognized after all and none of the predictions of potential chaos materialized in the end? If this holds true for civil union, in what way would marriage be so different, particularly in terms of warnings and predictions of chaos we are being asked to consider the consequences of?

If tomorrow morning both gays and lesbians had the right to marry, I would still go to work and continue to do the groceries with my family. Regardless of all these somber declarations according to which what is occurring is very serious, I fail to see what would be so different.

This is why I ask the following questions: What would you obtain with marriage that you do not already have with civil union?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Foreman.

Mr. Sean Foreman: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That's a very good question. Marriage is more than a piece of paper that provides you with some legal benefits, the ability to opt in to various pieces of legislation that you get with a civil union. As well, marriage has the religious and spiritual component, which goes on today, and has done for a number of years. This becomes an issue of religious freedom on both sides, which is central to why a civil union or a partnership is not equal in that sense.

Getting married is a profoundly personal and spiritual choice for two people. A number of religions, including the United Church of Canada as an example, support the issue of same-sex marriage, the ability of two men or two women to proclaim themselves before God and society in that way. So that's clearly something you don't get with a civil union.

The Chair: Merci.

Mr. Macklin, for seven minutes.

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

Somewhat along the same lines as Mr. Marceau, I guess, one of my questions deals with the heterosexual community's desire to protect marriage as a heterosexual institution. You've come to us with a rights-based argument, I guess, and I understand the rights-based argument. But at the end of the day, we've heard a lot of evidence about those who are very concerned about the good will that has been built up by the heterosexual community with reference to the term “marriage”. And I don't think that many have we heard who simply would walk away and say we wouldn't consider looking at the rights-based issue, from the heterosexual side.

I guess my question to you is, at the end of the day, how do you answer those in the heterosexual community who believe marriage, in name at least, belongs to them, and shouldn't be shared?

¿ (0940)

The Chair: I think the question was Mr. Foreman's?

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Yes, primarily.

Mr. Sean Foreman: .Thank you. I'm glad you asked that question.

I would suggest that some heterosexuals might want to turn on the television and watch Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire? and other such programs that, to me, provide examples of how the heterosexual world is doing a good enough job themselves of valuing the institution and the concept of marriage. And you can look at census statistics with respect to the rising levels of divorce and so on.

I guess I don't necessarily agree that only heterosexuals, or that heterosexual society in general, make up the only group in society to value marriage. I mean, no social group, straight or gay, has a homogeneous or an even view on any of these subjects. Some straight people may or may not value the institution of marriage. Certainly many gays and lesbians do value the institution of marriage, and wish to marry, and can demonstrate the same commitment to the institution that their heterosexual friends, neighbours, colleagues, and families can.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Do you submit, then, that it would be difficult for the gay and lesbian community to develop their terminology for this relationship that might respect an equivalency to marriage?

Ms. Marie Paturel: We also have a written submission, which I think outlines for us what it is about marriage that is so important to same-sex couples. Although part of it is a rights-based argument, I think the issue of recognition of the religious and spiritual aspects to same-sex couples in their marriages, as we noted in our submission, the social, economic, and spiritual aspect of the opening of marriage to same-sex couples, is very important to gay, lesbian, and bisexual people.

The creation of a separate institution or separate terminology or a separate regime is not, and never has been, an acceptable way of dealing with discrimination, with rights violations, with human rights equity. To get into it here would probably take more time than we have.

We don't set up separate institutions just because we fear something when we have no basis for that fear.

Mr. Sean Foreman: .I would just like to add as well--and this goes back to Mr. Marceau's question--my belief, and certainly I get this from my discussions with my friends and work colleagues and family, that if the institution of marriage is widened to include same-sex couples, you are not going to see a mass of straight people either burning their marriage certificates or saying that the institution's been somehow contaminated and we'll no longer get married. I don't see that as being an issue.

The Chair: Mr. Swandel.

Mr. Hugh Swandel: I have problems with the logic of suggesting that giving a right to a group does not harm another group, and therefore we should give them the right because it's not harming the other group. That is not a logical sequence, to me.

The heterosexual community has marriage for the very simple biological reason that it's an institution of responsibility. It's where life is created, where children are raised. To put a same-sex relationship into that context and say that putting into that context is not going to do any harm to the heterosexual community is a total irrelevance. It's not going to do any harm to it, but why do it? Why not give any other pairs or couples the same right to call themselves married--two friends, two siblings? Just because it does no harm, it doesn't mean we should do it.

¿ (0945)

The Chair: Mr. Toews, for three minutes.

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

I guess I find it a little disturbing to ask witnesses, if we make these fundamental changes to the institution of marriage, what will happen to people who are already in the institution. Societal change takes place over generations. Change is subtle. Change is almost imperceptible. It's not measured in a few years but often in generations. The impact of what we do here today in the course of these hearings, in Parliament, will not be known for generations, so I find it a bit unfair to ask any witness, “What do you think?”

In fact, many of the academics we have heard from on the issue of what the impact will be to the institution of marriage have indicated that the research is still very sketchy, that most of the academic literature and debate has been generated from one side of the equation, mainly by gay activists.

Even among that community, there are very split opinions on the impact. Some state that definitely there will be changes to the heterosexual institution of marriage. There's no question about that. Indeed, that is the intent of many gay activists, to in fact fundamentally change the institution of marriage. Others have therefore indicated that we exercise caution because of the fundamental nature of this institution.

I noted, Ms. Sandoval, that you referenced some research regarding the raising of children in same-sex unions. Can you provide us with that?

Ms. Nena Sandoval: It's in the bibliography, actually.

Mr. Vic Toews: And it's set out in there?

Ms. Nena Sandoval: Yes.

Mr. Vic Toews: It's just that, for some reason, we don't get a copy of that, I guess because it hasn't been translated?

The Chair: It could be two reasons. That might be one. The other might be that there's a brief that is presented that is longer than the oral presentation.

Mr. Vic Toews: If I could have a copy of your presentation, I think that would be sufficient for my purposes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

To Mr. Maloney, three minutes.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Foreman, you indicated that marriage gives economic rights that perhaps otherwise would be denied to gay couples, but you also indicated that you have registered domestic partnerships. Could not those partnerships provide the same rights, economically or socially, that marriage would otherwise give?

In other words, could they not be equal in terms of relationships? Do registered domestic partnerships give the same rights as marriage?

Mr. Sean Foreman: Thank you.

Certainly the RDP scheme we have in Nova Scotia is far from equal. In our written presentation--and I'm not sure if you all received our lengthy written submission--we've gone into some detail showing the pieces of legislation, as an example, that were included by the provincial government under the domestic partnership scheme, and the many more pieces of legislation that deal with rights and responsibilities between two adults in a relationship. And there are many omissions.

While saying, then, that I suppose I could agree that in theory you may be able to craft a system that would provide all of the economic rights, I doubt whether that could be achieved uniformly across the country. It certainly hasn't been in Nova Scotia for a number of reasons. I would point out that your question is just focused on the economic issue, and I appreciate that, but it certainly has not been in Nova Scotia.

Again, that's why I would call the RDPs certainly a separate and definitely not equal regime.

¿ (0950)

Mr. John Maloney: To Ms. Sandoval, you're a therapist. You treat clients. Do you have many gays who come to you with psychological problems because of the issue of not being able to marry their partner?

Ms. Nena Sandoval: Oh, yes, very much, especially individuals who need a spiritual, religious ceremony connection with that union. It's very difficult; inclusion is a big issue for many gays and lesbians generally, even at work. It's gotten so much better, certainly, but still.... I mean, every individual who comes into my office has issues.

One of the things I find, when heterosexuals talk about being threatened by same-sex unions, is that it's the procreative nature of marriage, or that purpose, which I think is kind of an erroneous assumption, because many people choose not to have children, and many people can't physically have children.

Even canon law changed in the mid-eighties to say the reason for sex in a marriage was for not just procreation but for the mutual pleasure of the couple, and that was a huge step for the Catholic Church. I think it just reflected the times, and the need.

The Chair: To Mr. Marceau for three minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I have both a comment and a question.

My comment is for Mr. Macklin who spoke of the heterosexual community’s desire to maintain marriage as it is. For my part, I would rather it be referred to as the desire of certain members of the heterosexual community to maintain marriage as it is. For the record, I would like to highlight the fact that certain members of the heterosexual community have come to support the changes to the definition of marriage. I simply wanted this to be clear.

Mr. Swandel, you have practically indicated that the essential difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual couple is the couple’s ability to create life, to procreate. I have a few questions for you. What do you say about the various reproductive means that enable same-sex couples to have children? What do you say about adoption? And thirdly, what do you do with heterosexual couples who cannot or will not have children? Should we prevent a woman from getting married after she’s reached menopause because of her inability to produce children? Should we prevent an infertile man from marrying because he cannot procreate? Where does one draw the line?

[English]

Mr. Hugh Swandel: Bringing in these issues is irrelevant, I think. The fact that some people can't have children and some people don't have children are irrelevancies. Some people have cars and they don't drive them. Some people have cars that don't work. This doesn't change the fact that the car is a means of transport.

The primary function of marriage is that two people come together to make life. That's what it's about. That there are deviations from that doesn't change the underlying pattern.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: But there is an intrinsic contradiction in what you are saying because you come back to the fact that the first goal of marriage is to procreate. And although you come back to it, you maintain there are people who cannot or will not have children. If these people cannot or will not have children whereby failing to achieve the primary goal of marriage, there is a problem.

Secondly, one may have children out of wedlock. The procreation-marriage link is thus broken in many societies, namely in Quebec where the out-of-wedlock birth rate is fairly high due to couples living in a common law relation. This partnership is not fundamentally changing the nature of family nor the parental responsibilities associated with it.

Why then do you want to establish such a tight link between marriage and procreation?

¿ (0955)

[English]

Mr. Hugh Swandel: I'm sorry, I didn't want to make the link between marriage and procreation. Heterosexual couples coming together; that is what that conjunction is about. It's about creating life in the fullness of that union.

I would say that we could have different levels of recognition for heterosexual couples. If two people come together and say their purpose is to have a family, that's what we would take them at face value as wanting to do. But if two people come together, a man and a woman, and say, “We want to live together as man and wife, but we do not intend to have children”, then I think society could say, well, in that case we're not going to recognize your union as a marriage. But we don't have that.

Now, if two people come together, a man and a woman, and can't have children because of some physical defect, or they don't have children by deliberate intent but don't proclaim that fact, I think we would have to accept on face value that they did come together originally to have children. We can't sort of encroach on their privacy to the extent that it would be necessary to discover what their motives were and what was preventing them from having children.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Swandel.

I have to go to Mr. Macklin and Mr. Toews. We have less than five minutes left, so please take that under consideration.

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

To Ms. Sandoval, a moment ago you mentioned that the need for a lesbian and gay couple to find a blessing from the religious perspective within their union was very important, and an argument for marriage. In fact, however, there are a number of churches now that, based on the evidence we've heard, do have covenant processes that are an equivalent to marriage within their church in terms of the way in which that relationship would be blessed. Does that not help in that process of giving to these individuals that sense of blessing before God?

Let's face it, at the end of the day, we have to remember that religious freedom is still protected. There will still be churches who choose not to do whatever it would be that civil society would permit. I mean, they have the freedom to make that choice.

Could you comment on why you believe, therefore, that bringing forward marriage would solve that problem?

Ms. Nena Sandoval: I think it would just recognize the need for acknowledgement by many levels of society, spiritual, legal, and ethical. The thing is, if you are not a part of a faith that recognizes you in church, spiritually, then you're out of luck.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: But adding the term “civil marriage” federally won't necessarily change those churches' perspective.

Ms. Nena Sandoval: But it would certainly grant inclusion on the national level. One of the biggest things that I think can come out of this is to show tolerance and acceptance and inclusion. That certainly would be something we've started already, in small steps, but I think it's bigger than that, I really do.

I think that recognizing the marriages as equal to heterosexual marriage is a huge need across the board. It would certainly help with prejudice. It would certainly help with individuals who perform crimes to see things in a different light.

So I think it's huge. I think it's necessary.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Macklin.

Mr. Toews for a quick question.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you.

I have your brief here, Ms. Sandoval. The research, you state, has indicated that children of same-sex couples have the same positive social relationships as children of heterosexual couples, and you cite two studies, one from 1983 and one from 1986. Both of those deal with children in single-parent households.

This is the kind of concern I have about the research. Back in 1983 and 1986, research was in its infancy, with virtually no statistics available, and no reliable statistics available at all. A generation has passed and even Statistics Canada is very sketchy about that kind of thing.

Do you have anything more current that would specifically deal with same-sex couples, and maybe something a little more current in terms of your research?

À (1000)

Ms. Nena Sandoval: Yes, and you are right. We had very little time to prepare this, and I brought what I had on me. I have already started a search, and there are many more recent. And you will receive them, sir.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I want to thank the panel on behalf of the committee for helping us in our deliberations.

I'm going to suspend for three minutes to allow the next panel to come forward. I think they know who they are.

À (1000)

À (1004)

À (1005)

The Chair: I call back to order the 33rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights as we continue our study on marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions.

From now until 11 o'clock we have three presenters. As an individual, we have Reverend Lewis H. How, Rector, Parish of St. George; from the Evangel Pentecostal Church, Reverend Philip Taylor; and we have from the Gander Status of Women, Angela Lambert, assistant coordinator. Each will be asked to make a seven-minute presentation.

I will proceed first with Reverend How.

The Reverend Lewis How (Rector, Parish of St. George, As Individual): Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, my fellow presenters, ladies and gentlemen.

My comments fall under two headings, sociological and Christian. I will begin with sociological.

Social sciences define culture as consisting of four principal elements: language, folkways, mores, and institutions. Together they provide what is termed the ethos, or ideal excellence, of any given society. Their order is by design. Language ensures common communication. Folkways are the living customs or traditions, also common to the society. Mores are the fundamental moral assumptions of that society. Institutions are the formal, permanent structures of a social institution built upon language, customs, and morality.

Sociology has identified the principal institutions as being political, economic, social, and marriage. Society is by these elements of culture sustained in the rigours of daily breadwinning and against the challenges of a fleeting world. A stable society manages social change by maintaining continuity with its immutable ethos.

The basic realities of human survival remain constant, being food, shelter, security, socialization, and procreation. All of these necessities have been, from time immemorial, the common business of society's primary institution, marriage. The same is without question the oldest of all social institutions.

The bond of marriage between a man and a woman is the most fundamental and paramount glue of human relationships. Its formal structure has historically provided a safe and healthy environment for the procreation of children, their physical sustenance, shelter, security, and socialization. It has withstood the test of time.

Marital functions are not disparate elements but inseparable links. I take issue with the ungrounded assumption current to our discussion, mentioned in your paper, that marriage may be defined by its individual functions. Clearly, it is the sum of its elements. The unique social role of marriage deserves recognition, support, and protection from government. The idea that justice and tolerance demands the legal acceptance of same-sex “marriages”--quote, unquote--is patently false, inflammatory, and harmful. Uniqueness cannot be unjust because of its uniqueness.

Tolerance ought not to be a synonym for contradiction against nature. I submit to you that marriage can only remain in the future what it has successfully been in the past, the exclusive union between one man and one woman.

The compelling argument of the sociological defence for marriage is a manifestation of divine purpose. I say this by way of confession as a Christian; I have a Christian world view, which is compatible with the mores and traditions of Canada's foundations. If any find this offensive, I hope they will admit that the present secular position of our current Canadian political institution is most certainly not value-neutral but rather the propagator of the secular humanist world view.

Politicians used to tell Christians that morality could not be legislated. Today, in direct contradiction to this doctrine of laissez faire, we are awash with social engineering premised upon the doctrines of social humanism. Christianity teaches creation, now also, I might add, an espoused scientific theory. The Holy Bible says it was God who instituted marriage in the beginning. He blessed it with fruitfulness and goodness.

The Mosaic Covenant reveals the sanctity of marriage in the fifth commandment, honour thy father and thy mother. Jesus upheld the uniqueness and purpose of marriage in his living and teaching. Marriage for Christians who espouse the tenets of the faith and subscribe to the authority of holy scripture is holy matrimony, a sacred estate, instituted in man's innocence, and purposed firstly for the procreation of children and their nurture in the faith and love of God; secondly, for the appropriate expression of sexuality; and thirdly, for the mutual society, health, and comfort between a husband and wife.

À (1010)

To suggest that the unique nature of marriage is unjust is to say that God is unjust. The time has come for Christians to insist that such accusations are profoundly offensive.

We are told that ministers would not be expected to solemnize these impossible same-sex “marriages”. Allow me to bluntly say that we do not trust those assurances. We do not trust the courts, whose several recent decisions show contempt for our constitutional religious freedoms, and we do not trust governments that promotes a homosexual agenda certain to destroy marriage in this dominion.

Back in the days when church and state agreed on the definition and purpose of marriage, the clergy allowed themselves to become agents for the government in marriage. We solemnize Christian weddings while doubling as cameo civil servants--without the pay, I might add. This relationship will end the moment same-sex marriages are legalized in Canada, and I will not be the licensed agent for any government that sanctions same-sex “marriages”, and neither will I be alone in my actions.

If I am told by the court that I will be breaking the law of this land should I not solemnize same-sex marriages, then so be it. I shall willingly accept the punishment of such a society in defence of holy matrimony.

Thank you.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair: I would ask members of the audience to curb their enthusiasm in terms of clapping and so on. We have limited time, and it has a tendency to escalate. It will just take away from our ability to engage in dialogue.

Reverend Taylor for seven minutes.

The Reverend Philip Taylor (Evangelical Pentecostal Church): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, fellow presenters.

I know you've been made well aware of the Christian position on marriage and same-sex couples. This morning I want to speak to you from a practitioner's viewpoint, one that's been ordained by a religious body to perform marriage and also licensed by the government to solemnize marriage.

Marriage is more than a legal contract. It's a building block for society. Our great nation has been founded and developed on cooperation and compromise. We've always found a way to be tolerant and open without surrendering things of primary importance.

Canadian Parliament must not so dilute the meaning of marriage as to undermine its significance and special place in society.

This presentation will focus on the unique place that marriage holds in our society, the need to preserve it as it now is defined in the law, and the reverse discrimination that would result from dissolving the partnership between state and religion in regard to marriage.

Canada is a wonderful country that prides itself on its diversity. We're constantly evolving and redefining ourselves. The Canadian culture is a mosaic of diversity that does not allow itself to be defined by one culture, language, ethnic group, religion, political ideology, special interest group, or world view. I believe there will always have to be a careful balance in Canada between accommodating the change that is constantly redefining us as we grow and preserving the values, freedoms, and absolutes that brought us to this just society.

Some elements of our society should be considered non-negotiable, such as the freedom of expression, freedom of movement, freedom of worship, freedom of human will, an orderly society, democratic government, universal health care, and the family unit. Societal building blocks need to be nurtured and protected by the state to ensure our stability as a nation while our country evolves. Marriage is one of those building blocks that should be protected by law within its traditional meaning.

The institution of marriage has emerged among almost every major civilization and religious group because it represents a fundamental platform point for the establishment of home and family unit. Marriage is an exclusive institution because of its historical place in society. The law excludes children, family members, multiple partners, same-sex couples, and those who are still bound to another marriage contract.

Canadians laws have not created this exclusive nature of marriage but have recognized and protected it. Marriage's exclusive nature is not meant to discriminate against those who are excluded, but simply to recognize the boundary lines of the institution itself. This makes marriage a special relationship in that it's given a legal recognition according to those boundaries. Those boundaries should not be changed.

Is it considered discriminatory to refuse a third willing partner into a marriage contract? It could be argued that the definition of marriage should be expanded to include polygamy, so as not to exclude those who choose to live with more than one partner for life, with all the rights and privileges of marriage. The majority of Canadians wouldn't choose this as a lifestyle, but there is no law to prevent the persons who are willing to from living with more than one partner. However, it doesn't seem at all discriminatory not to give such living arrangements the legal title of marriage.

To provide greater inclusiveness by finding the lowest common denominator, so it may be redefined to include other personal relationships such as same-sex partnerships, would make marriage common. This will make marriage less desirable. The resulting vacuum will lead to a sense that marriage has no value and no special place in society because it refers to so many different types of situations.

When something loses its value, it's considered worthless and not needed. It may be the intended goal of some to discard marriage as an archaic institution. Others may be simply ambivalent about the issue. However, for those who regard marriage as a valued building block in our community, it is imperative that it continues to be valued and protected by the law in Canada.

Religion and the state should always be separated. On the other hand, governments that have embraced the wisdom and values of religions have prospered. This has been the case in Canada, where the religious organizations have been essential partners in the building of this great nation. The cooperation of religion and state brought about the development of schools, universities, charities, hospitals, social assistance, and community recreation facilities.

À (1015)

Marriage has been a place where the government and religious bodies have worked closely together. If the Government of Canada chooses to follow the registered partnership option to answer the call for courts to change the laws concerning marriage to include same-sex couples, it will sever this important link between the religious community and the state.

In this model, religious ceremonies will not have legal recognition from the state. If weddings performed in a temple, mosque, or church are no longer considered valid legal unions, they will become obsolete, because they will be seen as redundant, merely symbolic and extravagant. At a time when organized religion needs government's support and recognition in an increasingly secular society, the dissolving of a partnership will affect and marginalize a solid ally in nation-building.

Canada needs to be appreciated by its citizens. It's the finest nation in the world. This does not happen by accident. This nation has been founded and developed on strong values brought to Canada by those who have made it home and its first peoples. It's those religious societal values cherished by these peoples that have made it a desirable place to live.

While aspiring to meet the increasingly diverse world views of its multicultural and pluralistic citizenship, the Government of Canada will be under increased pressure to resolve the differing opinions by discovering the lowest common denominator. In the case of such an important institution as marriage, removing its exclusivity to find common ground to include same-sex relationships may devalue marriage to the point of extinction, or cause discrimination to other valued citizens.

Please find a way to leave this valuable building block of society in its present state while upholding the rights of all Canadians.

À (1020)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Chuck Cadman): Thank you, Reverend Taylor.

Ms. Lambert, for seven minutes, please.

Ms. Angela Lambert (Assistant Coordinator, Gander Status of Women): Living Canada is a great privilege. To the global community, we are seen as one of the best, if not the best, country to live in. We have basic human rights. We live without war within our borders. Legally, everyone is entitled to equal job opportunities and equal basic education opportunities, and are able to vote.

Marriage is also legally open to every single person regardless of race, class, sex, gender, ability, and sexual orientation--as long as you choose to marry someone of the opposite sex. However, most individuals of a lesbian or gay orientation, and even some bisexuals, fall in love, and wish to marry those of the same sex, and cannot. Considering this, Canada cannot boast that it treats all citizens equally.

For me, equal marriage is the best choice. Sexuality is an important part of an individual. Whether it is heterosexuality or homosexuality, it is an inherent part of our being. Therefore, it cannot be changed or moulded upon demand.

When the institution of marriage is limited to heterosexual couples only, we are essentially saying that any loving relationship between two people of the same sex is invalid. The message we are sending is that this cannot reflect how society feels about us; we do not feel this way about ourselves, and neither do our supporters. It is also a reality that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

On page 24 of the discussion paper prepared by the Department of Justice, it says that opening marriage to everyone “would fully address equality concerns”. This is the bottom line. Everyone deserves equal rights. Anything less would be saying that homosexual relationships are not valid, or not as important as heterosexual relationships. To do so would be discriminatory and against the Charter of Human Rights. This has been recognized by many people, including courts and the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It is time that laws and policies reflect this.

When considering equality and equity issues, it is important to ask marginalized groups what they want. Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals have expressed that they want equal marriage rights. We want to be able to make choices for ourselves. It's about choice, and what we want, and what we deserve. Why should I be subjected to decisions based on other people's values? Who is to decide or say that my values are wrong, and that the opinions and values of those who oppose are correct? After all, it is only a matter of opinion. Choice is important and cannot be denied to an entire group of people based on the opinions of others.

There are also many personal reasons why this is the best option. Security is very important to me. I want to know that if I decide to have children, my partner will be a legal parent, without question. I want to know that my relationship will not be questioned and have to be legitimized at every twist and turn. I want to be able to love whoever I want, and have that love recognized. I also want to know that the future generations of LBGT people will not have to face as much discrimination as I have had to face so far in my life. I also want future generations to have the freedom to feel more secure in their sexuality and sexual orientations.

Questioning and coming out is a very hard process to go through for many individuals, and the discrimination we face is what makes it difficult. Many youths contemplate suicide because society has told them that being of a different sexual orientation is wrong. By legalizing marriage, we will be telling future LBGT generations that homosexuality is okay.

There are problems and inadequacies with alternative options. If the opposite-sex requirement is upheld, we will be telling a good part of our population that they are not really considered equal people in a country that prides itself on equality and freedom.

This reminds me of the famous “persons” case that took place at a time when women were denied many rights, including the right to vote, because we were not considered persons under the law. In this case, the Famous Five fought for women to be considered persons under the law, thereby making them eligible to be appointed to Senate.

By limiting marriage to the definition of opposite-sex, we are telling people who by nature cannot happily marry a person of the opposite sex that they are not considered a person with freedom of choice.

The idea of a civil registry for same-sex couples was also introduced. This alternative is completely unacceptable. We live in a free country, where all people are supposed to be equal. By implementing this alternative, the Government of Canada will be saying we are not as equal as our heterosexual counterparts.

In George Orwell's novel Animal Farm, he presented the former Soviet Union's brand of socialism in a satirical way. After the farm animals gained their freedom from the farmer, a slogan was written on the side of the barn: All animals are equal. However, the pigs do not see it this way, and corrupt equality by placing themselves in charge and providing themselves with privileges above and beyond what other animals were receiving. By the end of the novel, the slogan had changed to: All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

À (1025)

Although the issue we are dealing with now is not a question of governmental regime, the above analogy could be applied in the same satirical way to same-sex marriage. Right now, heterosexuals enjoy the right of marriage. At the same time, we are saying that it's fine to love someone of the same sex--as long as you do not want to marry them. Therefore, we are saying all love is equal, but heterosexual love is more equal.

Satire is an effective tool to display the absurdity of such issues as inequality. Again, it was an effective tool during the famous persons case, when the women staged a mock Parliament where disenfranchised men petitioned women lawmakers. The audience, through tears of laughter at this spectacle, was able to see how ridiculous the arguments against equality were.

If the legal effect of marriage were completely removed, and marriage left to religion, everyone, both heterosexuals and homosexuals, would lose. Churches would lose because church marriage would not be recognized. This means that a person would not be able to get married in a church and have their choice to do so recognized legally. In addition, same-sex marriages would not negatively affect opposite-sex marriages; we know this, because it hasn't in countries such as the Netherlands and Belgium, where same-sex marriage is in effect. However, if we take away legal marriage altogether, we would be taking away everyone's right.

Personally, I find it a little insulting that the government would even consider getting rid of marriage altogether rather than allow us access and extend equal rights. Are we that much of a threat that the whole institution much be erased instead of including the homosexual public?

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Chuck Cadman): Thank you, Ms. Lambert, and thank you all the witnesses.

Mr. Toews for five to seven minutes.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you.

I appreciated the reference to Animal Farm and the statement that all animals are equal, and the absurdity of that and the changes that were made. What is more frightening is Orwell's 1984, where he basically points out that words are anything that the state wants to make that word mean, such as “War is peace”, and various other statements. I think much more frightening is the power of the state to try to change reality when it clearly does not meet reality.

Reverend How, I'm not as concerned as you are that ministers and priests will be arrested for refusing to perform same-sex marriage. A provision can easily be put into the law to stop that, as Quebec has basically done. The threat to the church, I think, is much more subtle than the ham-fisted approach of prosecution.

I believe what will happen is that once the definition is changed, if in fact it is changed, the next basis of attack on the church will be the financial benefits it receives from the state in terms of its charitable tax status, in terms of direct funding for religious and educational institutions. The fact that it has not yet happened I think is neither here nor there, but it's the next logical progression.

In fact, last Friday in Manitoba we heard exactly that from two witnesses, one of whom is a school trustee who has been active in a Manitoba case to deprive a non-denominational Christian organization of certain government contracts because of its ethical stand on homosexuality. Both witnesses stated that no organization should receive public funding if they continued to act in this discriminatory manner.

That's what we are going to see. We are going to see this continuation of the separation of church and state. The traditional supports that the state has given to religious organizations will be withdrawn--much more subtle, much more indirect, but very effective in trying to bring the church to heel, so to speak.

Indeed, these witnesses stated that's certainly the direction. I appreciated their honesty, because many witnesses who have come before us have always denied that this is going to happen. It's going to happen, if that happens.

Now, I note your comment, Reverend How, that you will not be a licensed agent for any government that sanctions same-sex marriage, and that neither will you be alone in your action. How will you continue to serve your parishioners, then, if in fact this is the stand that you will take if our government chooses to change the definition, or, what I perceive the more real likelihood, if our courts are simply going to order Parliament to do this?

À (1030)

Rev. Lewis How: Thank you.

You're asking how one continues on in the same way when nothing is the same, essentially. What I'm trying to put forward is that these changes are so fundamental and so detrimental to our purpose that they become, if enacted, unacceptable.

It would be convenient to say, “I will hold the licence for the government and act as a cameo civil servant, but will not solemnize homosexual 'marriages'.” This would be the easiest route I could take in difficult circumstances, but it would give the wrong message and it would not solve the problem.

You say you're not as worried as I am about being jailed, but then, you're not a clergyman. I would add, too, that when we look at what the courts are currently doing to our religious freedoms as Christians...and I'm not trying to exclude other religious faiths, but these are actions that the court has taken against Christians.

Mr. Vic Toews: I appreciate that.

À (1035)

Rev. Lewis How: So, I do see, as you said, the inevitable coming. If I have, as a Christian, with my vows as a priest, a paper before me saying that, instead of the old spinster and bachelor, we're allowing for marriage all these other categories--and they could be varied after awhile, more than just homosexuals--then I will be breaking my vows to hold that paper in my rectory and to hold the licence for the government. It's making me party to what the government has done by trying to act through a second avenue. I can't do that, in all honesty. Therefore, I have to go the other way.

My parishioners will be served because I can always offer a Christian wedding. Then they can find civil recognition separately, on their own. That is a destruction of the institution as it now stands, but there's no way I can avoid that if you go ahead with it.

Mr. Vic Toews: I know that in the United States now some states have begun to offer what is called “covenantial” marriage, a marriage that in fact is different from the regular marriage and has different legal ramifications from the ordinary marriage.

So what they have done, it appears to me, is somehow abandoned the regular marriage and gone to a different form of marriage so that when people enter into that covenant there are different laws that apply in respect to divorce, and the grounds for divorce. I don't see that as being a particularly good solution, because all you're doing is creating another category of marriage, to which others will say, well, you're excluding us from that institution.

So my fear is that either you make the stand on this issue and win or lose, or not.

Rev. Lewis How: Absolutely; that's exactly what I'm saying.

The Chair: Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the presenters.

With a debate such as this one, many of our values are brought into play which affects us deep down. I appreciate the opposite direction in which what was presented this morning has gone.

Reverend How, with all due respect I would like to speak of religious freedom. There are people, and I am convinced more are soon to come, that have come before this committee in order to tell us the following. Whether they be a reverend of the United Church, a reverend of the Unitarian Church or a rabbi of the reformed branch of Judaism, they would like to marry same-sex couples. Their conscience and their understanding of the Holy Scriptures allow them to do so, but the State does not. Their religious freedom is thus not respected. They have also informed us that there is a conception of marriage, which is not their own, which is at present imposed upon them. If they had the opportunity to marry a same-sex couple they could as a reverend of the United Church, or a reverend of the Unitarian Church or a rabbi of the reformed branch of Judaism, marry these couples without forcing a member from any other denomination to do so. This would not only respect their religious freedom but also the religious freedom of churches, such as ours, which refuse to perform such ceremonies. We would have, in their opinion, every right to do so. This is what they have said.

You made various references and seem to fear being imposed the celebration of same-sex couples. However, as a means of protecting the religious freedom of the Catholic Church, which is the first example that came to my mind as I am born in this Faith, no one has ever forced this institution to ordain female priests, nor to marry people who have been divorced.

Does the current definition of marriage presently incur the non-respect of the churches’ religious freedom?

[English]

Rev. Lewis How: Thank you.

I perfectly and well understand the position you are putting forward. What you have essentially identified is a schism in the Christian community.

The United Church recognizes officially that same-sex marriage should go ahead. That was not their foundational position as a church. They were based on the authority of scripture. They relinquished that, and they did so at great cost to very many people. People had to leave that church and start over, without any of the privileges they used to have.

I myself, as an Anglican, faced the same road, and had to leave the jurisdiction of the Anglican Church of Canada and become one of the traditional Anglicans in the country in order to maintain my vows against a secularization of the church. Now, we would need much more time to go into just how that is manifest, but that can be done, and the argument can be made clear.

We see the church leaving its tenets, the foundations of its faith, and then we hear the propaganda word, the hate word, of “fundamentalists”. What is a fundamentalist but someone who, as I'm going to use it, stands on his foundation? Every house, every building, must have a foundation. Now, that foundation has been Christ in the Holy Scriptures for all Christendom. When certain bodies within churches, and whole bodies of churches themselves denominationally, decide to alter that, then they go into schism, and we are in a society that is itself entirely in schism.

So to say that it is a matter of value is, I think, incorrect, and a bit of a misnomer, if I may, because we are talking about the fundamental difference that allows us to be called Christian under the tenets, and that has had a great divergency in the past--Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Pentecostals, Baptists.

The problem is, you're asking me to say, “Isn't it just a matter of their values?”, and you've also said to me--and this is important--that I'm not threatened. But you see, if I can just get this in, the courts have just told Scott Brockie--and they fined him heavily--that he must follow the homosexual agenda in his business. He cannot bring Christianity into his business life. So his freedom of religion has been restricted. And the court said, the freedom of religion is broader in belief than it is in practice.

Now, that's an interpretation out of, I think, thin air. It's an invention.

À (1040)

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I understand what you are saying. As reverend Taylor has said, although we may have theological differences, it is not for the State to decide who is right and who is wrong in these discussions, but rather as a legislator, the State should respect the fundamental beliefs of every person and every church. I am convinced you will agree with me on this point.

I am not judging your faith in comparison to that of less traditional Anglicans – I am not sure as to how to refer to them -, the Catholic Church, or the Unitarian Church. It is not my place to do so. I am simply looking for a solution which would allow a Church, a branch of Judaism, or any other faith to celebrate marriages as they see fit between two people, all the while protecting the religious freedom of each person whereby a certain viewpoint would not be imposed upon people like yourself who for very legitimate reasons do not want to celebrate such marriages. This is not a problem for me. I respect this profoundly.

If ever this committee decided to recommend the celebration of same-sex marriages, it would add to the law a clear provision, like that of article 367 of the Civil Code of Quebec, which the translators can read to you, that would state that no reverend of any faith may be forced to celebrate a ceremony that would go against his beliefs. Would this appease a certain number of your fears?

[English]

The Chair: Reverend How.

Rev. Lewis How: Thank you.

I'm afraid not. I would that it were so easy.

I fear that in bringing up that particular issue, of concern about being put into jail myself...which is not really a concern, I'm prepared for that. The real concern is the sanctity of marriage. Therefore, I take this other stance to defend it.

I would think it would be, and I'm sure it is, clear to us all that as we enter into this discussion, and as we go down this road, we are seeing the kinds of problems that are arising. The difficulties and how they will play out are not yet known, as has been said.

Therefore, why would we do it? Why would we change something that has been fundamentally working as a building block for our society amongst Christians, other religious people, and non-religious people very well for all these millennium to embark on a venture of invention and intrigue, which, frankly has a very ill basis of logic, and say to the future generations to come, “Well, if it doesn't work, perhaps you can mend it”? It is the old rule of, if it isn't broken, don't fix it.

For those who say that marriage is suffering, all I can say is, do you want the last nail to be put in the coffin by doing this to it? We should nurture and support and help it, not add to its burden of problems that it's currently undergoing because of social problems.

À (1045)

The Chair: Reverend Taylor, did you want to respond as well?

Rev. Philip Taylor: One of the concerns I have is that as we begin to talk about various religious groups responding in different ways, that very argument could be used to decide whether or not some religious groups are legal and should receive charitable status and other groups who are dissenting from rules or concepts that the government is putting forth wouldn't be.

It may not be there yet, but as Mr. Toews has said, these processes are subtle and changes come slowly. If we go down that road of discerning between routes that recognize same-sex marriages and those that don't, there is a concern that we could come to the point where those who recognize same-sex marriages as religious groups would receive charity status, and those who didn't would be free to practice their religion but perhaps without government recognition.

The Chair: Ms. Lambert.

Ms. Angela Lambert: I'd also like to make sure that it is recognized that many LBGT people are Christians themselves, and they hold Christian values, and they believe there is nothing wrong with a same-sex marriage.

At the same time, I want to remind you that Canada has many different religions, not just Christianity. For example, in native spirituality, they recognize the union of same-sex people. They call it “two-spirited”.

That's all I have to say on that right now. Thanks.

The Chair: I have three names left on my list, and less time than that, so keep the interventions brief, if you could, please.

Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney: Reverend Taylor, we have often heard that to deny same-sex marriage is discriminatory. In your presentation to us, you indicated that to allow it would cause discrimination to other valued citizens. Could you elaborate on your comments?

Rev. Philip Taylor: Yes, sir. In my written presentation I go into some explanation on this.

Presently, as practitioner, when someone comes to marry me...or when I go to marry someone who's come to me for marriage, I am able to marry them. In one ceremony, I'm able to fulfill the religious obligations they feel they have by their faith and I'm able to fulfill their civil obligations.

If the marriage definition is changed so that any one of the options where marriage in a religious institution is not recognized by the state, or that marriage is dissolved, and we talk about registration, and then religious groups continue to marry, those people who have faith, who believe they should be married in a church, will have to, because of their faith, be married in a church, and then also perform their civic duty, whatever case that may be. This is a doubling of all of their responsibilities, a doubling of their costs, a doubling of their energies and time and so on. And it's discriminatory, because it's saying that what was once a valued process of going before your clergyman, what was also recognized by the state, is not now recognized.

So it's just discriminatory on that basis, that they are losing their opportunity to have their faith marriage recognized by the government.

À (1050)

Mr. John Maloney: To Ms. Lambert's interesting analogy about how we are all equal but some are more equal than others, how do you apply that philosophy to your positions on this issue?

Rev. Philip Taylor: My argument is that because marriage is defined...and it has to have some form of definition. It has to have some boundaries. Some of them are to protect children, for example, and some of them are to protect a partner in marriage from being illegally married, finding out that the person they are married to is already married to someone else. So there are boundaries and protections, as I said. Some of those boundaries aren't necessarily legal ones, but they are there for other reasons.

So there is an exclusivity to marriage, but that doesn't mean that somebody who chooses a route other than that particular institution is unequal. Their choice is their choice. It's their place to live their life the way they so choose.

I use the example of people choosing to live together in a multiple relationship, a multiple conjugal relationship, perhaps one man and three women, or something of that nature. That's their choice, but I think it would be extravagant, and it would actually destroy the concept of marriage, to call that marriage. It could be called polygamy. It could be called a voluntary relationship. It could be called anything, but I don't think it would be considered less than equal.

Ms. Angela Lambert: I just want to say that I don't think polygamy should be included in this discussion. We are not here to talk about polygamy. That could be a whole different forum altogether.

I would like to also mention that polygamy is against the law, and homosexuality is not against the law, so I think that also needs to be recognized.

The Chair: Reverend How.

Rev. Lewis How: Thank you.

Well, homosexuality used to be against the law. Whether we like it or not, it changed. Some like it, some don't, perhaps. The point is, your logic is very ill to suggest that we can exclude the landslide of change that will occur just because this discussion is not particularly focusing on it. The protectors of marriage in society have been gender, male and female; number, that they may not have polygamy but only two people; age, that only adults may marry so that pedophilia may not enter into it; or children may not marry one another, or sanguinity, or some say propinquity--blood relationships to protect against incest--or species so that we protect against bestiality.

These things are all waiting in the wings. If we are going to say that an open society is open to all people's beliefs, all people's rights, then these are rights and beliefs waiting in the wings to occur. It will be the destruction of our land, not the building up of it; not the freedom of it but the enslavement of it.

Mr. John Maloney: Reverend How, are gays excluded from practising your faith?

Rev. Lewis How: What do you mean by practising faith?

Mr. John Maloney: Of being involved in your church.

Rev. Lewis How: Absolutely not. You know, oftentimes people say that Christians are being so exclusive in a multicultural society. My message to them is that there is no body on this entire earth that is more or as equally multicultural as Christianity is.

When it comes to gay people being involved, of course they are, and can be, but we recognize those relationships as sinful before God because of the scripture. We are all sinners. We all have different forms of sin. Sin means to miss the mark, to come short of what God has for his children. It is not a form of hatred. It is the extreme form of love to be able to say to someone, as you would to your child, such behaviour in any case is not right, and you must, and ought to, amend it.

So of course they can, but I would not entertain the idea of solemnizing a marriage.

À (1055)

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

I'm going to go to Mr. Cadman.

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

Ms. Lambert, please, this is not anything personal. I'm just wondering, though, you indicated that at some point in the future you would consider having children, and that you would want your partner to be given equal access as a parent. I have to assume that there would be a biological father somewhere in the picture here, so I would like to know what you'd see as the role for the biological father in that case.

I bring that up because I believe there is a case before the Ontario courts right now, where there is a third person seeking equality in that kind of a relationship, of three parents.

Ms. Angela Lambert: I really haven't considered that as of yet, so I don't know exactly how to answer it. I have considered adoption. That's pretty much my choice, I think. There are many children in this world who are living without families, who are living in group homes and foster care and orphanages, and they don't have any parents. Gay and lesbian families are legitimate families, and we can raise children with good values. I think that would be my personal choice.

Now, other women have done similar things. There are single women who choose to have children and they go to a sperm bank or something along those lines. I mean, it's a single woman's choice, that she can have a child if she wants, and there are means for her to do so. So I don't see it as being an issue.

As to a third party, yes, it does happen, and I think when that happens that's the place and time to deal with it, and not before.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Well, I would go further to say that we have to consider all the ramifications of the decisions that we make on this issue. Some people are saying that we are only focused on one issue. Yes, there is one issue that's being discussed, but we have to consider ramifications, so that's why I ask those kinds of questions.

Ms. Angela Lambert: Exactly. I work as an assistant coordinator at a women's centre, and we also see many heterosexual couples. One of our jobs is to do divorce counselling, and help women and men with divorce papers. We see custody battles. So it's not only among a three-person ring for a custody battle in a same-sex marriage.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: This isn't custody. This is three people looking to be parents, three parents, three legal parents.

Ms. Angela Lambert: As I see it, a community raises a child. I mean, my grandmother helped raise me. So if three people want it, I don't know; it's not my decision.

I don't know what to say on that, honestly. Really, I don't know what to say.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Macklin, for three minutes.

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

I would like to direct a question to Reverend How and Reverend Taylor. You obviously, I presume, had a chance to read over the discussion paper that was drafted with respect to setting out the basic positions that might be assumed. I have listened very carefully to your concerns, and I would like to know from you what options in the position paper, other than including same-sex unions as marriage, you would find reasonable and acceptable, and that would leave you with the protection that you feel you ought to have from a religious perspective.

Rev. Lewis How: Thank you.

Again, I regret that my presentation seems to have created the sense that my focus is personal, and for my personal concern. This was an element of it. I gave you that element because I wanted you to know how strongly I felt about this. If we don't have gay marriages, I don't think gays will be put into prison. But if this goes down the road, that's where I may end up. So I want you to know I'm prepared to go.

I did read the paper. I found inconsistencies in it. For example, the third party; I'll answer your question. You can't define a third party...two parties having, in any incidence, by a third party.... That's a non sequitur. It's illogical.

The paper broke down marriage--this is what I found very troubling--into components, saying, well, marriage can be this, or it can be that. Essentially, marriage can just be sex, it can just be loving relationships, it can just be this. But it's all of those things together, and it's children being brought up with a mother and a father. This is important for their future, and our country's.

So at the risk of appearing to be immovable, your paper does not allow me to accept the alternatives, other than to say, please, leave it the way it is. Gay people already, by usurpment of the court.... Their rights were written in by the court, not by Parliament. Parliament voted against this. Gay people were given these rights by a court. This is very offensive to the freedoms of Canada, because they are going to write a lot of other things in there that are against Parliament.

Therefore, my answer to you is that we simply have to say that we are here to defend, or I am here to defend, the institution of holy matrimony, marriage. I'm glad you have that as one of the possibilities, but without wanting to appear unrealistic on this--I realize that in many people's eyes I will appear to be unrealistic--I'm afraid the other things, for me, are just not plausible.

Á (1100)

The Chair: Reverend Taylor.

Rev. Philip Taylor: Thank you.

In my presentation I tried to present the idea that there has to be room for evolution in our society. So we are evolving, we are accepting things, we are changing. But there are certain building blocks that just cannot be removed. If you remove that foundational block, it will cause a collapse of other things, or cause a process to escalate that goes well beyond the desire of those who are applying. That's why I am trying to explain that if we open marriage to new definitions to encompass one particular group in society that's excluded now, we will have to then begin to process this to other groups, so that marriage, no matter how we try to define it at this moment, no matter how the paper tries to define it, whether by registered partnerships or non-marriages or other things, will continue to evolve and change, and I think rather rapidly, because other groups will step in and will want their rights as well.

For me, the only answer is to maintain the status quo that marriage, as it is defined now, remains marriage under the law, and that the justice committee continues to do research and to discover another way to fulfill the needs of other special interest groups who feel excluded at this time. But that building block must remain there.

The Chair: Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Reverend Taylor, you state that same-sex marriages would decrease the value of marriage. What would be, in your opinion, the reaction of heterosexual couples if homosexual couples could marry? Would heterosexuals stop getting married? Would we see a decrease in the number of heterosexual marriages? Would we see a drop in the birth rate? What would be the dramatic consequences that you speak of?

[English]

Rev. Philip Taylor: That's a very good question. Thank you.

I'm not just concerned about the heterosexual community. I don't want it to appear that way. I'm concerned about the society as a whole. I'm concerned about the country as a whole. I believe that when we destabilize our society by removing this building block, by redefining it, such as we are planning to do, that will create devaluation of that building block, which will then cause people to decide marriage isn't that important at all.

So for whatever reason, whether the government completely removes itself from marriage or comes up with a more common denominator, maybe a registered plan that recognizes relationships of all sorts, then holy matrimony has lost its value, lost its place, its significance, its uniqueness. So I think it would affect society by destabilizing the family.

Although there are other ways to have children, such as adoption, such as in vitro fertilization and so on, heterosexual marriage is the only relationship that allows the two parents to raise the children that bear their genetic code. I know there are blended marriages, and all kinds of marriages in a very difficult place, and very scattered, but ideally, the heterosexual marriage is the one that is best suited for families to be developed and stay whole.

Á (1105)

The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Marceau.

Thank you very much to the panel of Reverend How, Reverend Taylor, and Ms. Lambert.

I'm going to excuse this panel and ask the next one to come forward.

Á (1103)

Á (1110)

The Chair: I call back to order the 33rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

From now until noon we have appearing before us, as an individual, Charles LeBlanc; representing the Temple Baptist Church, Glenn Goode; and representing the Safe Harbour Metropolitan Community Church, Brian Mombourquette and Ross Boutilier.

As you know, each group or individual is allowed a seven-minute presentation.

I go first to Charles LeBlanc, appearing as an individual.

Mr. Charles LeBlanc (As Individual): Merci.

First of all, thanks for giving me the opportunity to express my view. I'm not directly touched by this question. I don't represent a lobby group or any special interest group. I do represent, however, friends of mine who are directly affected by the lack of recognition that we have in this country for same-sex unions.

My submission centres around the many changing values and attitudes we have witnessed over the last century, I'd say. None of these changes would have occurred without a great deal of debate and even some level of controversy. And yet we have made these changes, and history will tell us that it was the right thing to do. So if we fully accept equality for women and equality for the races, why is it that equality for sexual orientation becomes such a hot topic in 2003?

To expect less is to, in my view, discriminate against a segment of our population--our neighbours, our brothers, our sisters--and to discriminate against a segment of the population that contributes greatly to our economy, our culture, and our immediate day-to-day lives.

These people who choose the traditional definition of marriage would do so because, number one, it is their right as taxpayers. They are citizens of Canada, and they are recognized as having the same rights as every Canadian, or should be.

Therefore, I fully endorse the concept of same-sex marriage without a watered-down version. I fear that by leaving it to provinces and territories to decide, the mobile nature of today's workforce may not be reflected. In other words, the same rights and protections a couple enjoys in one province may vanish just by crossing the provincial border for employment, or for whatever other reason they may have for moving.

Leaving it to the couple's religion to sanctify the marriage is full of problematic potential as well. Religion has traditionally been the main source of sexual orientation discrimination. I hardly think that by legislating them it will help them open their doors to a group who, by their own definition, are sinners.

So what's left? The federal government, in my view, must protect same-sex couples and allow recognition of their union. I cannot understand or accept anything less.

Finally, I want to address the concerns of the opponents of this view. I fully understand and appreciate the fears expressed so far, but I feel confident that family values will not change any more than has already occurred, and that children brought up in a same-sex family will be normal, happy children. In fact, I know adults who were brought up in a same-sex relationship, and I can assure you, they are straight, married, and fully functioning human beings.

Sexual orientation is not a choice. Nobody willingly decides to be gay. They therefore deserve the same rights as their straight counterparts, who did not choose to be straight.

Thanks.

Á (1115)

The Chair: I go next to Glenn Goode of the Temple Baptist Church.

The Reverend Glenn Goode (Temple Baptist Church): . Thank you, Honourable Andy Scott, members of the panel, fellow presenters, ladies and gentlemen.

I'm here today because our senior pastor, who was supposed to be here to present, is sick today. I have his brief, which I will read. Some of the comments are his personal comments relating to his age and the length of time he has been doing marriages. I do not reflect that age.

Marriage is defined as the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family. Because of its unique dual role in providing for a committed relationship between a woman and a man and a stable setting for the raising and nurturing of children, marriage has historically received special status in law by governments. It is evident at this time in the existence of our nation there is a growing concern among many Canadians over a serious threat to the institution of marriage--that is, marriage as it has been understood before and since Confederation.

A small minority seems determined to reverse the historical, cultural, biological, moral, and biblical definition of marriage to include same-sex relationships. Since the opposite-sex definition of marriage as an abiding social institution of marriage is being challenged, it is necessary for some of us who represent the somewhat silent majority of Canadians to state our concerns relative to this core pillar of our Canadian society.

As the Department of Justice is now being challenged to ask whether marriage as presently defined has a foundational role to play in Canadian society, we are here to strongly affirm this role. With gravity and earnestness we press the Government of Canada to uphold the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. The charter was not meant to change the fundamental institutions of Canadian society. Marriage is arguably the most fundamental of our institutions.

As the senior pastor of a significant Christian congregation in this city, I bring to your attention several points of consideration as to why we endorse the present definition of marriage as that which exists within the heterosexual union.

The majority of the grassroots Christians of our nation affirm this opposite-sex definition of marriage. In fact, all the world's major religions and all cultures and societies have from time immemorial recognized marriage as the union of male and female.

Christians and leaders of the Christian communities have not manufactured the present definition of marriage. We simply and solidly affirm it. Why? The foundational standard for our convictions is rooted in the scriptures, both Old Testament and New Testament. The scriptures reach back into the origins of humankind to restate that “at the beginning the Creator made them male and female”, and said “for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh”.

Those of the Jewish tradition join Christians in affirming marriage as it has been understood for untold generations:

Jewish tradition teaches that marriage is a natural institution that religious traditions have elevated to the level of sacramental without, however, changing its earlier pre-religious character...Judaism, Christianity, Islam and others, have preserved and protected a pre-existing institution that they did not invent. Although Jewish tradition does not accept, and most Jews cannot accept, gay and lesbian marriage, this should not be construed as a rejection of homosexuals as people. Judaism recognizes the dignity of all persons who are made in the image of God...the vast majority of Rabbis and rabbinic teaching reject the possibility of same-sex marriage.

The Islamic world understands marriage to be fundamentally an opposite-sex union. They believe that husband and wife are two pieces of the same whole, and will not be spiritually fulfilled until they have united in marriage. Islam teaches that a marital unit made up of a man and a woman is the best environment in which to raise children. They believe in the complementarity of parenting between the sexes.

Cultures and religions alike affirm the requirement that marriage partners be of the opposite sex. Any restating of the definition of marriage is at cross-purposes with this nation's and the world's commonly understood and accepted understanding of marriage. Furthermore, marriage is not merely a religious institution. The uniqueness and importance of marriage has been recognized by all societies. There is no known society that has consistently endorsed marriage between persons of the same sex as a norm.

Á (1120)

As a Canadian, a Christian, a church leader, and a husband and father, I plead with the elected members of our Parliament to strongly endorse the present and long-standing definition of marriage. Why? Marriage, as the societal, legal, and religious union of a man and woman, is rooted in the created state of humanity as male and female. This biological reality of humanity speaks only to the opposite-sex definition of marriage and predetermines the definition of marriage. Even apart from a religious connotation, the physical, and, many would judge, the psychological, makeup of the human race shouts for the retention of the commonly held definition of marriage.

As Christians we cannot remain true to the biblical definition of Christian and concede to a sexual union that is anything other than a union between the male and the female. Like the God whom we profess to know and serve, we affirm that God loves all, for all are created in his image, regardless of sexual orientation. However, God is also holy, and states his disapproval of a lifestyle that is out of character with his will for humanity.

So while we affirm the commonality we as heterosexuals have with the homosexual community, we cannot embrace the homosexual lifestyle. We are people of the Book, which clearly cautions against a homosexual lifestyle. Of course, this prohibition extends to the reality of marriage. We oppose hatred toward any individuals of our society, but we retain the freedom of religion and freedom of expression that allows us to speak against behaviour that is not condoned by the biblical and moral standards of God.

It is the opposite-sex marriage union that is best suited as a stable setting for the raising and nurturing of children. Such marriages offer children the practical context within which children may best realize their biological and sociological potential. It is the only union of the male and the female that can produce children, and is therefore the preferred context for the raising of children. Marriage recognizes the unique procreative capacity of a heterosexual union to create children. Herein lies a key matter in the retention of the opposite-sex definition of marriage.

Governments and courts are not the authors of marriage, and until the lower court decisions in Ontario and Quebec last year, no court in the world had found that the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman was discriminatory. An attempt to expand the definition of marriage really explodes the very term “marriage”. The definition of marriage distinguishes it from other forms of relationships. The recognition of same-sex relationships and attendant benefits must be addressed within our society without the redefinition of marriage--

The Chair: We are quite a ways over the time limit. Can you wrap it up, please? You're at about seven and a half minutes.

Rev. Glenn Goode: There are some aspects of Canadian society that need to be reviewed and changed to address our diverse country. However, the definition of marriage really cannot be redefined, as it is beyond cultures and resides in the very makeup of humanity.

As a Christian, I have deep roots in the law of Moses, an intense devotion to Jesus Christ our Lord, and a deep gratitude to the Apostle Paul, to whose early endeavours we owe the existence of our churches.

“Haven't you read,” Jesus said, “that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”

I urge the federal government to maintain the heterosexual definition of marriage. I recommend that the concerns of those within common-law unions and same-sex relationships be addressed without the redefinition of marriage.

Thank you.

Á (1125)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Goode.

From the Safe Harbour Metropolitan Community Church, Brian Mombourquette and Ross Boutilier.

Mr. Ross Boutilier (Safe Harbour Metropolitan Community Church): My name is Ross Boutilier--a good Nova Scotian name, as it's pronounced.

I would like to introduce as well my partner, Brian, who will be giving the main presentation. We also have with us a couple, two women who've been together for 20 years, Nicky and Sue Perkins, close friends, and close friends in our faith journey.

Brian and I have been together ten years ourselves, and had a celebration of our commitment to each other just over eight years ago, which, in every substantial way other than the legal recognition that was withheld from us, brought into our lives our families and our friends, under the umbrella of our faith.

The church we come from is small. It's been here 11 years. But it has been enduring. It has a small food bank. It's active in the faith community in Halifax. It is very much a struggle for that church to continue, but it offers a special place of safety for those who obviously live under a lot of hostility from other messages to them in terms of their lives up to this point.

I am going to ask Brian to give his presentation.

Mr. Brian Mombourquette (Safe Harbour Metropolitan Community Church): Thank you, members of the committee, and Mr. Scott.

Safe Harbour wanted to come to present today because this is, for us, an issue of human dignity. We acknowledge that there will be a difference of opinion when it comes to the religious aspects. We, for instance, hold the opinion that God created all of us as we are, and God loves each and every one of us as we are, and in fact God celebrates the love we share for one another, whether that be as friends or family or in a same-sex relationship. God in fact, in our perspective, loves everybody.

We would begin by stating that option number two, that marriage be changed to also include same-sex couples, is the one that we are arguing for, and for obvious reasons, but I would add that on a personal level I am saddened by the very process we are going through to achieve this goal.

I look, historically, to 30 years ago, when the federal government decided it was time to step out of the bedrooms of the nation and to remove homosexuality from the list of criminal acts. I am saddened that the federal government is not so willing to be forward-thinking at this point that they decide that in fact our rights are going to be discussed in a forum, and brought up as if they should be discussed, as if our rights and our human dignity can be debated, at this table. That saddens me greatly.

The dignity of our individuality and our couplehood and our faith community is what I'm arguing for. The marriage of two individuals is a wonderful and precious thing. It is more than just a sexual act. It is the ability of two people to come together and to create a life that is greater than the sum of the parts.

We see self-sacrifice within a committed relationship. We see the ability to raise families. We see the ability to foster one another as we go on to create careers. It is a wonderful, wonderful event, and the dignity of this relationship is paramount.

The dignity at times is hard to achieve for us when we live in a society where it's difficult even to say to your parents, “We want to marry.” They might come back and say, “Why do you think you can marry? You can't marry. It's not even legally possible.”

The dignity is challenged when the government doesn't allow us to marry. How can we have dignity when the government says no, you can't marry?

The dignity is challenged when there is a portion of the population saying to us that we are not worthy of marriage, that we should remain on the back of the bus, that it is perfectly acceptable for us to have a separate drinking fountain, that we should not go to the “whites only” drinking fountain.

The dignity, ironically, has been challenged in the past by the very law of marriage against various people who are probably in this room and not even aware of the fact--that is, 100 years ago Catholics weren't allowed to marry in Nova Scotia; only within the last century or so could divorced people remarry; and interracial couples could not marry at one point.

I put it to you that all of those groups of people fought for their dignity and were successful in achieving it. I find it sad that so many of those people who fought for their rights now are very happy to fight against our dignity.

The simple truth is, no one will stop us from marrying. We will marry. We love each other. That is the nature of our being. The only question is whether or not the law will validate that.

Á (1130)

Government will benefit from including same-sex couples in marriage. The simple benefit is that we understand the value of marriage, because we have been outside of the institution for so long, looking in. We understand that our religious viewpoint is one viewpoint. We do not have a monopoly on the viewpoint. We are not talking about religion. We are talking about the right to marry in the eyes of the government.

Mr. Ross Boutilier: .As a closing comment, our goal here is that the dignity of the love we share be protected in a way that everyone else in this society understands, even until the time when we're too old to fight for it.

The Chair: Thank you.

To Mr. Toews for seven minutes.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you very much.

I note the reference that 30 years ago the government decided to get out of the bedrooms of the nation. In fact, that's not correct. The government still has not withdrawn from the bedrooms of the nation. There are some very clear prohibitions in respect to polygamy, in respect to bigamy. And I for one hope the government doesn't simply withdraw its responsibility in some of these areas.

On Friday, a witness arguing for same-sex marriage, for legal recognition of that, in answer to concerns about the potential impact of the change in the definition of marriage, stated to this committee that, well, what doesn't kill us will make us stronger. That was his statement, and hardly what I would consider a guiding principle that Parliament can adopt when establishing laws in the best interests of society.

In the Egan decision in 1995, Mr. Justice La Forest, speaking on behalf of the majority, said that there is nothing in a legal sense inappropriate about making distinctions between legal marriage, on the one hand, and all other relationships on the other, including same-sex unions; and that given the historical, religious, and legal traditions of this country, Parliament has the right to provide a special status and a special protection for legal marriage given the context of this particular institution and the purposes it was intended to serve.

Mr. Justice Sopinka, in concurring with the majority, did so for different reasons. He stated basically that there's no requirement on government to legislate absolute equality in respect of all people or institutions. And again, I'm summarizing here very quickly. He said it much more articulately than I am trying to do at this time. Sopinka suggested that because of the various societal and other considerations, there's nothing wrong with Parliament moving cautiously.

Indeed, the academics who have come before this committee, or many of them, have in fact pointed out the virtual absence of a proper research base on which to recommend this kind of fundamental change. We heard some evidence this morning suggesting that children in same-sex couple marriages seem to do all right. In fact, the evidence came from a generation ago, and it didn't even relate to same-sex couples; it related to single parents and lesbian mothers.

So the potential changes to society by making these kind of changes may not be apparent in this generation. That's what really concerns me, and I think needs to concern parliamentarians when we're establishing rules. Others have said, well, we're not here to talk about polygamy, we're here just to talk about same-sex unions. But that's not the way the law works. If one understands how the law works and the precedent nature of law and the changes, we have to take all of these points into consideration.

My question is, perhaps starting with Reverend Goode, should Parliament simply make this leap of faith and change the definition to marriage in the hope that it won't kill us as a society but will make us stronger? Is that a responsible thing for Parliament to do in dealing with such a fundamental institution as the institution of marriage, which we've known for thousands of years?

Á (1135)

The Chair: Is it “Pastor” Goode, just so I understand?

Rev. Glenn Goode: Pastor is fine, or Glenn is fine.

Mr. Toews, I think you bring a very good point. I don't think we do understand all the ramifications of this issue should it proceed the way the track seems to be going.

What happens in our public school systems? What do teachers teach our children? I don't think the government is prepared at this point, with the lack of research that has been done, to make a proper decision here, because we cannot see 100 years down the road what is going to happen.

We've already seen thousands of years, and seen what marriage is and what marriage has done to society, but what are the ramifications of changing that definition of marriage at this point? I don't think we understand that.

The Chair: Mr. Boutilier has indicated he wants to respond, and then Mr. LeBlanc.

Mr. Ross Boutilier: Just on that very specific point, when the issue of interracial marriage was discussed, I think a lot of people expressed concern about what the consequences of that would be for society--the idea that mixed-race children would be born, and society would have to deal with that. I think our society is far stronger and far more able to embrace difference and diversity than perhaps it's being given credit for here.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. LeBlanc.

Mr. Charles LeBlanc: I think if we do recognize diversity today, it's because of the struggles, and it's because of the debates that went on over the generations. That's how change evolves. That's how we as a society grow.

So what you said in re-quoting what doesn't kill us will make us stronger is somewhat true; it's these struggles that effected the changes we so appreciate today.

Mr. Vic Toews: But wouldn't you agree that there's fundamentally a difference between a same-sex relationship and an opposite-sex relationship, whether it's interracial or not? Some of the academics have suggested to us that marriage is a uniquely heterosexual relationship designed, on many levels, to bridge the gaps between two genders. That's its purpose.

To suggest that, well, we didn't allow interracial marriages, or some countries didn't allow interracial marriages, and that was wrong, so therefore we should allow same-sex marriages.... I just don't see how that argument flows. There's a fundamental difference between same-sex unions and opposite-sex unions, these academics point out to me, and that's the problem I'm having. I just think we don't have enough information to make this kind of a determination.

The Chair: You are directing your question to...?

Okay, Mr. LeBlanc, and then we'll hear from Monsieur Marceau.

Mr. Charles LeBlanc: I'm not sure how to respond. We are at the crossroads, and I think these questions are very valid, but I think we have to give it a chance, give this movement a chance, to get some airing, to go outside of the immediate special interest groups.

Again, I have to refer back to the historical changes we've witnessed. We've seen those happening. We can never predict what will happen in 50 years, but we certainly can build a foundation so that there's no discrimination involved and therefore it has a chance of being supported.

Á (1140)

The Chair: Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

I never believed that I would live to see the day that the German philosopher Nietzsche would be cited in a parliamentary committee. We really do learn all sorts of things in this committee.

My question is for Mr. Boutilier or for Mr. Mombourquette. It is interesting to see you sitting here next to Reverend Goode. You both represent two Churches that are both just as valid as the other. It is not my place to pass a value judgment upon your Churches’ respective theological opinions, however one can see quite well how the message from the Holy Scriptures may be interpreted quite differently.

Let us get back to this fear that was highlighted earlier which claims that changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couple would be in itself a threat to religious freedom. At present, your Church would like to marry same-sex couples but cannot do so. Do you feel this to be an infringement on your religious freedom?

Mr. Brian Mombourquette: No, it is not an infringement. Our goal is to ensure fairness for everyone.

[English]

Mr. Ross Boutilier: One thing you wouldn't know is that our pastor is able to perform heterosexual marriages. She has a licence to do that, and cannot at this time, under the laws, of Nova Scotia grant them...but the fact is, in our conduct of our religious faith, even the existence of our church would at one time have been an issue of great dissension in a public that has been hostile to the kinds of mission and relationships that we support.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Reverend Goode, if same-sex couples were allowed to be married would you fear your church would be forced to celebrate marriages against the principles of your religion?

[English]

Rev. Glenn Goode: I guess we don't have strong comfort, although I've seen the brief, and there is certainly a protection wording in there that we would not be required to perform same-sex marriages if that went against our religious belief.

I guess I would be concerned that maybe in this generation that protection would be provided, but who's to say what would happen in future generations? So it is undermining that religious freedom, and it could come to that point--maybe not under this government, but in future governments--where we would be forced to do so or lose our licence or lose our charitable status, or whatever.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: A solution which has been discussed very little until now in this committee, but which has been touched upon in the previous panel, is the one recommending that Churches, synagogues, and mosques no longer be official registrars of births, deaths and marriages. In this instance we would have something similar to that which is offered in France whereby a couple must go before the State, for example a mayor, in order to legalize their marriage. I presume that here it would not be a mayor but some other person. Afterward, if the couple wishes so, it could go and sanctify its relationship before the Church, a synagogue or a mosque of its choice.

My question is for every member of the panel. In your opinion, can we contemplate this solution? A religious marriage would not be legal; for a marriage to be recognized legally, it would have to pass before an official non-religious registrar of births, deaths and marriages.

Á (1145)

[English]

The Chair: We will pass to Mr. Goode first and then it goes to all the panel.

Rev. Glenn Goode: I guess fundamentally we still have a problem with changing that definition of marriage, because it goes beyond whether it is a religiously sanctioned marriage or not, or whether the marriage becomes legal only in the civil environment and then to a Christian church environment for religious ceremony. There is still the definition of marriage, which is much more foundational to our society. In other sessions you have used the term “building block”, and I believe marriage is a fundamental building block. If we erode that building block, then what happens to the structure of our society?

The Chair: Monsieur Mombourquette.

[Translation]

Mr. Brian Mombourquette: I believe this would be less than what we currently have. For us, that would not be acceptable. It is like a child playing ball with two or three of his friends and choosing to go home subsequent to the arrival of another child he does not like very much. For me, this is not acceptable. We want to keep the situation we currently have. We want dignity.

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur LeBlanc.

[Translation]

Mr. Charles LeBlanc: I do not see how a religion could discriminate amongst its members. Therefore, it seems perfectly normal to me that if traditional religion wants to let go of its so-called old boys’ club, that it treat all its members equally. I would thus have a hard time accepting that we only have the traditional definition of marriage in which to include the union of same-sex couples.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Macklin.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for appearing today. It's helpful for us to hear your perspective.

First of all, with respect to Mr. LeBlanc, I noticed that in your statements to us today you indicated that we are a country of changing values, and that in fact we have changed over time with respect to what we found at one point, I suppose, inviolable, and now in fact we go forward. But have all of these changes been positive?

For example, we had a witness, Professor Allen, who came before us and talked about divorce. That's been a change within the process. He said that most of the resultant effects were not predicted beforehand but simply occurred without warning to those who contemplated it at the beginning.

Do you not have any concerns about making this change without having seen, for example, more of the experience develop in the Netherlands, or in Belgium, as they are just in their infancy of this process of something that is similar to marriage but not exactly identical?

Mr. Charles LeBlanc: I'm not sure how to respond, to be quite honest. I think it deserves its time. In 2003 it deserves its place in our Canadian society. It may not be over half of the Canadian population applying for same-sex unions, but I think with the numbers we see, if we take it individual by individual, their moral values and their contributions to society are no less than what their straight counterparts are offering.

If divorce occurs, it reflects two people deciding to go in a different direction. So I'm not sure that legislating same-sex marriage is going to change any of the statistics that exist for heterosexual marriages.

Á (1150)

The Chair: Mr. Boutilier.

Mr. Ross Boutilier: If I may, I think there should be a distinction made around divorce. I mean, that is a social issue that arose because the institution of marriage...especially with how easy it was to get married, it perhaps got into a kind of trouble.

I'm kind of unsure about characterizing the freeing of people from abusive relationships, for instance, as a negative social consequence. It was obviously a very complex social issue that was addressed in its own time and in its own way, and without an insight, but I think in this case here we are talking about a simple distinction, about the withholding of a status that in some sense existed already in a social context, through law, for gay and lesbian couples. And to me that means everything, because I am entirely intentional about my relationship with my partner.

So it is a positive choice, by definition, from the very beginning. I cannot see a negative outcome.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: With respect to Pastor Goode, I would like to deal with the issue of looking at the other options that were set forward in the paper. If one looks upon this as a rights-based exclusionary process, and if you say you would like to, as a religious institution, protect the term marriage, and obviously within your own religion prescribe the standards that you would be prepared to accept for a religious marriage, do you believe that we as legislators ought to go further, if not to an all-inclusive marriage?

Do you see an argument being developed successfully by those who would challenge us that in fact we should go further in the rights process of balancing rights of those who would like to be in a loving conjugal relationship but don't necessarily share the heterosexual requirement? Do you see that your church would find this acceptable in allowing us to go further, although maybe not quite to the point of an all-inclusive marriage definition federally?

Rev. Glenn Goode: I'll speak personally as a husband and father. I think when you go down the rights road--and you're in an unenviable position in government to be facing all these challenges relating to human rights--I think our rights are important, and I appreciate the freedom we have in Canada, but where does it stop? And where does the right of somebody who is...?

We have laws against certain activities related to sexual affairs. Where does it stop? When does polygamy become wrong? Where do you stop the train? I guess that's my concern.

Marriage is so fundamental, and not just the term marriage. It's a husband and wife, a man and a woman, who are capable of rearing children, creating children, procreating and rearing children. Where does that stop? We're all here as a result of a man and a woman getting together--hopefully in a loving relationship--and rearing us.

So to go down the rights road is a completely different road for us, and we wouldn't have a position on the church. Personally, I think it's a dangerous road to go down, just to go human rights.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: But in a sense, it's not as if we're proposing to create relationships that don't exist today. In a sense, we have evidence right here of a relationship that is being presented to us as a stable relationship. So in fact all we would be doing is giving some degree of recognition to that relationship.

For example, one of the most obvious differences is a one-year, or at least a minimum of a one-year, waiting period for those who would like to have the same rights as those married. Once one is married, you get instantaneous rights. If you're working your way through what otherwise would be called a common-law relationship, you don't get rights for at least a year that go with that committed relationship.

That was the concept I was trying to advance, that in fact recognizing relationships, not necessarily creating them, is something that I just wondered whether your church would find difficulty with.

Á (1155)

Rev. Glenn Goode: Again, those relationships exist today. There are same-sex couples. They're not called a married relationship. Those relationships exist. How you have to structure those in government to give them the rights they want, and the privileges, financial or otherwise, as a result of that union, I guess is for you. All we're asking is that you don't change the definition of marriage, and you don't change that basic building block that we have in our society.

The Chair: Mr. Toews, for three minutes.

Mr. Vic Toews: Just a comment with respect to how far will it go. Well, our Canadian Law Reform Commission and the chair, in her testimony here, said in respect of the issue, in responding to my colleague, Mr. McKay, who is not here today.... He was saying what's wrong with polygamy, why are they excluded?

Our Law Reform Commission said, in their view, what's interesting is that there is no reason why it should be excluded. I mean, rationally, there is no reason why you should exclude it. All of our lives are based on some moral principle, and we have to make those kinds of choices. Parliament isn't excluded from making moral distinctions.

So where does it stop? It doesn't. You know, the argument has been made here to give it a chance. Again, the concern I see is that once we make the change there is no going back. This isn't simply a matter of a Saturday afternoon football game between people, and saying, well, if the rules didn't work this Saturday we can change them for next Saturday. Once we make these changes they are permanent changes that will affect our society forever.

Many of the gay activists who have come here today have said, look, we appreciate that this will fundamentally change the nature of the heterosexual marriage relationship by making this distinction. Those are the fears that are being expressed.

We want to deal with reality as well in respect of the issue of common-law relationships, and single parents. I mean, those are all realities in our world as well. We know from statistics, very recent statistics, that the risk to children increases significantly in common-law relationships as opposed to traditional marriage relationships. We know that, statistically speaking. I'm not saying that common-law parents are necessarily worse than traditional, but we know, from a statistical point of view, that this is correct. We know the same thing is true in respect of children in the single-parent relationship, that statistically they are at greater risk.

I'm not here to talk about any specific person's relationship, but I have to look at the evidence on a statistical basis, on a societal basis, and try to make some judgments that are in the best interests of society, not the individual relationship between two people, as important as that may be.

Again, I'm faced with the reality of no statistics in respect of the impact of same-sex marriages, what the impact will be.

So where will it end? Well, our Law Reform Commission says it doesn't end. There is no rational reason to exclude it.

I'm just wondering, Reverend Goode, if you have any comments to add to that.

Rev. Glenn Goode: I would just echo those same concerns. Again, marriage is a fundamental building block. Yes, there are areas of it where, as a pastor...we want one woman, one man, for a lifetime. That's the best for them as a couple, that's the best for their children.

There are problems, and we see the realities of that. We do have single parents, and we do have divorce. Those are unfortunate cases. Why water down the base block of that? We do a good enough job kind of messing it up ourselves, and if we break down that basic fundamental to our society, then where does it stop?

The Chair: Thank you, Pastor Goode.

I'm going to recognize Mr. Boutilier and then I have Mr. Maloney and Mr. Marceau. We're pretty much out of time, so let's try to be brief.

Mr. Ross Boutilier: I will be very quick.

Basically, the issue of polygamy is one that society has actually in fact grappled with in the past because of the religious tradition of the Mormon Church. It may not have been so much in Canada, but the fact is, society hasn't changed because some people want that.

In this case here, I don't see an active group of Canadians, coast to coast, coming before this committee arguing for it. I see gay and lesbian couples who have been excluded who are coming and saying, please give us justice so that we don't need to take you entirely to court to be consistent with the principles that govern this country.

Â (1200)

The Chair: Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney: Mr. Mombourquette, just a brief question.

With the rights to marriage would also come the responsibilities of marriage, and complexities when there is dissolution of marriage. Is the gay community, as you see it, prepared to accept those responsibilities as well, if given the right?

Mr. Brian Mombourquette: The simple fact of the matter is, Ross and I, and the two women behind us, actually, are two of the first three registered domestic partnerships in Canada. I can tell you that the community, individuals and couples in the community, believe very strongly in the responsibilities and the rights of marriage. They understand what it is we're asking for. We want in.

Mr. Ross Boutilier: I think it's certainly a risk I took when making my commitment, both economic and the lifetime I was willing to commit to in terms of energy, with my partner. Quite frankly, it shouldn't be easy to get out of. One thing we asked our families to do when we brought them together--in their great discomfort, I might add--was to support us in times of difficulty. In other words, do not assume that this relationship will fail, and do not assume that we come from a culture that embraces failure, but do give us the support you give all the rest of your children; support us when it gets rough, and make it hard for us to just walk away. We don't want to.

The Chair: Mr. Mombourquette.

Mr. Brian Mombourquette: On the registered domestic partnership, the last irony is that Nova Scotia set it up in such a way that it can be dissolved all too easily. One person in the relationship can walk into the office and annul it, or one person can get married to somebody else, as if that registered domestic partnership didn't exist.

So they aren't even honouring us with the responsibilities it should entail.

The Chair: Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: You have said earlier, Reverend Goode, that there were already same-sex couples and that this was a reality, etc. I cannot speak on your behalf, but if I understand correctly, you would like to see same-sex couples have many rights and responsibilities, which would be practically the same as those of married couples, but that this not be marriage. Is this correct?

[English]

Rev. Glenn Goode: For me, it would be an unfortunate thing. In deference to my fellow presenters, I don't think it is God's choice for us to unite in any kind of relationship that is same-sex, especially in that kind of...you know, if you are looking for an equal to marriage type of relationship. My Bible says it is wrong, it is sinful. My God says it's wrong, it's sinful. It's not that we hate the sinner, but we do hate the sin. God hates the sin, he does not hate the sinner. I think it's unfortunate in our society that people go to that state.

Personally, it's against my convictions. It's against my scripture. I think it's unfortunate.

From a legal perspective, in our society, recognition is for the courts to determine, or the governments to determine, but it would not be my choice.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I do not want to entertain a theological discussion with you, I simply want to read to you what the Rabbi Justin Lewis has told our committee. I will read you a few passages and ask for your comments in return. I will read them to you in English as this is what I have before me here:

[English]

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

Et il dit plus loin:

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

[Translation]

I would like to have your comments on this.

Â (1205)

[English]

The Chair: Pastor Goode, and then the last word to Mr. Mombourquette.

Rev. Glenn Goode: I guess without getting into a very long theological debate on the role of the law in the New Testament, even before the law, God created man and God created woman, and there is a biological aspect of a male and a woman that cannot be had with two men or two women. So even before the law, God created man and woman, and he created them for procreation and to enjoy each other's company.

[Translation]

Le président: Mr. Mombourquette.

Mr. Brian Mombourquette: Thank you. First I would say that the Bible states that we should not sleep together like a man with a woman… We say that we have been there for years. In addition, there are many examples in the Bible that indicate that there are many ways of marrying, including homosexuality. In my opinion, it is unfortunate that these people only cite one passage of the Bible and posit it as God’s word. It is as if only the cited passage counted, and the rest did not.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

I want to thank the panel and the committee.

We will be back from lunch at 1 o'clock promptly, and we will be hearing witnesses this afternoon until 4 o'clock, at which time we will be receiving a number of two-minute statements from people who wanted to be witnesses but could not in that way be accommodated.

I thank you, and the meeting is suspended for one hour.

Â (1206)

· (1300)

The Chair: I call back to order the 33rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2). We are continuing our study on marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions.

From now until 2 o'clock we have as witnesses Tamatha Trenholm, as an individual; William Ryan, from the Nova Scotia Coalition for Traditional Values; and as an individual, Kim Vance. Each presenter has seven minutes.

I'm going to go first to Ms. Trenholm, for seven minutes.

Ms. Tamatha Trenholm (As Individual): Good afternoon, members of the committee. I'll try to be brief. I apologize if I stumble over my words a little bit--it's been several years since I've done any public speaking--but I felt this issue was too important to simply sit on the sidelines and watch.

For several years I have been following the discussion of same-sex marriages. I am intrigued by two of the main arguments made against same-sex marriage: the idea of family values and the addition of registered domestic partnerships.

For the past several years I have been involved with the Outreach society at St. Mary's University, a society for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, and two-spirited individuals who attend St. Mary's. Over the years the membership to the society has continually changed, but one thing has always remained the same, and that is, at some point during the year a discussion arises about marriage and whether or not it will be legal or should be legal.

The dominant view has always been that it should be legal for same-sex couples to marry. Whether you're a heterosexual or homosexual, you should have the same opportunities as everyone else, and that includes the opportunity to marry.

I was raised in a Christian household, where family was always considered the most important element of a person's life. Career, job, school, and friends were all considered secondary to caring for and helping your family.

For example, after my grandmother passed away and my grandfather moved in with my parents, I took some time away from university and work so I could stay home and help care for him. I also live my life with the expectation that one or both of my parents will live with me when it becomes difficult for them to care for themselves.

I was raised with very strong family values. Among these values was the idea of marriage, the idea....

Excuse me; I apologize.

Among these values was the idea of marriage, the idea that when you fall in love with someone and decide to spend the rest of your life with that person you solidify that decision by getting married. I was taught that the most important aspect of life is not who you love but that you love. Currently, if I were to fall in love with someone of the same sex, this would not be possible....

I apologize.

The Chair: You don't have to apologize.

· (1305)

Ms. Tamatha Trenholm: So what does that mean for family values? That means that my sister can marry any man she wants, and welcome him into the family, but any partner I choose will never be a full member of the family. It means that I will never be able to say I am married, and my relationship will never receive the same respect or privilege as her marriage.

I am reminded of another time in history that family values were considered to be an issue and at risk, when women were attempting to gain the right to vote. Again, the population was told that this would ruin the traditional family, and would lead to homes breaking up and wives leaving their husbands. These predictions did not prove to be true, and they will not prove to be true in this case.

I wonder how allowing more people to make a commitment of marriage to one another can threaten an already dying institution. In a time when many individuals choose to live common-law rather than marry, or get divorced shortly after marrying, I believe allowing people who want to make a commitment to one another, and who honour the idea of marriage, can only help it regain some of the respect and support it seems to have lost.

This leads to the question of registered domestic partnerships. Just hear the term “registered domestic partnership” could mean anything. It could be a contract between a homeowner and a caretaker, or a landlord and a tenant, or co-owners of a property. The idea of registered domestic partnerships is not an idea of equality to marriage. It is a way of avoiding the issue and attempting to marginalize the gay and lesbian segment of the population.

Registered domestic partnerships are equal to common-law relationships. Those words do not contain the same meaning as marriage, or the same level of commitment. If registered domestic partnerships were equal to marriage, the term would not have been created, because it would be replacing an institution that already exists. The fact that new terms and definitions were needed for registered domestic partnerships means it is something new, and is not equal to or in replacement of something that already exists.

In conclusion, I believe in order to have equal rights in Canada we must legalize same-sex marriages. Without the legalization of same-sex marriages, the Government of Canada is sending a message to the gay and lesbian population of Canada: You are not as important as the heterosexual population and do not deserve the same rights.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Not we go to the Nova Scotia Coalition for Traditional Values, William L. Ryan.

Prof. William Ryan (The Nova Scotia Coalition for Traditional Values): Professor Peter Kreeft of Boston University makes the point that the longest surviving cultures were highly moralistic. Confucian culture lasted for 2,200 years. Roman culture lasted for 800; it started out highly moralistic and descended into permissiveness and authoritarianism. Islam lasted for 1,400 years, and the Mosaic-Judaeo-Christian is still going after 3,500 years. It's possible, as he mentions, for society to come to moral conclusions if they have a society of Aristotles, but by and large, that's not possible, so it's religion that basically gives the necessary influence for a whole nation to be moral.

Most of the major religions have done that throughout the centuries. All the major religions of the world believe the natural family of two genders, male and female, is essential to society. Most of the great philosophers also believed and taught this, Artistotle, Aquinas, the Jewish philosopher Maimonides, the Islamic philosopher Avicenna, and the modern philosophers Kant, Locke, and Hume, along with most social philosophers before Marx, like Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Most pagan societies had strict laws governing what marriage was, right back to the code of Hammurabi, 1700 BC. All of these religions, philosophers, and civilizations would be shocked at even the suggestion that there could be such a thing as a same-sex marriage. For them, this would be like having a squared circle.

What is today's problem? The 1960s ushered in an era of rampant individualism based on the feel-good psychology of Maslow and Rogers, plus a post-modern denial of objective truth and objective moral principles and a Marxist view of equality, which led to a permissive society, which led to the sexual revolution, the pro-abortion movement, radical feminism, and the pro-homosexual movement.

What is the problem educationally? It is dominance of the social sciences. Sociology can only look at the family and the state as artificial, because sociology is positivistic. There are many other spin-offs of sociology, sexology, women's studies, racial studies, etc. This is what most of the students are taking outside technology, science, and business. I have a question. How much of pre-law studies and law school itself is based on social science background?

There are misused concepts. Tolerance has been bent so far out of shape that it becomes now total acceptance. No one in a free society can be forced to tolerate everything, especially what goes against the principles of the majority. But with regard to homosexuals, the government connived to push Bill C-450, presented by a far-left socialist, to make any criticism of homosexuals a criminal matter under hate and genocide law. Where homosexuals have been equal as citizens and, with Trudeau's law, free in their own homes, the government jumped to the notion that homosexuals are equal in all ways, including becoming a married family. Equality has become forced by law, where people are not morally equal at all. The philosopher Mortimer Adler mentions that equality is one of the more difficult concepts, and it's kept in balance with freedom by the virtue of justice. Any equality forced by legal, dictatorial fiat results in a massive loss of freedom and basic rights, which is what's happening today. Too much emphasis on the non-moral behaviour of a minority directly attacks the majority in a society. It is undemocratic and destructive of society.

· (1310)

Discrimination has been irrationally used ever since the charter. Trudeau even said it was flawed, but he felt it was necessary. Now it's being used as an absolute by the courts and the human rights tribunals. As a result, instead of religion and moral philosophy, we now have judicial activism by the government. Legal positivism now rules the day. All morality is based on what the courts decide. All morality comes from the state now. So lawyers and judges have become the new high priests. British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Ian Pitfield declared that changing the basic definition of marriage is not within the power of either the courts or the legislature. It would require a constitutional amendment. He stated that marriage is “the primary means by which humankind perpetuates itself in our society.” He rejected legal positivism. But now we have the courts relegating the church to the church hall.

The rest is in my longer presentation, which should be distributed to the panel.

· (1315)

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

Ms. Vance.

Ms. Kim Vance (As Individual): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm making my presentation today in the context of being a very tired new mother living on a river that's currently flooding my basement. So if you sense a bit of bitterness in my presentation, it's accurate.

I live in a small coastal community about 45 minutes from Halifax called Musquodoboit Harbour. I am a lesbian, a science graduate, an educator, a business owner, and a new mother to an adopted son named Marcus. My partner Samantha and I were the first couple to register a domestic partnership in Nova Scotia, on June 4, 2000. I would say, generally, we are happy with our lives. We have a lot of privilege. We have the privilege of being white, financially stable, and able-bodied. We also have responsibilities, those of being equal parents under Nova Scotia law and those of being domestic partners under Nova Scotia law.

You might ask, then, why I am here to speak of equal marriage for same-sex couples. Do I suffer from not being able to avail myself of this institution? Isn't a registered domestic partnership enough for me? To me, suffering is a relative state, and it has elements of one's own ability to cope with life's circumstances. The answer to whether I feel I suffer on a daily basis is no. I am educated and able to afford to structure my affairs so that my partner and I and our son will be protected for the future. My coping mechanisms are strong, and I think you'll find that many gay and lesbian people have gone to incredible lengths to put these same kinds of mechanisms in place in a way I don't often feel our heterosexual brothers and sisters truly understand. In fact, I would argue that many in our community put al least as much effort and thought into considerations on the nature and structure of our relationships and families as do many heterosexuals. Given this reality, you must understand that my answer to the question whether a registered domestic partnership is enough for me is a resounding no. In fact, it is only a cumbersome and tolerable solution in this provincial jurisdiction that has no authority to dictate who can marry.

Let me articulate this position with a brief story. Last year one of my grade 7 students stated to me, Miss Vance, you're married to another woman, aren't you? Well, not exactly, I answered, we are registered domestic partners. What does that mean? It means we have pretty much all of the rights and obligations of married couples, but we are not allowed to legally get married.That's stupid, she retorted. I thought carefully of an educated and articulate response to this question, and all I could really come up with was, yes, I guess it is. I think we have a lot to learn from this 12-year-old.

I have been inspired by the testimony heard by this committee so far, specifically by the majority of submissions in favour and support of same-sex marriage across Canada. I am confident that with these submissions, the overwhelming knowledge that public opinion is rapidly changing on this subject, and the knowledge that the courts are logically concluding that an injustice is occurring here, you will be left with no choice but to recommend an inclusive definition of marriage. I have been concerned, however, after listening to and reading some of the testimony from previous panels and this morning, that a major fraud has been committed against the heterosexual married population of Canada. I have been so concerned by this that I had to go and do personal research on the validity of the claim from some higher powers, be it organized religion or members of the federal government, that marriage has as its core a procreative function.

Committee members need to know that not one married couple I spoke to listed this as a core value in their marriage--not part of any of their marriage vows, not part of any commitment they believed they were making to each other. How can this be? These people were married in churches and synagogues. Some were infertile before they got married, some never had intentions to have children, and it was never raised. How could they have been so duped? I went further and asked how many of them would get divorced if two women or two men were allowed to marry each other. Not one, again. Did they feel their relationships would be tainted in some way? No. Did they feel there would be a mass exodus of heterosexuals out of the institution of marriage if I could marry Samantha, that is, more of an exodus than already occurs? No. I'm not pretending that this is scientific research, even though I am a science graduate, but what I am suggesting to you is that if I could find no one who worried about these particular issues, that must have some validity.

· (1320)

I encourage you to ask the same questions of yourselves and the people you know in your lives. I would also like you to consider how insulting it is for someone like me who has spent several years going through the thought process, the legal procedures, parental training, and government agency scrutiny involved in the adoption process to be told I am barred from legal marriage because of its unique nature and procreative function. Please try to imagine me making that argument to my son as he grows up in our home. Please try to imagine any gay or lesbian parent making that argument, especially if they have adopted children who were brought into this world by an exclusive model of heterosexual marriage, and then voluntarily relinquished or seized because of abuse or neglect. Please try to imagine that.

In the last minute I would like to talk about my experience as a Maritimer. People in the Maritimes have sometimes been labelled conservative. I have lived here my whole life, and I feel I know what it means to be a Maritime conservative. It is generated from a kind of fiscal conservatism that comes from being in an economically disadvantaged region. It also tends to be accompanied, however, by a social progressiveness towards issues of tolerance and respect. No offence to the Alliance members in this committee, whose opinions are pretty much on the record on this issue, but there is a reason this party cannot make inroads in this part of the country, even though there are a lot of conservatives here. Maritime public opinion ranks only slightly behind B.C. and Quebec on this issue. It was a Progressive Conservative government that brought in human rights protection here on the basis of sexual orientation five years before the federal government and a Progressive Conservative government that brought in the registered domestic partnership regime. I'm not an advocate of the PC party, don't get me wrong, but I do not want committee members leaving this region without an understanding that just because someone is part of a rural area in Canada or part of a conservative area of the country, it does not mean they will not be behind your ultimate decision to support equal marriage.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all three for your presentations. Ms. Trenholm, you spoke well regardless of your nervousness. Do not worry about it, it went well.

Mr. Ryan, you say we are already on slippery ground whereby basic rights are lost. I would like to know which ones.

[English]

Prof. William Ryan: I'm talking about the fundamental rights with regard to the moral questions. We have had gay pride parades where five mayors of Canada have been persecuted and fined by human rights tribunals, which are nothing but kangaroo courts, one of them because they wouldn't put the word pride in. That`s just one example. We have the whole question of the fundamental right of the family, which has for millennia been upheld not by whether in this day and age this happens or that happens, but because this is the nature of the family, even if they're not having the children they should have, even if they don't do this or that.

· (1325)

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I am struggling to understand in what way the so-called traditional family loses its rights. First of all, Statistics Canada has already informed us that the so-called traditional family, i.e. father, mother and children, currently represents less than 50 per cent of family units in Canada. In this, this family loses somewhat of its “normality”.

Secondly, I belong to a so-called traditional family. I have been married for nearly nine years with two children and am truly trying to see in what way my family, my wife, my children and my relationship will lose if tomorrow morning Ms. Vance is able to marry and decides to do so. What terrible thing is to affect my family? What rights would I be losing?

[English]

Prof. William Ryan: This is a question that's always coming up, and it's giving the impression that there are just two tracks: if they are doing this and you are doing that, that's all part of freedom. But if you look at the gay pride parades and if you read what some of the leaders of the gay movement are saying, there is a great deal of promiscuity among the males--the females I don't know about. They want to make marriage totally different in the society. They want to hit at the traditional marriage, which they consider archaic. Whether it's 50% or not doesn't change the fact that most of us, including the gays and lesbians, came from a traditional family.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: You speak of promiscuity. A heterosexual person may have decided to entertain many sexual partners in their youth. I am not saying whether this is good or bad, but you will agree with me that many people have fairly numerous pre-marital experiences. A heterosexual person may have sowed many wild oats prior to bringing them to term, marrying, and spending the rest of his/her life with someone. Should we preclude this person from marrying because in his/her youth he/she decided to be more sexually active than some would consider decent?

[English]

Prof. William Ryan: No, that's not the issue. The issue is that the gay movement itself is highly promiscuous. The idea some of the local papers might have of two men smoking their pipes and staying together for life isn't so. Various statistics have shown that very few gays will live together for three years. Even the head of EGALE, Fisher, has admitted that he has other people. The partner he has now says--

The Chair: Could I ask you to be cautious? You can express your own views, but I don't think it's appropriate to evoke images of other people who aren't here to defend or explain themselves.

Prof. William Ryan: I'm taking this from a quote, his testimony before the court. These things are in my main paper and footnoted, so you'll be able to look it up. His partner actually went before the courts and said he wanted to be married and so on, but quotes from him show that he does not believe in a traditional marriage at all.

· (1330)

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Last week in the National Post, probably Canada’s most conservative newspaper, there appeared a series of pretty fantastic articles featuring the role of mistresses in public life as well as in the life of certain men. Joseph Kennedy and Hearst, the large-scale newspaper owner, were mentioned. Did they disqualify for marriage due to their mistresses and their multiple partners? According to your definition, they were not respecting the natural definition of marriage seeing as how they had other partners. Does this simple fact disqualify them for marriage?

[English]

Prof. William Ryan: No. You can change. You could be wild in your youth, as they used to say, and come back and realize eventually that if your society is stable, marriage is the only way if you want children and if the nation needs children. Without traditional marriage to bring up children, what are we going to do, put them all in some kind of institution where they can be brought up on day care?

The Chair: Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney: Thank you.

We've heard this morning that at one time in Nova Scotia Catholics weren't allowed to marry Protestants or interracial marriages were prohibited. This has now changed. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Prof. William Ryan: I don't quite get your reference.

Mr. John Maloney: Well, we have prohibited them, and we also now prohibit gay marriages.

Prof. William Ryan: When was it prohibited?

Mr. John Maloney: I don't know. The testimony was given this morning.

Prof. William Ryan: I've never heard that at all. I knew there was a strong feeling between the Protestants and the Catholics, and there may have been churches that didn't want a Catholic to marry a Protestant, but I've never heard of anything other than that.

Mr. John Maloney: But societal values do change from time to time, would you not agree?

Prof. William Ryan: Yes, but they can change for the worse or they can change for the better. Sometimes they get over a lot of this religious hostility and so on. Now the religious groups are finding they have much in common in trying to defend their basic values. But there's no argument that says marriage is nothing more than a legal matter. Unless you're a legal positivist, which is where they're going in Canada, so that all truth and all morality comes from the courts, there are basic things that have to be considered. To do that, you need to have a background in philosophy or religion, for sure, and this they don't have today. So they can consider anything up for grabs, and the law can be like the Emperor Caligula, who made his horse a senator.

Mr. John Maloney: I'm assuming you are married. Do you feel your marriage would be tainted if gays were allowed to marry or you would depart from that institution if gays were allowed to marry?

Prof. William Ryan: It would taint society, because their view of marriage is not the same. They want marriage for psychological reasons, because they want to feel good. That's what the basis of most of the thrust since the 1960s has been, psychology, sociology, pollitical science, and many of the spin-offs, women's studies and so on. This is where the problem lies. They are going to base it on psychology. Some of them have claimed they've had 500 partners, some have claimed they have had 1,000.

Mr. John Maloney: Do you believe them?

· (1335)

Prof. William Ryan: Maybe they're bragging.

Mr. John Maloney: Ms. Trenholm, thank you very much for your testimony. I know it's pretty intimidating to sit in front of a group like us, but we appreciate your comments.

Ms. Vance.

Ms. Kim Vance: I would encourage Ms. Trenholm to comment on the promiscuity of heterosexual males on her university campus. I find that line of reasoning quite insulting. As the past president of EGALE, only recently freed from that position, I'm not speaking on behalf of EGALE, I'm certainly very unhappy to have Mr. Ryan speaking on behalf of the gay movement. I will start speaking on behalf of the gay movement if that continues.

The Chair: Ms. Trenholm.

Ms. Tamatha Trenholm: Promiscuity on campus in general is high. To my knowledge and in my experience--and I've been there eight years now-- it's not any higher among the gay male population than it is among the heterosexual population. Our highest prescription on campus is birth control pills for women, so that is probably a comment on what occurs. But whether or not a woman or man has a lot of partners in their lifetime and whether they are heterosexual does not comment on whether or not they can get married at some point in their life. So I do not see its relevance to whether or not someone who's homosexual can marry.

The Chair: Mr. Toews.

Mr. Vic Toews: On that point, I was just noting some statistics, and statistics are something we have to bear in mind in trying to pass laws that are general in application. A study as recently as 1990, looking at the incidence of sexuality outside marriage or cohabitation in the past year, had husbands 11%, wives 9%, male cohabitants 25%, female cohabitants 22%, gay male unions 79%, lesbian unions 19%. There are statistics that do tell us some of these things, and I think we are entitled to rely on them. My concern about the entire issue is whether we have enough statistics to tell us what we should be doing in this area. My particular concern is not what consenting adults do to each other or with each other, but what happens to us as a society generally, more particularly the next generation, children. That's what I think we, as parliamentarians, owe an obligation to.

Ms. Vance, what is the purpose of marriage?

Ms. Kim Vance: To me, the purpose of marriage--and I base this on discussions with people who have had access to the institution, because I have not--is founded on a deeply held belief that you want to share your life and your obligations with a partner, that you feel a loving and strong commitment to that person, and you may or may not choose at some point to raise a family as part of that union. Those are some of the values I hold true as values of marriage and have heard from both heterosexual and non-heterosexual people I've spoken to. As I said, not one of the people I spoke to, when asked to identify the core value of marriage, made a statement about the procreative function.

Mr. Vic Toews: Would you see, then, marriage as simply being a relationship between two individuals? What broader societal aspects are there to marriage? Here you're basically focusing on the relationship between two individuals, as opposed to the marriage relationship beyond that.

Ms. Kim Vance: I also talked about raising my son. That goes beyond the two individuals.

I'm not sure how you can quote statistics on infidelity outside marriage for gay male unions when gay males don't have access to the institution of marriage. There's definitely a fallacy in those kinds of statistics.

· (1340)

Mr. Vic Toews: Let me clarify that. What I said was husbands, married, wives, married, male cohabitants, not married, common-law, female cohabitants, not married, gay unions.

Ms. Kim Vance: And what would describe a gay union in those statistics?

Mr. Vic Toews: People living together.

Ms. Kim Vance: Well, that's not a marriage.

Mr. Vic Toews: All right. I'm not saying they're right or wrong, I don't even know what the methodology is, I'm just saying we do have statistics like this. These are the kinds of things we need to be concerned with. Are they accurate? And it gets back to my point. What the academics have been telling us, people who have studied this issue, is that there's a real dearth of evidence on the impact of these relationships, not only as between the individuals, but on society as a whole, including the raising of children. That's my concern. My concern here is not any particular morality, because that's not my role here today. My role is, as a parliamentarian, to ensure that we do have a stable society. I have a broader concern. That's why I'm listening to evidence here today.

Ms. Kim Vance: Do you not see it as a circular argument that there's no research on the impact of gay marriage on society, if there is no gay marriage in society? I have a science degree, I took statistics. If you're going to quote statistics, you do have to look at how they were gathered, and you also need to look at circular arguments about research that cannot be gathered when gay and lesbian couples do not have access to the institution of marriage.

The Chair: Mr. Macklin.

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

I would like to discuss with you for a moment the concept of rights versus symbolism. Since no one here talked about other options, I wonder how much of what is being sought is symbolic and how much is truly based on rights? Within the options set out in the discussion paper there were many ways in which rights could be equalized, but the word marriage would not necessarily be allocated, save and except in the case of a religious institution. I'd like to hear your reaction to that. What is it that is truly being sought?

The Chair: Mr. Ryan.

Prof. William Ryan: I agree with you. I had a whole section in my longer paper on rights, positive rights from the state as opposed to natural moral rights, which are derived philosophically and religiously. What's happening today is that rights are being used as a gimmick to get what people want. A right means what you have to give me. A right is what I desire. That's not the basis of a right. A right is an entitlement that's based on some kind of law, either the positive law of the land or the natural moral law that has come down through the centuries. It restricts people. If someone has a right, others are restricted in having to respect that right, so it cuts down the freedom of everybody else. If someone has a right, others are not free with regard to that. They have to respect that right, depending on whether the right is coming from the state or from a natural moral law, and with regard to the family, you're dealing with something essentially moral.

The Chair: Ms. Vance.

Ms. Kim Vance: I do look at this issue on two levels. It's not just a rights-based issue to me, because I actually don't see the institution of marriage as a right per se, as I see human rights that protect me from discrimination, from being fired, or from being kicked out of a house because I'm gay or lesbian. Marriage is a fundamental bond between two individuals who choose to enter into that agreement. What we're talking about here is not a right to marriage. Not all gay and lesbian people are going march out the door after this committee makes its decision and get married. What we're talking about is a fundamental right of choice in a free and democratic society, and it is entirely consistent with the way this government has proceeded with this issue. If we were to follow the reasoning of Mr. Ryan, we would be going backwards a number of years in Canadian legislation. That is not the path this government and previous governments have chosen to take.

· (1345)

The Chair: Ms. Trenholm.

Ms. Tamatha Trenholm: What we are looking for is the choice, so that you have the option to get married or not. There are a lot of heterosexual couples who do not take that option now, and they're not punished in any way for not taking it, but they always have the right to choose. There are many situations where people will not take that opportunity, but there are also a lot of people who believe it's very important. Marriage is in many ways a symbol. It's a symbol between two people of the bond and commitment they make to each other, a symbol in front of their religious organization, if it's allowed, in front of themselves, their families, their friends, and they would like to make that also in front of their country.

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Vance, I would like to have your comments on the following. Certain people have said that there is a complete lack of data and numbers, and that we could not evaluate the ramifications of allowing same-sex couples to marry on a society in general, nor on heterosexual couples.

This is crazy, but there is a place where we are beginning to understand what is happening, Holland, which as you know, allowed same-sex couples to marry on April 1^st, 2001. This data has only been collected for two years, but it nevertheless already gives us an indication.

Ms. Vance, our excellent research team has prepared a document from which I cite you a sentence:

… the coming into force of the law allowing marriage between same-sex couples on April 1st, 2001, does not seem to have affected the trend of heterosexual marriages.

They have therefore analyzed this and realized that there were no ramifications on the behavior of heterosexual couples. Could I have your comments in regards to this?

[English]

Ms. Kim Vance: It's not a surprising result. I wouldn't expect that allowing gay or lebian people access to the institution of marriage would change any heterosexual's decision to opt into that institution. In fact, none of the witnesses here today, even those against this, indicated that they would flee the institution of marriage or that they themselves, if they had the choice in the future, would choose not to enter the institution. So that doesn't surprise me. I think the fundamental choice before the government today is whether it is going to follow, i.e., wait for years and years and years until a lot of this research is compiled, while other countries file in behind, other European countries who have done this, or to lead in a way that is consistent with the path the government has taken over the last 30 years.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: And what do you respond to people who say to look at where the changes to the Divorce Act thirty years ago have brought us?

My answer has always been that it is not the fault of homosexuals if there are problems within heterosexual marriages. Do you have comments in this regard?

[English]

Ms. Kim Vance: Well, personally, I don't think I've affected the divorce rate of any heterosexuals I know.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Ryan, I'll move off the social sciences and go straight to religion. There are churches in Canada that would be prepared to marry congregants who are same-sex couples. They have appeared before us and asked us to give them the opportunity to do that as a religious exercise, independent of other arguments that might exist. The Government of Canada currently has a restriction that prohibits these churches; in their view of the world, they would like to be able to marry same-sex couples, and we don't let them. Can you respond to that? Leaving aside all the other arguments there may be, what about the straight religious argument that these churches would like to perform marriage among consenting same-sex couples?

· (1350)

Prof. William Ryan: They're a very small splinter group, for one thing, and they're certainly way out of touch with the whole 3,500 years of Judaeo-Christian culture. They're naturally going to be influenced. Look at what's happening in the States in some of the seminaries. Of course, they're being influenced by the homosexual movement. The two big movements, as one author has written, that have really militated against the Boy Scout movement and some of these other organizations are the feminist movement and the homosexual movement.

The Chair: Is it your testimony, then, Mr. Ryan, that the reason the Government of Canada should deny these religious institutions the right to marry members of their church who seek marriage is that they are insignificant religious organizations?

Prof. William Ryan: You're going against the essential elements of what a marriage is, which are not changeable. If the government says you can do this, the government is saying marriage is only an artificial situation that is made up from time to time and can change from time to time, and that's not what 85%, including the Muslims, believe. Marriage, for them, is something essential, something that's unchangeable in its nature. Whether it falls apart in one area or another is not the issue.

The Chair: I think Ms Trenholm wants to answer.

Ms. Tamatha Trenholm: I was raised in the United Church, and they are accepting of my sexuality. There are homosexual and lesbian ministers in that church. I don't consider that church to be a very small splinter group. It's national, it's international, it has a very large membership, and it would be willing to perform gay and lesbian marriages if it were allowed. I see it more as a moment when now the state is interfering in their religious right to do so.

The Chair: Ms Vance.

Ms. Kim Vance: I just want to echo those comments. I know the committee has heard from a large number of these churches, including the United Church of Canada, the Unitarian Church, a coalition of Jewish rabbis, who would like to offer marriage ceremonies to their membership. So I think it's rather insulting to suggest before this committee that this is a splinter group that is insignificant.

Also, we could spend many hours looking at the evolution of the religious construct of marriage. It has evolved, it has changed from being an institution simply to convey property rights and the ownership of women to men. I know you've heard similar testimony, so you know, as committee members, what the evolution of this institution has looked like, and we don't need to spend hours debating that today.

The Chair: Mr. Toews, do you have a small question to end the round?

Mr. Vic Toews: I think it's a good point you brought up, Mr. Chair, and maybe I'll just put this on the record. It seems to me that you've raised an interesting question about the role of the religious organizations. Should we be discriminating against any particular religious organization by denying their recognition of certain relationships the same full legal status? I think, when we do that in a multicultural society, we have to look at the broader issue of non-Christian groups as well. There are Muslims in our society, maybe even living together as man and wife, but not recognized as such. So the whole issue of their being allowed to recognize their relationship, polygamist or otherwise, is something we need to consider as a committee. We can't look at this as simply the inheritors of the Judaic-Christian concept and limit our discussion to that.

I just wanted to put that on the record for you, Mr. Chair.

· (1355)

The Chair: Thank you to the panel. Thank you to the members of the committee.

I'm going to suspend for three minutes while the present panel excuse themselves and the next panel find their way to the table.

· (1354)

· (1358)

The Chair: I call the 33rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights back to order.

We are continuing our study on marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions, and from now until 3 o'clock we have before us three groups. Representing OUTLAW, we have Scott Campbell, co-chair number 1--I'm sure you'll explain all of that. From the Abegweit Rainbow Collective on Prince Edward Island we have Nola Etkin and Randall Perry. And from Life and Family Issues we have Herman Wills.

I think you all understand that we expect a seven-minute presentation from each group, and at six minutes I'll indicate that there's one minute left. At seven minutes I'll indicate that the time is up, and please bring it to a close.

Without further ado, I'm going to go to Scott Campbell of OUTLAW.

¸ (1400)

Mr. Scott Campbell (Co-Chair #1, OUTLAW): Thank you.

I'm going to operate on the assumption that everyone here has had the opportunity or will have the opportunity in the future to read my written submission. In the time I have I won't go into details about it, but I will just summarize the key aspects.

Before I do get to my presentation, I have to apologize to the committee if I start entering into some sort of large legal analysis or using some legal language. I've just come from writing an exam on constitutional law of Canada. So if at any point there is an area or something where you don't understand what I am saying, feel free to question me on that.

I am a second-year law student currently at Dalhousie Law School. My submission today is primarily about money, not money in general, but money in its relation to parliamentary and political ethics and responsible allocation. The reason I've chosen to give this type of presentation to the committee is that I feel it is an aspect that has been absent thus far in the presentations made before the committee. Although we live in a social welfare state here in Canada, there are never enough financial resources to go around, and this is quite obvious. I know it is a very difficult job for anybody who is involved in budgetary allocation on a governmental scale actually allocating these scarce financial resources, but with that in mind, it is very important that we allocate our financial resources responsibly, so that money is not wasted on certain areas, when it could be put to a better use.

When faced with a series of choices on any given issue, it is imperative that Parliament make the choice that raises the least number of litigious issues under the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as part of the Constitution. A failure to do so will result in a rising of many issues, potential litigious questions, which will be passed on to the court system Especially since the advent of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, we have seen this quite often. When given a range of options on any given issue, the failure to choose the option that raises the least number of issues is financially irresponsible. The reason for that is very simple: litigation is quite expensive. Lawyers are very expensive in this country, and by the end of a major court case that has reached the Supreme Court of Canada often the bill to the federal government is staggering, to say the least.

With respect to the question of same-sex marriage and the reason we are here today, this committee has been provided with three options in the discussion paper from the Department of Justice. Based upon the framework of what I have just said to you all, it is imperative that Parliament make the decision that best accords with the Constitution and the charter, and this will be the most financially responsible decision.

From a financial perspective, the option that raises the least number of questions, and thus would be the most responsible to choose, is to legislate a definition of marriage that is inclusive of both opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples. The reason for this is that this option does not raise any questions under the division of powers. Under element 96 of section 91of the Constitution, originally known as the BNA Act, Parliament has exclusive legislative authority over the definition of marriage. This option does not raise any questions. Nor does this option raise any questions under section 15 of the charter. This is equality, and it has been indicated by the Department of Justice that this would be the option that best accords with the equality guarantees in section 15.

Though arguments have been put forth often that this option raises a question, and a valid question, about the freedom of religion, as protected also under the charter, these arguments are fallacious and without merit. Just as the charter does protect diversity and equality, it protects freedom of religion with the same level of vigour. We cannot have competing rights. We cannot say we value equality more than religion. In a diverse society, a multicultural society, both rights and freedoms will be protected. Churches would not be compelled to perform same-sex marriages against their will, and if the state decided that it wished to compel churches to perform same-sex marriage against their will, that would be a violation of the freedom of religion. It's very clear.

¸ (1405)

The other two options put forth by the Department of Justice, however, both raise a series of valid litigious questions. Both of them raise a question as to whether the federal government has the power, under section 91 of the Constitution, to legislate a federal registry system. It is unclear whether this subject falls under an exclusive provincial sphere, under property and civil rights, and it does seem likely that a federal registry system would fall under that. I'm not yet a legal scholar, nor am I a judge, and I would not want to make a final decision on that, but it does raise a valid question, and this most likely will be litigated through the court system.

From a charter perspective, the option that seeks to expressly exclude same-sex marriage does not satisfy the requirements of section 15. This is even conceded in the report by the Department of Justice. Though there would be at the same time a sort of registry system that would guarantee them the option, it does not give you marriage. It's not marriage, and therefore it would be challenged.

Of the three options the one that creates the least number of litigation issues is the one that seeks to legislate a definition of marriage that is inclusive of both opposite-sex and same-sex couples.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Now we go to Nola Etkin and Randall Perry.

Ms. Nola Etkin (Abegweit Rainbow Collective, Prince Edward Island): Thank you, and good afternoon.

I'm a professor of chemistry at the University of Prince Edward Island. Randall Perry is a writer and editor living in Charlottetown. We were the founding co-chairs of the Abegweit Rainbow Collective, a non-profit community service organization committed to providing support, education, and advocacy to Prince Edward Island's bisexual, gay, lesbian, transgendered, and two-spirited community. The collective is dedicated to raising community awareness for healthy change.

Mr. Randall Perry (Abegweit Rainbow Collective, Prince Edward Island): The Abegweit Rainbow Collective believes all citizens of Canada are entitled to equal treatment under the law. We belive a committed relationship between two men or two women should receive the same respect and recognition as a similar relationship between a man and a woman. We believe the only fair and effective way to ensure this equal treatment is to permit marriage between same-sex couples.

Having stated these beliefs, we are emphasizing marriage over the concept of registered partnerships or civil unions. These types of registered relationships, although a step forward, in that they allow a couple a measure of choice, are forms of second-class recognition. They do not confer all the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage and are not recognized out of the jurisdiction in which they were performed.

Our emphasis on marriage is also that over common-law status, which is conferred upon a couple after a specific amount of time, and that is not a choice. We agree that there are definite advantages for such a status for same-sex couples in light of recent changes to legislation. However, same-sex relationships within common law are still subject to personal and societal whim and interpretation, ergo second-class recognition.

We stress choice as a key word in our argument because marriage is a clear choice, a commitment freely undertaken. We realize that couples, both same-sex and opposite-sex, would not all choose to marry. That choice, however, should be equally available to all citizens. Marriage is a formal recognition of the validity of a relationship. Marriage confers legitimacy in the eyes of law, government, and society. Marriage is a responsibility not lightly undertaken, regardless of the couple making the choice.

¸ (1410)

Ms. Nola Etkin: Those who question the need for allowing same-sex marriage have raised a number of concerns, which we will try to address.

The primary concern seems to be that allowing same-sex marriage would threaten marriage as an institution. On the contrary, our desire for marriage rights is not about destroying or threatening the sanctity of marriage. Rather, it is about honouring and upholding the traditions of marriage. Gays and lesbians seek the right to marry because we believe in the worthiness of marriage. Surely, the endorsement of the institution of marriage must strengthen and not diminish it. In truth, the institution of marriage is already under attack, but not from outside forces, but from within. The staggering divorce rate reflects the seeming disregard of the seriousness of the commitment of marriage. Perhaps nothing is more reflective of the lack of esteem in which North Americans hold the tradition of marriage than the proliferation of reality TV shows. If anything truly makes a mockery of marriage, it must surely be shows such as Married by America and Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?

Another expressed concern is about religious freedom. In Canada we accept that every individual has the right to his or her religious beliefs and that every church has a right to its doctrine, but no individual or religious institution has the right to impose its beliefs on another. Allowing same-sex civil marriage should not threaten or deny the religious freedom of any citizen or religious organization. In the same way that the Catholic Church cannot be forced to ordain women, no church can be forced to perform marriages between members of the same sex. Likewise, if a couple wishes to be married and the government, or even their church, is willing, no other group should be allowed to interfere.

Marriage is about creating families that live, work, and love together. The most important function of marriage is the protection of children, the most precious and vulnerable members of our society. All children, those raised by opposite-sex parents, those raised by single parents, those raised by same-sex parents, need security, security that can only be ensured by full legal recognition of all families. Full legal marriage affirms the value we place on the family as the basic unit of our social framework. Allowing all Canadians to embrace and share in the institution of marriage can only lead to more stable and protected families.

A final argument has been that marriage is a traditional institution that has not and must not change. Not that long ago it was illegal in many places for people of different religions or races to marry. Interfaith and interracial marriages are now generally accepted.

Mr. Randall Perry: Statistics have shown that there has been some measure of support for the recognition of marriage between same-sex couples. Polls conducted over the past decade have shown a steady increase in that support. In a poll conducted in 1993 37% of respondents were in favour of same-sex couples being able to marry. In 1996 this figure rose to 49%. In a poll conducted by Environics in February 2002 for the Centre for Research and Information on Canada this figure again rose to 53%. I believe these changes reflect an evolution in society and in people's thinking. It could be said that the prohibition on same-sex marriage represents the last bastion of discrimination involving the institution of marriage. Lifting this prohibition could indeed be the next natural step in the evolution of marriage.

Ms. Nola Etkin: Allowing same-sex couples to marry in a manner similar to opposite-sex couples would not threaten the institution of marriage. It would simply allow more people to honour and celebrate the idea of marriage as the foundation of society. It would not force a church to marry same-sex couples. In the same way that the Catholic Church cannot be forced to ordain women, no church can be forced to perform marriages that counteract their philosophy. It would not promote a dangerous or unhealthy lifestyle. Affirming the value of committed, secure relationships can only promote those healthier alternatives.

Mr. Randall Perry: Allowing same-sex couples to marry in a manner similar to opposite-sex couples would strengthen the family, as lesbians and gay men are part of families. Recognizing and honouring those families would add to their legitimacy. It would protect children by providing positive role models of relationships and encouraging self-esteem. It would save taxpayers the expense of a Supreme Court challenge to restrictive marriage laws. It would lead to greater respect of GLBT persons in their relationships. It would be the right thing to do.

We respectfully ask the standing committee to recommend that the federal government enact the requisite legislation to allow civil marriage between same-sex couples under the circumstances now available to opposite-sex couples.

Ms. Nola Etkin: We would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to express our views on this very important issue, and we hope our comments will assist the committee in making a recommendation in favour of recognizing same-sex marriages.

¸ (1415)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Wills.

Mr. Herman Wills (Life and Family Issues): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Life and Family Issues would like to thank the parliamentary justice committee for the opportunity to present some views on marriage and the legal recognition of other unions.

Kerby Anderson, in his book The Decline of a Nation points out, as Will Durant does in Lessons of History, that civilizations are born, then decline. The problem is due not to political, economical, or social problems, but to spiritual factors. He points out that the average age of great civilizations is about 200 years. Russian and Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin has analysed cultures spanning thousands of years and several continents and found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal change and collapses were preceded by sexual revolutions in which marriage and family were no longer accorded premier status. This comes from his book The American Sex Revolution, dated, however, 1956. Another observation is that the Greek and Roman empires fell from within, and this is usually from a decline in the family and of spiritual values. For as the family goes, so goes the nation. Noted British historian J.D. Unwin has described these empires, without exception, Rome, Greek, Moorish, Babylonian, Anglo-Saxon, as flourishing during eras that valued sexual fidelity. Inevitably, sexual mores would loosen and societies would subsequently decline, only to rise again when they returned to more rigid sexual standards.

If these models are true, or even close to reality, one should ask where we fit with either of these models, given the current debate and the changes in our society. Those who cannot remember the past will be condemned to repeat it. Families are the foundation of a nation, a societal microcosm, a reflection of the health of the larger society. When they crumble, so will the nation. In trying to understand why there's a push for dismantling of the natural family, one has to look behind the scenes and turn to studies that have asked basically the same question. Dr. Judith Reisman, Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, Kerby Anderson, and a host of others shed light on the subject. Excellent scholarly studies can be found in Regent University Law Review.

Then one reads lead thinkers of the homosexual community, activists such as Michelangelo Signorile, Andrew Sullivan, the editor of the Republic, who wrote a book called Virtually Normal, and Paula Ettelbrick, a lawyer. Signorile writes in Out magazine that traditional marriage is a myth and an archaic institution that must be altered. Sullivan believes homosexuals are not normal and must be prohibited from engaging in sex with multiple partners. Ettelbrick says homosexuality is about pushing the limits of sexual activity as a way of reordering our culture, or even our view of reality.

Advocates of same-sex marriage would have us believe homosexuals are denied their civil rights because they cannot marry one another. The fact that even such a notion is being considered in public debate shows how demented our culture has become. Homosexuals can approximate marriage without all the fanfare. They can have enduring power of attorney, a will, contracts for living together, can hold property jointly, can have cohabitation agreements and other legal devices that are available to all citizens, so why the fuss?

Why would some court not allow marriage between a sister and a brother or any other combination from natural families? Some would say that is cynical and would never happen. Less than a decade ago my MP in the government of the day told me that including sexual orientation in the law would not lead to a request for same-sex marriages and adoptions. I wonder where he's at today. Already this legislation has led to this discussion. It could redefine the family by ultimately recognizing homosexual marriages and adoptions. If the concept of same-sex marriage and registry partnership is accepted, how long will the courts and politicians be able to resist acceptance of two brothers or limit the union to two adults? Silly notion, some would say, it could never happen in Canada. On March 13 of this year in London, Ontario, a mother was asking the court to declare her same-sex partner a third parent. Family Court Justice David Aston stated in February, “I can't imagine a stronger case for seeking the order you are seeking.”

¸ (1420)

In this age, in this country, public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail, against it, nothing can succeed. Whoever molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces judicial decisions.

This is a statement by Abraham Lincoln. Many people who are supportive of the traditional family find themselves at odds, for the media and government are seemingly shaping the public opinion on the issue. The traditional natural family cannot find a voice in mainstream media. Is it a conspiracy? William Greider thinks so. He was formerly the associate editor of the Washington Post. He made it clear that the public's suspicion about institutions, their parties, and their government are well-founded in his book Who Will Tell the People?, 1992.

In summary, I'd like to recommend that our government leave a 5,000-year-institution, called the family, alone. Let homosexuals do what they wish, but let's not call it marriage. Marriage, as set up by Parliament in the current definition, is a significant way that a homosexual union and a traditional marriage are different. So by legitimizing homosexual marriage and homosexual adoptions, there will no longer be a need to destroy the family. It will have been destroyed by redefinition, with the help of Parliament and the courts and complicit media. Our contention is that if marriage is somehow marginalized or made mute, the traditional family will have been destroyed and an importantl cornerstone of our society will be weakened. Please leave it alone.

I can't fit in my other recommendations, but they're in my brief, which will be revised. We recommend that the committee be open to studying the minority report of the State of Hawaii on sexual orientation and the law, in addition to the Regent University Law Review, which includes arguments relating to marriage, family, media, and the pathology of homosexuality. We recommend that the committee be open to studying these.

If you give good reason for families to continue, you will have done much to ensure that the country continues.

The Chair: Mr. Toews, five to seven minutes.

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

Quite frankly, I don't find the argument very convincing that simply because litigation is expensive, government should capitulate on an issue as fundamental as marriage. As a fiscal conservative, I want to put it clearly here on the record, just in case the Liberals are worried that it's something I'm going to criticize their government for. I don't defend Liberals very often, but certainly, litigation by the government in respect of a matter as fundamental as this is money well spent, and I'm certainly prepared to defend that position to my constituents. I don't think they'll have any problem understanding the significance of this issue.

The issue of compulsion, of forcing ministers to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, I think is a straw man. It's easily dismissed at this point. However, as I've stated in comments this morning-- and I want to hear from some of the witnesses, once the definition is changed, the basis of attack on organized religions, churches, who refuse to perform same-sex marriages is not that they will be forced to perform these marriages. They won't be, the charter protects them in that respect. What will happen concerns the public funding and other support that they receive from the state The argument follows very clearly that as organizations conducting a discriminatory practice, their charitable status should be withdrawn and direct funding for religious and educational institutions should be withdrawn.

The fact that it has not yet happened to any great extent again is neither here nor there. In fact, it is already happening in my home province of Manitoba. Last Friday, as I indicated to the panel and witnesses earlier, we had two witnesses, one a school trustee who has been very active in a Manitoba case to deprive a non-denominational Christian organization of certain government contracts because of its statement of ethics regarding homosexuality. Both witnesses said this organization should no longer receive any public funding because of the discriminatory practice. So this is something that is happening.

If we change the definition of marriage, we can say we're going to offer the protection that's already there in the Quebec situation. The Quebec situation says no one is going to be compelled to perform same-sex marriages. That's not the issue. The issue is whether this is a matter of the state supporting discriminatory practice, Speaking as a former constitutional lawyer--I was the director of constitutional law in the province of Manitoba, I spent many many years as a prosecutor and otherwise in government service--I know that's the next step. It's logical, it follows very clearly. I'm sure, Mr. Campbell, you, as a intelligent, articulate law student, can see the case. If your client came to you and said, look, I want to stop this kind of abuse of government funds by these people carrying on this discriminatory practice, I don't have a moment's hesitation that you would say, I'll take the case, it sounds like a good case.

Mr. Campbell. It's a good argument. Certainly, these two individuals in Manitoba on Friday thought it was. As a constitutional lawyer, I thought it was. I don't know, maybe they're teaching different things in law school, so I want to be educated.

¸ (1425)

Mr. Scott Campbell: So is the revocation of public funds primarily because a religious institution will refuse to perform same-sex marriage?

Mr. Vic Toews: Yes, carrying on discriminatory practices. And just because it hasn't happened yet, it doesn't mean it can't happen.

Mr. Scott Campbell: I don't necessarily think the refusal of a religion to perform same-sex marriage is a discriminatory practice.

Mr. Vic Toews: All right. So you would disagree with these witnesses who said it was.

Mr. Scott Campbell: Yes.

Mr. Vic Toews: You would say to a client who came up to you, oh, that's not a good argument; they're not carrying on so serious a discriminatory practice that government should withdraw funding. Is that what you would say to your client?

Mr. Scott Campbell: Well, I don't know yet, I'm not a lawyer.

Mr. Vic Toews: Well, pretend you are. You've written exams, you're an articulate young man, you're going to law school. Pretend I'm a law school professor asking you that question.

Mr. Scott Campbell: I think, with the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada behind the issue of competing rights, competing interests, and how strongly we have to preserve freedom of religion and how strongly we have to preserve equality rights, one will not trump the other. We need to embrace and protect religious practices in this country, and though at certain times those practices may be viewed as discriminatory, they are not discriminatory under the charter, because we need to protect the diversity of religion in this country as strongly as protect equality.

Mr. Vic Toews: So the Government of Manitoba, which is now conducting this prosecution against this Christian organization for refusing to rent out their premises to a homosexual organization because it violates their ethical standards, is making a big mistake here.

As to trumping constitutional rights, we have in Ontario the case of Roman Catholics, guaranteed religious rights since 1867 in respect of independent religious educational institutions, trumped by a recent court case, the Hall case, where contrary to Catholic doctrine, which doesn't approve of homosexual unions, the court ordered the school to admit a student and his boyfriend to a prom. Clearly, we had competing issues, the religious freedom of the Catholics, guaranteed in our Constitution since 1867, on the one hand, and charter rights on the other. The charter rights trumped the constitutional rights of the Catholics.

Mr. Scott Campbell: I don't believe they necessarily did. The protection you're speaking of, the protection of denominational schooling as of 1867, is located in section 93 of the Constitution.

Mr. Vic Toews: Correct.

Mr. Scott Campbell: All section 93 does, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada, is protect the rights that these institutions will continue to exist and will continue to exist with public funding. That is all section 93 does.

The Chair: Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

I will first make a comment and then ask a question. My comment has to do with the protection granted to churches. Mr. Toews agrees with me in that a Church should never be forced to marry same-sex couples as this would be an infringement of religious freedom. Yet I wonder under which pretence one could remove the various fiscal advantages granted to religious organizations.

That being said, my question is for Mr. Wills who has conducted a historical analysis of the decline of civilizations. I will use the Greek and Roman civilizations as examples as they are the ones I know best. Certain great philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, and Pericles are still part of our culture. The advances of the Athenian democracy occurred at a time when homosexuality was openly accepted by Greek society.

Yet, strangely enough, although homosexuality was practiced openly then – it was even seen as a rite of passage for most young men from well-to-do families -, as far as the school of thought, this is the period that we qualify as the golden age of Antiquity. Ancient Greek was even taught up until fairly recently in school. In addition, the New Testament was written in Greek rather than in Aramaic or Hebrew.

Concurrently, with respect to Rome, it is interesting to note that Christianity became the official religion of the State in 313 A.D., if my recollection is correct, along with the emperor Constantine. The first pillage of Rome occurred in 416, and the second in 453. In other words, the fall of the Roman Empire occurred at a time when Christianity was the official religion. At that time, the religion condemned homosexual practices. Thus, how can we say that Rome and Greece fell due to moral decay, to use your terms, when Rome, particularly, fell at a time when Christianity was the only religion recognized by the State?

¸ (1430)

[English]

Mr. Herman Wills: Thank you very much for the history lesson. I'm not a historian myself, perhaps you are. I take it on the word of Will Durant and discerning people who have studied these societies that this is what has happened, because it has replicated itself in other societies. I thank you very much for the lesson.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: According to you, this is what caused the fall of Rome. Where was the moral decay in a society that forced its people to follow the principles of Christianity?

[English]

Mr. Herman Wills: Well, perhaps you can tell me, because, as I said, I'm not a historian. I do not know that. You seem to know more than I do, so you tell me.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: At times, I'd like to be on the other side. Nevertheless, you are telling us those are the teachings of history and in your brief you are giving Greece and Rome as an example. That's why I was asking you this questions.

Unfortunately it seems to be somewhat complicated. I will thus ask Ms. Campbell the question. I was a little surprised to hear you say that constitutional rights had not been addressed. Actually it is one of my pet-peeves and I have asked many questions in this regard on many occasions. I nevertheless would like to hear your comments on the following questions.

You have just finished an exam on constitutional rights. I am glad it was you and not me. On the other hand, if I were a professor, I would ask you to define the terms you use; in addition I will need to use the English version as the photocopy of the French version is deficient. In speaking of the federal registry, you say: “It is unclear whether Parliament can validly enact federal registry legislation under section 91(26)”. If you had to make a decision, would you say that the federal government has this power or not?

[English]

Mr. Scott Campbell: I don't know, and that's why it raises the question of whether or not the federal government and Parliament can legislate under section 91, item 26.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I would tell you that the Canadian Bar Association, like the Chambre des notaires du Québec, came to see us to tell us that, in regards to family law, the federal parliament did not have the power to legislate any domain other than that of marriage and divorce, according to them.

Both these organizations came to tell us that of the four possible options, i.e. leaving marriage as is, allowing same-sex marriages, creating a national registry or leaving it up to each religion, two would be unconstitutional according to division of powers in articles 91 and 92 of the Constitution. They would be unconstitutional because with marriage being defined as it is, any other advance of federal law in the realm of family would be unconstitutional. I am referring to the substance of the law.

Secondly, these organizations also came to tell us that if Parliament decided to leave it up to each religion, a similar problem to that of determining marital status would present itself as the legal right to marry a couple is proprietary to each province. Therefore, according to the Canadian Bar Association and the Chambre des notaires du Québec, two of the options would be unconstitutional due to the division of powers.

There is a third option to leave marriage as is. However three courts have deemed it unconstitutional because it did not respect the equality rights stated in article 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You have presented this argument. The question is whether it is saved by article 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A court in British Columbia felt that it was, stating that the definition of marriage as it currently stands, in other words a union between a man and a woman exclusively, did indeed respect article 1 and was subsequently acceptable in a free and democratic society. Two superior courts, those of Ontario and Quebec, stated that it was not.

In my opinion, the Supreme Court will have a look into this. Unless we use the notwithstanding clause, three of the four options would be declared unconstitutional either based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or on the division of powers. The remaining option would be that of allowing the union of same-sex couples.

Do you agree with this analysis?

¸ (1435)

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Campbell .

Mr. Scott Campbell: Yes, I share that analysis.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: We love those short answers. You thought your exam was tough. Makes you want to take up medicine, doesn't it?

Mr. Macklin.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, panel, for coming forward today.

Mr. Campbell, it was interesting that you did look at money as the issue, but from a legislative perspective. However, at the end of the day, I think one really has to look at the supremacy of Parliament and its position today as it relates to the Supreme Court of Canada, that ongoing balancing act that seems to be there, ever increasing as a point of discussion. When we look at this issue, surely, those of us who legislate have to take into account the concern Mr. Wills raises, what does happen to a society when you make a change within society. We've had Professor Allen come before us, who studied the Divorce Act and its consequences, saying there were consequences that were unforeseen and have had quite an effect. When you look at it from your perspective today, do you think we ought to be looking at the societal concerns more than just the economic concerns in this broader picture, as legislators, as those who are shaping public policy?

Mr. Scott Campbell: I think that's why we have Parliament, why we have elected legislatures. Beyond the courts, Parliament and legislatures are the ones who are best situated to understand the broad variety of factors. My purpose was to bring a very specific perspective on this issue to the committee, but in looking at societal changes, my response would be that in 1981, when our politicians were drafting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, they made a decision, as politicians, that these were the types of values and this was the type of country we wanted. These principles of equality, these principles against discrimination, and these principles that respect the freedom of religion are fundamental to society, and therefore politicians in 1982, when the charter was enacted, made a commitment to certain types of social change that would come thereafter.

¸ (1440)

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: But it does appear that it isn't simply the charter issue, it goes beyond just looking at section 15 and saying, that's it. I think this is where section 1, I would suggest, comes into play, and the question is, what arguments are developed in order to bring forward section 1 as a meaningful way to deal with the equality provision of section 15?

I'd like to go to Ms. Etkin and Mr. Perry. In your commentary you talked about the concept of equal treatment under the law. I presume you had a chance to read the discussion paper from the Ministry of Justice that was prepared setting out the four basic options that were available in this discussion.

Ms. Nola Etkin: I've seen abstracts of it.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: When it comes to equal treatment on the rights side, such things as not being treated in a gay or lesbian conjugal relationship today equally with a heterosexual marriage, one of the obvious things is a waiting period, which I mentioned earlier today. One of the options here does suggest that we could just have a federal registry that would pick up marriage and other relationships, as defined by the churches and religious institutions. We would then clearly have equal treatment under the law. But you don't bring that forward as an option. Why not?

Ms. Nola Etkin: I don't see that it's possible to have equal treatment if we don't have access to exactly the same institution of marriage. This comes down to what Mr. Wills was saying: if we have an approximation of marriage, why the fuss? There will always be a difference between a registered domestic partnership, in whatever terms it's couched, if it's not marriage. One fundamental thing is that marriage is recognized around the world.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: But marriage, in that instance, as portrayed by the department, would be marriage determined by the institution that would convey that; there would be certain religious institutions that would convey that concept of marriage to lesbian and gay couples.

Ms. Nola Etkin: But we're just asking for civil marriage. This argument has nothing to do with religious marriage.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: I'm saying, one of the options was that we would dispose of the term marriage at a federal level. We'd simply have a broad registry that would accommodate everyone who went through a form of marriage that was recognized by religious institutions. Some of those religious institutions today would bless the relationship of a gay or lesbian couple. But you don't bring that forward as an option that would be acceptable. Yet, I would suggest to you, what could be more equal treatment under the law?

Ms. Nola Etkin: There is a term, cutting off your nose to spite your face. I see marriage as the foundation of our society, or certainly a foundation of our society. There are certain values associated with it that would never be associated with something that was not called marriage. Children, when they're growing up, do not dream of having a registered partnership, they dream of having marriage. So if the government gets out of the business of marriage, not only are you still denying us the right to marry, you are denying atheists the right to marry, because they cannot have a religious marriage, you are denying, often, interfaith couples the right to marry, because neither of their churches might marry them. It seems to me that what you'd be doing is taking away something extremely valuable for many members of our society.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: That's what many members of the heterosexual community are saying we would be doing if we expanded marriage, taking away something that was very precious to them, an institution they have built up, as they would see it, by way of goodwill over years. That's where their problem comes in.

¸ (1445)

Mr. Randall Perry: .But in saying marriage is precious to heterosexuals, are you saying marriage is only precious to heterosexuals? Marriage may be precious to homosexuals as well. No one has ever bothered to ask us that question. Society tends to look at us and say, well, you know, they don't want to get married anyway, they just want to screw around, they just want to be promiscuous, they just want to do this, this, and this. No one has ever asked us if we want the protections and the institution extended to us. We're here neither to save marriage nor to destroy it. We're asking that we be allowed to married in addition.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: The heterosexual community would advocate, though, that the institution you want to join is a heterosexual institution. In a sense, you may gain a Pyrrhic victory, as we've referred to it occasionally, and all of a sudden, with what you seek to obtain, you change the very character that makes it that sought after institution.

Ms. Nola Etkin: First of all, I take great exception to the statement that the heterosexual community opposes extending same-sex marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples. The statistics do not show that. It's a small segment of the heterosexual community. There may be some within the gay and lesbian community who oppose it as well. The division between people for and against is not based on their sexual orientation.

Second, I do not see how it could possibly lower the status or change the values associated with marriage, because we're saying we think marriage is a wonderful thing. We want to be part of it because it's the foundation of our society. It's as important to us as it is to anyone else.

The Chair: Okay.

I want to thank the panel for being here and helping us in this very serious issue this afternoon.

I'm going to excuse the panel and take a five-minute break, and then we'll reconvene.

¸ (1448)

¹ (1501)

The Chair: I call back to order the 33rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Between now and four we have two panellists, representing the Bedford Presbyterian Church, Don Codling, pastor, and Lesbians, Bisexuals, Gays and Transgenders, Memorial University, Newfoundland and Labrador, Gemma Hickey.

Mr. Codling, for seven minutes.

Mr. Don Codling (Pastor, Bedford Presbyterian Church): Ladies and Gentlemen, I speak as a Christian and a pastor, and I do not approve of homosexual action, but I want to start by saying I do not hate gays. I don't believe homosexuals should be persecuted, I don't believe they need special protection, but they should have all the protection every other citizen receives.

While the Bible's teaching on this issue is sufficient for me, for my congregation, I don't expect everybody's going to act on that, even though I think everybody should, of course. God's law is good for us. That means there are benefits that speak to those who do not simply accept His law. As well, there are problems everybody can see when you don't accept His law and don't follow it.

I want to hit briefly on three points. For a start, there's a problem when you try to redefine a word. Two examples I mentioned in the brief. If Parliament were to pass a law saying that everybody who voted for the Canadian Alliance in the last election was now automatically a member of the Liberal party, having the right to vote in their conventions and in their choosing of candidates, I think everybody would agree that those who are presently members of the Liberal party would feel very injured. Do you see Ralph Klein as Liberal leader? Changing that definition has harmful effects. There's a different viewpoint that perhaps comes closer to our issue. Take the Mensa organization. Suppose the courts decided that Mensa discriminated against those with IQ less than 80, and therefore everybody with IQ less than 80 is now a member of Mensa. Again, that organization would lose its meaning for those who are at present members.

We're talking about marriage, and the proposal being made is that same-sex unions be included as part of marriage. Marriage, as I look on it as a Christian, as established by God, is heterosexual, man and woman. Marriage is understood in every culture, every religion to be heterosexual. Some will allow polygamist marriages, but they're all heterosexual. It's in all our literature as heterosexual. The meaning of the word clearly through all our history has been man and woman coming together. Redefining marriage takes away from the significance of existing marriage unions. It doesn't change existing relationships, my relationship to my wife will not be changed by that, but it changes the meaning of the whole institution.

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada has given a brief that has developed the negative consequences of this in detail. I'm not going to repeat that. I will say that we thoroughly approve and support what they say there.

Changing the definition has harmful effects. Let me focus on one of them particularly. Defining marriage to include same-sex unions will criminalize Bible-believing Christians. It's clear that the Bible teaches that homosexual intercourse is a sin. You can go through the evidence, and people will argue with the meaning of the terms, but the Bible doesn't just say homosexuality is a sin, it says for a man to lie with a man as with a woman is sin. It's quite specific about that.

What consequences do we have? First, this does not demonize homosexuals. The Bible also says that for a child to blast his mother is sin. We don't say they're demons, we don't say they're hateful, because I don't think there's any one of us who hasn't at some time spoken quite disrespectfully to his or her mother, we all do that. That isn't the end of the world, but it's wrong. The same thing applies to homosexuality. The Maclean's survey done about ten years ago gave a very careful study of it. Some 15% to 20% of the population at least are Bible-believing Christians, people who claim to be Christian and claim to believe the whole Bible, to live by it as best they can, to attend church regularly. They're active in their churches. They will all take the Bible stand on this issue.

¹ (1505)

The day is going to come, if marriage comes to include same-sex unions, when people are going to be in court because of that. In Edmonton a few years ago a Christian college was taken to court because it would not employ a homosexual professor. The Constitution explicitly protects their religious freedom. It does not mention gay rights or sexual orientation, and yet the court held that their religious freedom was not enough to guard them in respect of who they had as a professor in this case. When Christian pastors are asked to marry homosexual couples somewhere down the road and say no, some of them will just go elsewhere, but you can see what's happening. Someone down the line is going to be taking that Christian pastor to court. The trend in our courts is such that the Christian pastor will be told he's a criminal because he won't do this. Can you imagine that our courts today will protect the pastor in that state, when the law now shows something to support the alternative? It will criminalize Christians.

I think you have to see, though people deny this and I don't think everybody deliberately intends this, that the demand for same-sex marriage is an attack on existing family structures. The issue comes up because some homosexuals say they are discriminated against because they don't get the benefits that attach to marriage. They aren't asking to get those benefits, they're asking to get the marriage. The only reason for that has to be that marriage will be redefined and the relationship changed.

We recognize that there is pressure today to do something about this. We would prefer that you did not do anything, but if you do act, don't make it marriage, make it something else.

The Chair: Thank you.

Gemma Hickey, for seven minutes.

Ms. Gemma Hickey (General Director, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Gays and Transgenders, Memorial University): I recently completed my undergraduate degree in religious studies. I am a Catholic. However, because I am a woman and a lesbian, I am unable to pursue ministry in the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore, I am in the process of becoming a member of the United Church.

I appear before the committee today as a Christian, as a lesbian, as a Canadian, but first and foremost, as a human being. A little girl was once told by her father that when she grew up, she could be what she wanted, as long as she had a dream, believed in herself, and worked very hard to make her dream come true. She was also told that by her doing this, the world would respect her. Well, I've grown up since, only to discover that my father lied. I had a dream, I believed in myself, and I worked very hard. I appear before the committee today asking, where is my respect? Martin Luther King Jr. had a dream, I had one too, but I'm awake now, and after rubbing my eyes, I am telling the committee that, like Rosa Parks, I do not want to sit at the back of the bus either.

Growing up is never easy, for many reasons, but even more so for lesbian and gay youth. As a youth, I often felt alienated from the world around me. When I became an adolescent, this feeling continued, until I embraced my sexuality and acknowledged it openly. Thankfully, my family and friends were very accepting. Sadly, most lesbians and gays do not have the same experience, because of the lack of societal recognition. This lack of recognition extends to our relationships, which, from personal experience, I can say are as significant as heterosexual relationships. Such societal indifference has profoundly negative consequences for lesbians and gays on many levels. Therefore, the status quo is completely unacceptable. Some form of legally recognized separate, but equal relationship segregation is completely unacceptable. Further delay in the official recognition of the rights of lesbian and gay relationships is also completely unacceptable. The only viable and moral option is to extend the legal definition of marriage to treat same-sex and opposite-sex couples equally.

It is not a secret that the major locus for conservative argument against lesbian and gay marriage in Canada comes from the conservative elements of Christianity, who, whether they argue against lesbian and gay rights on explicitly religious grounds or not, argue fundamentally from a sense of feeling. As a Christian, I understand the conflict other Christians experience in attempting to reconcile the apparent teachings of Christianity with the rapid evolution of the modern world. I also have compassion for those who are afraid for the fate of their treasured social institutions during these times of change. However, I believe it is unequivocal that these fears, in the case of lesbian and gay marriage, are groundless, and legal recognition of lesbian and gay marriage will be a positive change.

I suspect that even the Christian Church will soon be ready to come to terms with the full acceptance of lesbian and gay marriage, as it has had to adapt to many changes in the past. That being said, this is Canada, and Canada is a secular country, where all Canadian citizens are free to practice or not practice any religion as they see fit, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. Unfortunately, respecting on a legal level Christian beliefs that discriminate against lesbians and gays infringes the inalienable rights of all Canadians, especially Canadians of a minority sexual orientation. Therefore, religious arguments against lesbian and gay marriage are not acceptable in this debate.

I will now briefly address the three most dismissible arguments against lesbian and gay marriage.

First, there is no conceivable way lesbian and gay marriage could cheapen existing marriages, damage the institution of marriage,or in extreme cases, contribute to the already high divorce rate in heterosexual marriages or influence heterosexuals not to marry at all. If fairness to lesbians and gays could produce such deleterious results, we must ask ourselves how meaningful the institution of marriage is in the first place. The opponents of lesbian and gay marriage present this unlikely scenario without offering any concrete evidence to support it. Truthfully, no such evidence exists, because the notion is preposterous to begin with and rooted in ignorance rather than common sense.

Second, it is often argued that lesbians and gays do not have monogamous relationships. This is a slanderous falsehood. Many lesbians and gays demonstrably do have monogamous relationships. If there also exist many lesbians and gays who are not in monogamous relationships, just as there exist many heterosexuals who are not in monogamous relationships, this cannot possibly serve as a justification to deny the rights of those who are. If some argue that not being in monogamous relationships is bad and that the institution of marriage encourages monogamous relationships, surely, extending marriage to lesbians and gays will alleviate this problem. Denying marriage to lesbians and gays exacerbates the problem and has a direct and negative impact on a lot of lesbian and gay Canadians and on Canadian society as a whole.

¹ (1510)

Third, some opponents of lesbian and gay marriage contend that marriage is an institution uniquely constituted for the purposes of promoting and nurturing procreation and that since lesbians and gays supposedly can not procreate, which is not true, as we are quite capable of procreation through the intervention of a third party, just like infertile heterosexual couples, it does not make sense to extend marriage to this group. This argument is risible on many levels. Marriage is a contractual arrangement that confers many rights and obligations that have been tuned over time to serve the real needs of couples, but nowhere in Canadian law does it specify that married couples must procreate. If some opponents of lesbian and gay marriage want to be consistent, they should lobby to forbid infertile and post-menopausal women the right to marry and for the annulment of marriages that do not produce offspring by some deadline.

In reading material on the subject of this committee written by some of my honourable Presbyterian colleagues, I have noted the suggestion that they and other Canadian groups would like to have more time to study this issue. It is hard not to respect the desire to thoroughly examine this issue before making what must seem like a major change to the structure of Canadian law as it relates to such a fundamental institution. Nevertheless, I believe this issue has been studied and talked about enough and now is the time to act.

I respect the rights of all churches to sanction or not sanction homosexuality and homosexual relationships as they see fit, but in Canada we have freedom of religion, and that necessarily means freedom from religion. The values of our society are changing, and we have reached a point where the notion of lesbian and gay marriage has achieved a high level of mainstream acceptance. That, coupled with the very important points that marriage is an issue with direct, here and now, bread and butter importance to many Canadian couples who are currently denied that right and that marriage for lesbians and gays is a matter of fundamental justice and equal rights, indicates very strongly that society can not wait any longer to move decisively on this issue. Justice delayed is justice denied. It may be a cliché, but it is no doubt a timeless truth.

There is only one conclusion, to recommend that the federal government pass legislation, thereby removing the opposite-sex restriction on legal marriage, to include same-sex couples. I came out of the closet years ago. If this does not pass, the government is ultimately suggesting that I go back in. I appear before this committee today as a Christian, as a lesbian, as a Canadian, and first and foremost, as a human being. I ask the committee once again, where is my respect?

¹ (1515)

The Chair: Mr. Cadman, seven minutes.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Ms. Hickey, you made a point on the procreative aspect of it, that it would be possible with the intervention of a third party. I would just like to get your comments on the status of that third party. We have a case before the courts right now where that argument is being made, for somebody to get the legal status of a parent, so that in fact, the child would have three parents.

Ms. Gemma Hickey: My mother married--she's in her third marriage now--and I was raised by a community of people in my family, so I personally don't see the problem with having three parents involved. I think it would be beneficial if a child were open to more parties having an effect on their upbringing. I've turned out pretty well, or at least I think so. In my own case, I would prefer adoption, but for those gays and lesbians who choose to have a third party, I don't see a problem. I think the child would benefit from it, actually.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I'm not talking about just involvement in the raising or in the life of the child, but about the actual legal status of three parents, because that's what I believe an Ontario court is being asked to decide right now.

Ms. Gemma Hickey: Are you asking me whether or not I think the father should be involved?

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Involved, yes, but beyond that, actually given the legal status of being a parent.

Ms. Gemma Hickey: I think that is relative. I think it depends on the couple who have the child. I don't think I can make that decision.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: My point is, it's before the courts now, so there is a decision to be made. I just wondered if you would support that or not. Would you be in favour of three people having legal parenthood of a child?

Ms. Gemma Hickey: As I said, I was raised by a number of different people, my grandparents, and I don't see the harm in having three parents involved.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

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

Mr. Codling, should I use the word reverend in referring to you? Yes? Thank you.

I had promised myself not to do this as we are speaking of civil marriage rather than religious marriage, however I must read a few lines from the verbal testimonies that were presented before us on February 27, 2003 and solicit your comments. I will read them in English as this is the language they were written in.

¹ (1520)

[English]

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

[Translation]

It is a rabbi speaking, and he goes on to say:

[English]

Arguably, the Jewish community has the longest-standing tradition of interpreting the Hebrew scriptures, the ten commandments, and so on. The ten commandments include the commandment to keep the Sabbath, and Jewish tradition has interpreted that for thousands of years. It involves not working from Friday night until Saturday at dark and refraining from a whole series of prohibited forms of creative activity, and it is absolutely on the same level as the prohibition of adultery or any of the others there.

The terminology used about a specific act of male homosexual intercourse in Leviticus is not to a general statement about same-sex relationships, it's about a specific form of intercourse. The same terminology is also used about eating shrimp, seafood. From the perspective of the Jewish faith community's interpretation of the scriptures, those prohibitions are indeed on the same level.

[Translation]

What are your comments?

[English]

Mr. Don Codling: Briefly, there is a clear distinction in the New Testament between the ceremonial laws, such as prohibited foods, which are clearly said to be ended with Christ, and other laws. The sabbath day is considered in my church to be a continuing obligation, except that with the resurrection of Christ, it becomes something that's celebrated on the day of his resurrection, rather than on the day that is represented as the completion of creation, the first day of the week instead of the seventh.

The terms regarding homosexuality are repeated in the New Testament, where there is no ceremonial code attached to them. In Romans, for example, we're told about men who leave the natural use of women to lie with one another.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: If I understand correctly, when speaking of Saint Paul’s letter to the Romans, one is given to understand that in the New Testament Jesus does not address homosexuality. It is Paul that did so later on.

[English]

Mr. Don Codling: On the contrary, there is something in the New Testament. Jesus himself didn't specify it, but Paul did.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I completely respect your point of view, however you know that representatives of the United Church, the Unitarian Church, and the reformed branch of Judaism appeared before us and told us that they would like to marry same-sex couples, but that the State precluded them from doing so. It seems in this case to be an infringement on their religious freedom.

I would like to hear your comments on the following. Let us suppose that the situation were inversed, that homosexual couples had the right to marry, that the United Church, the Unitarian Church, and reformed Judaism, to name just these three, could follow the principle of their faith but that nothing could force you as a reverend of the Presbyterian Church of Bedford to marry same-sex couples.

I give you the following example which is important considering we are speaking of marriage. The Catholic Church, which I know best, refuses to marry divorced persons. Yet, the State permits divorce. Never until now – and I assure you it will continue like this – has the Catholic Church been forced to marry divorced persons because it is against its faith.

Here is another example. Canadian society respects the right to equality between men and women. We believe a man and a woman have the same value. Yet, the Catholic Church refuses to ordain female priests. One could not imagine forcing it to do so however because we respect the freedom of religion and because it is protected under the provision 2a) of the Charter even though this is in all evidence a discriminatory position towards women.

Given that churches, synagogues or the State could marry same-sex couples, what makes you say then that you would be forced to so?

¹ (1525)

[English]

Mr. Don Codling: I don't know that I personally would necessarily be forced to do so. I don't think people in my state would be coming under attack from every homosexual couple that might approach them, but I think there is a visible militant attitude in the homosexual community. There are going to be some along the line who will take people like me to court. I don't think that applies with the other issues you mentioned. Divorcees don't have a militant attitude about this, they go to where it's comfortable.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: You said that they go where they feel comfortable. Let us take the example of Ms. Hickey. Do you not think that if she decided to marry, that she would prefer a religion that would be willing to do so rather than force one that did not welcome her.

[English]

Mr. Don Codling: I'm sure she would. I think everybody would.

The Chair: Ms. Hickey, did you want to speak?

Ms. Gemma Hickey: I just wanted to make a comment on the scripture reference. If we're going to consider Paul and his letters, we need to consider the societal constraints and the cultural differences at that time and the problems he had to deal with in his specific churches. He was dealing with a high rate of extramarital affairs, where men were not having children with their wives. This was a major issue at that time. I think we need to take that into account when talking about scripture, and this is now 2003.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Ms. Hickey, am I making a mistake in positing that Saint Paul had also said that woman should submit herself to man?

[English]

Ms. Gemma Hickey: Yes, you're right. And St. Paul did say that just as women are submissive to their husbands, so should men be submissive to their Church.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Maloney, seven minutes.

Mr. John Maloney: Pastor Codling, your advice was, don't make it marriage, if you are going to do anything, make it something else. I'm looking for some direction. What would you suggest? What is something else?

Mr. Don Codling: I think the Evangelical Fellowship was very right in saying you should establish some kind of relationship any two people living together can enter into and gain the various benefits that are complained about as missing and not make it a sexual issue at all. I forget what they called it, but they talked in terms of a couple of older women, sisters, living together, dependent on one another. This should not be a sexual issue, it should just be that if you want to come into a binding union, that's okay.

Mr. John Maloney: Did I actually hear you say, my state? Are you American?

Mr. Don Codling: No, I'm Canadian, for two hundred years at least.

Mr. John Maloney: Do you have any knowledge of or comment on the situation where the State of Vermont, I believe, recognizes gay marriages? We know in the Netherlands they do. Have you or your church studied the situation in these countries?

Mr. Don Codling: It's very recent, and no, I haven't studied it.

Mr. John Maloney: We heard Ms. Hickey refer to the lack of societal recognition having negative consequences. Do you think that is a valid statement, and if so, how do we respond to it?

Mr. Don Codling: I think there is truth in that, but it's a truth everybody lives with in one way or another. There are people who object to Christians. I have negative consequences from that as a visible pastor. It's something that comes with the ebb and flow of our society. What we do is try to avoid overt harm to the other person. Feelings we can't do much about.

¹ (1530)

Mr. John Maloney: One of the problems I'm having in this whole debate is the position of the churches. We have some who are opposed, some who would welcome it. How do I reconcile those two positions, when the objectives of your respective churches are very similar with regard to God.

Mr. Don Codling: From my perspective, I'd say that the objectives are quite radically dissimilar.

Mr. John Maloney: How so?

Mr. Don Codling: You may have noticed that I specified the 15% to 20% who are Bible-believing Christians. The Maclean's survey I mentioned came up with about 85% who said they were Christian, in one sense or another. Those who are Bible-believing say God has the right to tell us what to do, and we live by that, whether it makes sense to us or not. The others do not. The others basically say, we'll go with what seems good to us. I see that as radically different.

Mr. John Maloney: So we have different degrees of Christianity, is that a fair statement?

Mr. Don Codling: A man in my tradition, Machen, about 50 years ago wrote a book called Christianity and Liberalism. Basically, he said, in a historical understanding of Christianity, those who turn away from the Bible and take their own choices are no longer Christian. This is demonstrated in great detail. From my perspective, they would not be. They claim to be Christian, and I'm not going to fight about that, but from my perspective, they would not be acceptable.

Mr. John Maloney: Is there a possibility of peaceful coexistence? Some Christian churches, you indicated roughly 15%, would be adamantly opposed, and 85% would have different degrees in their approach. Can we still be true to our values and allow recognition of a change of values for a portion of those Christian churches?

Mr. Don Codling: I think you can, but not by overthrowing the Bible's teaching and what stands on that. Historically, freedom has been built up where the Bible has been believed and applied. Jews have freedom in Canada, Christians don't have as much freedom in Israel. Muslims likewise. Hindus likewise. The Bible-believing doctrine is a teaching that allows a wide degree of freedom for everybody while saying, here are the standards we live by.

Mr. John Maloney: I don't mean to challenge your beliefs, but Mr. Marceau has talked about the literal interpretation of the Bible. You would stone adulterers on a literal interpretation. We don't do it.

Mr. Don Codling: In the Old Testament the Church and the nation were identical. To be a member of Israel was to be a member of the Church. To be a member of the Church was to be a member of Israel. The only way to purify the Church was to remove somebody from the nation--execution. In the New Testament Church and the state are separated. The state has the power of execution, the Church does not, specifically. The Church purifies itself by excommunicating or removing from its membership those who do not belong there, but they can be a member of the state, that's not a problem.

Mr. John Maloney: We've heard also that values are changing and approaches change. Should we be prepared to change with those changes in values and approaches?

Mr. Don Codling: This is why I specified a sharp distinction in religion between those who follow the Bible and those who choose to change with the society. There's a difference.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Maloney.

Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

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

Notwithstanding the respect I owe reverend Codling, I would say that as a legislator, regardless of my personal opinions, I am not in any place to say that your form of Christianity is any better than that of Ms. Hickey’s, or the contrary. This, especially considering that, regardless of one’s opinion, both Quebec and Canada’s society no longer define themselves as a Christian society but rather as a society which recognizes the equality of all religions and does not favor one over another.

If I understand correctly, reverend Codling, you are telling us that as legislators we should legislate to maintain Presbyterian marriage and impose it upon churches such as the United Church, the Unitarian Church, and reformed Judaism, who do not believe in this form of marriage.

We are presenting our respective opinions, we speak of interpretations of the Holy Scriptures and so on but, although the subject interests me, I am not a theologian. On the other hand, as a legislator, the question and dilemma that I have to decide on are the following: I would like for churches who want it to go along with their faith and marry two people without however binding others to do so as well. I do respect people like you who do not share my opinion and who do not want to do this.

It is thus a case of protecting the freedom of religion for those who want to celebrate this type of marriage without however forcing those that do not.

If it came to pass that the committee decided to allow same-sex marriages and that it was explicitly stipulated in the law that no minister of a faith would be forced to celebrate ceremonies that went against his beliefs, would the fears that have been set forth in this regard be attenuated? For my part, I will fight until the end to ensure that you are not forced to do things that are forbidden to you by your faith.

¹ (1535)

[English]

Mr. Don Codling: In the present state of our society, and our courts particularly, I don't think it would be protected. You have the constitutional, charter protection of religion. A college in Edmonton, a Catholic college, was told, too bad, you cannot refuse to employ a person who's against your beliefs as a professor. It's in the charter, and the court overruled it. I don't think writing it into law will protect people.

The Chair: Mr. Macklin.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Thank you, Chair.

We've had a number of individuals appearing before us who have studied this issue at some length. Gemma, with your youthful enthusiasm, I was prompted to go and dig out one of these papers and come back to a point you made. Your statement, as I noted it, was that there is no conceivable way there will be any damage from this inclusion. I look at Professor Cere from McGill University, who has advanced the cause for at least some type of caution to be expressed in this process.

Let me just give you a few sentences, and I'll just end with one of his areas of concern on which I'd like to get your response. He said, “Predicting the exact ramifications of this revolution is difficult.” Then he said, “Same-sex marriage advocacy regularly repeats the mantra 'show us the harm'. There are vital concerns that need serious and sustained deliberation.” And here's the one I'd like you to deal with: “Will the inclusion of same-sex unions force the ratification of a reproductive revolution that will end any semblance of public commitment to maintaining a relationship between children and their natural parents?” That's a very deep and pressing concern, I think, of all of us in this country, to try to deal with our children, and in this case his question is dealing with their natural parents.

¹ (1540)

Ms. Gemma Hickey: This professor obviously has more qualifications than I do, but my answer is, what about children who are adopted? I don't like this use of “natural” children. I don't think it would have any real effect on “natural” children. I would like a little more on what his definition is of natural. I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: It was a question, I believe, of the relationship, and his question is whether we need to look at this in more detail, that is, the relationship between children and their natural parents. What prompts that, of course, is also this case that I believe is going on in either St. Catharines or London at this moment, where one of the natural parents is coming forward to, I guess, a lesbian relationship and wanting to be included in this process as a parent. When you say things like, there won't be any damage, what is going to happen with the family unit in the future, and should we question that?

Ms. Gemma Hickey: I think we should question everything. I think that's how we learn.

First, I think we should change the term from natural to biological. Natural, I think, is whatever the child is comfortable with, whatever the child is brought up in and feels naturally responsive to in respect of parents. So I don't think it will have any ramifications.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: In spite of the fact that there's a case going on where this child could end up with three parents?

Ms. Gemma Hickey: As I said in response to Mr. Cadman, I have my own experience being brought up with a variety of people, grandparents and parents. I don't speak for other lesbians and gays, but I think it would be beneficial if the third party were included. As I said, it's all relative. If the child is just brought up with two lesbian mothers, I don't think there would be any real ramifications.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: We'll always have exceptions, it seems from what we hear, to the rule. The question is, should we maintain a basic rule or a core structure, whereupon we'll have to deal as best we can with those who are the exceptions to the rule? Is that fair?

Ms. Gemma Hickey: That's fair.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Macklin.

I guess that is it. I want to thank the panel.

We have eight people who wish to make two-minute statements. They wanted to be panellists, but were not able to do that, given the limitation on the number of people.

Before we do that, I want to point out that it was in coming to Atlantic Canada that this debate has called upon George Orwell, Nietzsche, Kirkegaard, Confucius, Kent, Hume, Locke, Rousseau, Marx, Thomas Aquinas, Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato. This is the way we deal with things all the time.

Mr. Vic Toews: Just on that point, Mr. Chair, at Confederation it was in fact acknowledged that while Ontario and those far reaches would supply the brawn of the nation, the Maritimes would supply the intellectual capacity. I think this kind of an atmosphere here in the Maritimes just brings out the best in people in that respect.

The Chair: I will suspend for a moment while we get the stand-up mic ready.

¹ (1544)

¹ (1547)

The Chair: As I explained before the suspension of the meeting, we have eight people who have asked to make two-minute statements. I would ask those folks to keep their statements to two minutes. We're going across the country and we're allowing for the same opportunity, and in the interest of equity, I would very much like to hold each of these statements to two minutes. You'll get an indication when the time is up.

First, Lara J. Morris.

Ms. Lara J. Morris (As Individual): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I welcome the committee to Halifax.

I support the option to extend marriage to include same-sex couples. I am a lawyer in private practice in Halifax, and my practice area involves mostly family law. I endorse the legal arguments of the Canadian Bar Association and equality-seeking groups like NSRAP and EGALE.

In my law practice and personally, I have experience with many different forms of family. I believe each of these forms of family should be supported to the fullest extent possible. I am the child of a single mother, and I grew up in the 1960s and 1970s, when that was kind of unusual. So I have personal experience of what it feels like to not be part of a traditional family. I believe very strongly extending to same-sex couples access to marriage will have a significant impact on the children in those families. I was usually the only child who was not part of a traditional family at my school and amongst my friends, and I think that had an impact on me, in the sense that I was part of something other, part of something different. Children of same-sex families--and we know there are children who are raised by same-sex couples, and that will continue to happen--should be given as much benefit of the law as possible, so that their differences are minimized amongst their peer groups. They will have their own challenges, they will have their own gifts in being raised in these kinds of families, but I think extending marriage will be helpful to these children.

Thank you.

¹ (1550)

The Chair: Thank you.

Edward B. Paul.

Mr. Edward B. Paul (As Individual): Mr. Chairman, distinguished committee members, thanks for the opportunity to speak today.

I'm speaking as an individual, but also representing my Lord and personal saviour Jesus Christ. When you look at the prophets in the Old Testament, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, the Jewish people hold them in high esteem. The reason is that what they said was going to happen actually did happen. They didn't hold them in high esteem while they were alive, because they were persecuted, they were murdered, but everything they said so far has proven true. Part of what they said was the prophecies about the messiah. There are over a hundred prophecies about the messiah, all fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ. If you're a mathematician looking at over a hundred variables, you do the math and figure out what the probability is that one person would be fulfilling each and every prophecy over a hundred times. Jesus himself confirmed what the Lord Almighty said in Genesis to do with the marriage institution, that a man will leave his mother and father and join with his wife, and the two will become one flesh. Jesus himself said that in the New Testament to confirm and ratify what was already said just after Adam and Eve were created in Genesis.

In Lee Strobel's book The Case for Christ it is said that no intelligent jury in the entire world would possibly, with all the evidence that is given, have reasonable doubt that Jesus died and rose again. If what the Bible is saying is true, we're looking at what is actually true, and there is an absolute truth. If there is an absolute truth, we should at least look at it and consider it.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Brenda Richard.

Ms. Brenda Richard (As Individual): I'm a faculty member at Dalhousie University.

Today we've heard the word caution a lot, that we have to be careful not to move too quickly. I was reminded of Thurgood Marshall, when he was a civil rights activist, saying, we've waited over 90 years, perhaps we've waited long enough. Also, NSRAP in their presentation talked about Brown v. the Board of Education, and when that law came into effect there was social disruption. We all remember that when the nine African-American children went forward in Little Rock, Arkansas, there was social disruption, because bigoted people wanted to lynch those children. The governor at the time, Faubus, was able to be a hero to those bigots, but in history he was disgraced, and I think some of what we do today will be judged at a later time.

Our oppression is one of stigma. We live with an oppression that ridicules us and makes us subject to harassment, bullying, and physical violence. We're excluded and we're embarrassed, some of us on a daily basis. When we are refused civil rights other people have, it's a way of the government reinforcing that kind of oppression, and it's a very important message to other people that it's okay.

Earlier people talked about research. In an environment where you have such stigma, you cannot have research, because people can't come forward. They can't come forward in a safe environment to tell you their positive stories. They can't come forward because the research won't be supported by a government. We know that from the United States experience with HIV/AIDS, and we know it here. The gay and lesbian community itself has been marginalized. Consequently, this is the first census, I believe, that ever asked gay and lesbian people to be included. Therefore, how do we talk about statistics?

One last point I have to make is that gay and lesbian people want to be members of legitimized families, and all families have gay and lesbian people within them.

¹ (1555)

The Chair: Maureen Shebib.

Ms. Maureen Shebib (As Individual): Hello.

Throughout the day many of you have asked many of us to reassure you that there's no danger to the institution of marriage, and you've been asking to be convinced that no harm will come to current heterosexual forms of family. Essentially, you've been asking us why you shouldn't go really slow, because there are apparently some people who think that's a good idea. With all due respect, if I had my druthers, there'd be a parliamentary panel comprised of lots of gay and lesbian people sitting around the table inviting people to convince them why gay and lesbian people shouldn't be afraid of the traditional institution of marriage, frankly. I'm not personally, even as a lesbian, entirely convinced that there aren't some fears that ought to be shared on our side of the equation. However, out of respect for my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters who do want to exercise the right to marriage, I'm here to support that, even if I never choose to exercise that right myself, should it ever be granted.

I want to go now to the issue of going slow, and some previous speakers have certainly attended to this. It was 1929 before women were recognized as persons in this country, and I wonder, if we had gone any slower then, where we'd be today. Into the 1940s in this country it was still quite legal to discriminate against black people and refuse them service in restaurants, bars, and virtually anywhere. I wonder, if we had gone any slower, where we'd be today. It was not until the 1960s that aboriginal people in this country got the right to vote. I'm wondering, if we'd gone any slower on that, whether we'd think that was a good idea. So don't go slowly.

The Chair: Kevin Kindred.

Mr. Kevin Kindred (As Individual): Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to speak.

I'd like to thank Mr. Toews for his earlier recognition of the Maritimes as providing the brainpower of the nation. I do wonder what that says about the fact that we've chosen not to elect any members of his party to represent us.

Essentially, today we've heard two positions, for and against gay marriage. In my view, neither side has spoken to the fundamental question I see here, which is why the government is involved in the marriage business to begin with. Neither side has provided a good reason. I certainly have problems with the positions of people like Pastor Codling, who would have us affirm the beliefs of what he represents as the 15% to 20% of Canadians who are Bible-believing Christians, but I also had some reservations about statements made on the other side, that gay marriage would afford us legal, social, and spiritual acceptance. Another phrase I wrote down was that gay marriage would provide us with legitimacy in the eyes of the law, government, and society. I find each of those position demonstrates something fundamentally illiberal about the fact that government is in the business of marriage to begin with. Each side presumes that the government has a legitimate role in validating and affirming what ought to be fundamental personal choices of individuals.

I think the debate you've heard today is one that should be left at the door, and the proper resolution should be a recognition of the fact that the state has no legitimate role in marriage or in resolving that debate.

º (1600)

The Chair: Bob Fougere.

Mr. Bob Fougere (As Individual): Hi. I'm going to give you a two-hour speech in two minutes.

I grew up in a Catholic family. When I was 11 years old, I started to have these warm, gushy feelings with other boys. I was 40 years old before I was able to have the freedom to realize what it was. At 11 years old, I didn't have the language, but I knew there was something wrong with it, it was often banned, so I had to hide for 40 years. I was married for 22 years, I had two children--who are very normal, by the way--and I also have two grandchildren--who are very normal, by the way. None of them, as far as we know, is gay. That's not a bad thing or a good thing, that's just the way it is. Somebody alluded to the fact that I might have gone to that state. In my case it wasn't a choice of going to that state. I don't know why I was that way, but that's the way I am.

I'm really lucky today. I have a life partner. We've been together for 12 years, living in a monogamous, wonderful relationship, and I know what happiness is now, which I didn't know for the first 40 years of my life. That's what it's all about. We want to have the option of getting married, and it's not there. It's up to you people to give that to us.

I'm an old guy who's been retired for a while, but I work with a youth project. Many of those young men come to our group and tell us they want to have children, they want to be married, they want to be in a long-term, committed relationship. That's what the gay youth of our nation are telling us. Let's listen to them.

We talk about the Bible, and one of my favourite passages is II Samuel, chapter one, where David talks about Jonathan. Jonathan has just been killed, and David says about Jonathan, I loved that man as I would love a woman.

The Chair: Reginald Bone.

Mr. Reginald Bone (As Individual): Good afternoon.

I belong to one of the church organizations Pastor Codling was talking about, one of those 15% that are Bible-believing churches, very strongly so. First, let me, on behalf of the Christian action committee, Church of the Nazarene, Canada Atlantic District, thank the justice committee members for the opportunity to attend and present this submission.

As Christians, our understanding of the structure and nature of marriage is founded on the biblical account of the creation of man and woman: God did not create Adam and Steve. Genesis 1 and 2 state that God created man and woman to fulfil the need of their intimate partnership and to carry out the mandate given by God in Genesis 1.28, to be fruitful and increase in number, fill the earth and subdue it. Jesus reiterated this understanding when he said, “Haven't you read that at the beginning the creator made them male and female and said, for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?” That's found in Matthew 19.4 and 5.

The institution of marriage was ordained by God in the time of man's innocence and is, according to the apostolic authority, honourable in all. It is the union of one man and one woman for fellowship, healthfulness, and the propagation of the race. With all due respect, it is not possible in a homosexual or lesbian relationship. In biblical teaching marriage is the commitment of male and female to each other for life, reflecting Christ's sacrificial love for the Church.

The Church of the Nazarene views human sexuality as one expression of the holiness and beauty God the creator intended for his creation. It is one of the ways by which the covenant between a husband and wife is sealed and expressed. This is the strongest statement we make. Homosexuality is one means by which human sexuality is perverted. We recognize the depth of perversion that leads to homosexual acts, but affirm the biblical position that such acts are sinful and subject to the wrath of God. We believe the grace of God is sufficient to overcome the practice of homosexuality: I Corinthians, 6 and 9 to 11.

º (1605)

The Chair: Mr. Bone, your time is up.

Mr. Reginald Bone: Sorry about that.

The Chair: Thank you.

Jane Morrigan.

Ms. Jane Morrigan (As Individual): Good day, committee.

I'm an instructor at the Nova Scotia Agricultural College. I am 51 years old, and I have been a lesbian for 32 years, and very proud of it.

I have been following the press and some of the presentations that have been made before this hearing today, and I am so grateful that we have a Human Rights Act in Canada and that we have a human rights committee that is empowered to implement that act. I hope you members of this committee take that mandate and that responsibility very seriously, because our opposition is that of righteousness. Your responsibility is that of implementing the human rights of all Canadian citizens.

On a very personal level, I know the damage and the harm that is done by statements such as we just heard. I have listened to them all the 32 years since I came out, and I have brothers and sisters who have taken their own lives as a result of the harm that has been done by such statements and other less strident statements along the same continuum, that we who are gay and lesbian or members of the LGBT communities in Canada are somehow less. The very first woman I fell in love with, who was my best friend back in 1974, is the mother of two beautiful children, who have grown up and have families of their own, with whom I maintain contact. There is no one who can stand in front of me and tell me that our relationship was anything less than deserving of all the civil rights that are accorded other citizens of this country.

Whether I personally would choose to marry or not is not as important as the fact that I do support our right to make that choice if we so desire.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Diana Read-Miedema.

Ms. Diana Read-Miedema (As Individual): I want to thank you for taking the time to go across Canada and check all this out.

I am a tax accountant, and tax-wise, it would be very important, as with the common-law marriages, for something to be established. What concerns me as a tax accountant is children, and not just as a tax accountant. I'm a widow with three children, three teenagers now. It's always been the husband's last name that goes to the children. We're talking about a slow process, for many reasons. There are many things that have to be figured out, even with last names. That's a big one for the children that no one's even talked about, although I wasn't here this morning.

As a born-again Christian, I want to apologize to the gays and lesbians in this room for the bigotry that has existed across the world. I know I am literally nothing, but I want to ask their forgiveness for the bigotry, the same as what the blacks went through. However, it doesn't change my understanding. My husband and I did have a ministry before he died, and I have seen homosexuals in Toronto seek the Lord and see what to do. I have seen them coming to the Lord in a strong way and being delivered. Nobody prayed for them or laid hands on them or cast demons out or made it any big issue, but I did see the presence of the Lord. So that's just something to consider.

Revelation, as I've told my children, mentions sodomy, but it also mentions adultery, fear-mongering, and all these things, and there are a lot of Christians that are very self-righteous because they do not approve of homosexuality, but when they go before the judgment seat of Jesus Christ, they're going to have to answer to a lot of sin in their life. I've taught my children that sodomy might be one thing, but there are many other things the Lord wants us all to have a pure heart in, not just blackmailing a certain segment--lying, deceiving, cheating, which we see in government all the time. These are serious things before God.

º (1610)

The Chair: I believe that brings today's hearings to a close. Many of you have been here since we got here this morning. I want to thank those who appeared as witnesses and continue to be here now. I invite all of you to stay interested. We'll be in Sussex, New Brunswick, tomorrow, continuing to draw upon the wisdom of Atlantic Canada.

The meeting is adjourned.