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

Wednesday, April 9, 2003

0905

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

Mrs. Barbara Stachulak (Roman Catholic Dioceses of Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay, Hearst and Timmins)

0910

The Chair

Professor Gary Kinsman (Laurentian University, As Individual)

0915

The Chair

Ms. Denise Francey (As Individual)

0920

0925

The Chair

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

0930

Mrs. Barbara Stachulak

Reverend Anthony Man-Son-Hing (Chancellor and Secretary to the Bishop, Roman Catholic Dioceses of Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay, Hearst and Timmins)

Mr. Richard Marceau

Prof. Gary Kinsman

Mr. Richard Marceau

0935

The Chair

Prof. Gary Kinsman

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.)

Anthony Man-Son-Hing

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Anthony Man-Son-Hing

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Anthony Man-Son-Hing

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

0940

Anthony Man-Son-Hing

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Anthony Man-Son-Hing

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

The Chair

Ms. Denise Francey

The Chair

Prof. Gary Kinsman

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance)

0945

Prof. Gary Kinsman

The Chair

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.)

Prof. Gary Kinsman

0950

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Prof. Gary Kinsman

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.)

Mrs. Barbara Stachulak

Mr. John Maloney

0955

Mrs. Barbara Stachulak

Mr. John Maloney

Mrs. Barbara Stachulak

Mr. John Maloney

Mrs. Barbara Stachulak

Mr. John Maloney

Mrs. Barbara Stachulak

Mr. John Maloney

The Chair

1005

Mr. Douglas Edwards (Congregational Christian Church)

1010

Mrs. Lily Murphy (As Individual)

The Chair

Ms. Diane Ikonen (As Individual)

1015

Ms. Colleen O'Hare (As Individual)

1020

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Ms. Colleen O'Hare

1025

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Douglas Edwards

1030

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Diane Ikonen

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Diane Ikonen

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Diane Ikonen

1035

The Chair

Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.)

Mr. Douglas Edwards

Hon. Diane Marleau

The Chair

Ms. Colleen O'Hare

1040

Hon. Diane Marleau

Ms. Colleen O'Hare

Hon. Diane Marleau

Ms. Colleen O'Hare

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Douglas Edwards

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Mr. Douglas Edwards

The Chair

Ms. Diane Ikonen

1045

The Chair

Ms. Diane Ikonen

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Douglas Edwards

Mr. John Maloney

1050

Mr. Douglas Edwards

Mr. John Maloney

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Diane Ikonen

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Ms. Diane Ikonen

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

1055

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

Ms. Diane Ikonen

Mr. John McKay

Ms. Diane Ikonen

1100

The Chair

Mr. Greg Mayhew (Glad Tidings Tabernacle)

1110

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Chuck Cadman)

Ms. Lita McDonald (As Individual)

1115

Ms. Lisa Jensen (As Individual)

Ms. Lita McDonald

1120

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Chuck Cadman)

Mr. Vic Toews

Ms. Lita McDonald

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Greg Mayhew

1125

The Chair

Ms. Lita McDonald

The Chair

Ms. Lisa Jensen

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Greg Mayhew

1130

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Greg Mayhew

Mr. Richard Marceau

1135

Mr. Greg Mayhew

The Chair

Hon. Diane Marleau

Mr. Greg Mayhew

1140

Hon. Diane Marleau

Mr. Greg Mayhew

The Chair

Ms. Lita McDonald

1145

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Serviss (Glad Tidings Tabernacle)

1150

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Kevin Serviss

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Kevin Serviss

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Serviss

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Serviss

The Chair

Ms. Lita McDonald

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

1155

Mr. Greg Mayhew

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

The Chair

Professor Margaret Denike (National Association of Women and the Law)

1305

1310

The Chair

Ms. Jane Djivre (As Individual)

1315

The Chair

Reverend Michael Mieto (Associate Pastor, All Nations Church)

1320

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

1325

Prof. Margaret Denike

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Prof. Margaret Denike

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Rev. Michael Mieto

Mr. Chuck Cadman

1330

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Rev. Michael Mieto

Mr. Richard Marceau

Rev. Michael Mieto

Mr. Richard Marceau

Rev. Michael Mieto

Mr. Richard Marceau

1335

Rev. Michael Mieto

Mr. Richard Marceau

Rev. Michael Mieto

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Rev. Michael Mieto

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

1340

Rev. Michael Mieto

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Prof. Margaret Denike

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

1345

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Prof. Margaret Denike

Rev. Michael Mieto

Prof. Margaret Denike

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Rev. Michael Mieto

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Vic Toews

1350

Prof. Margaret Denike

Mr. Vic Toews

Prof. Margaret Denike

Mr. Vic Toews

Prof. Margaret Denike

Mr. Vic Toews

Prof. Margaret Denike

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

Prof. Margaret Denike

1355

Mr. John McKay

Prof. Margaret Denike

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

1400

The Chair

Rev. Michael Mieto

The Chair

Reverend Gary Landers (As Individual)

1410

1415

The Chair

Ms. Krystie Coyne (As Individual)

1420

Mrs. Kathy Coyne (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

1425

Rev. Gary Landers

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Ms. Krystie Coyne

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

1430

The Chair

Rev. Gary Landers

Mr. Richard Marceau

Rev. Gary Landers

1435

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

1440

Ms. Krystie Coyne

Mr. John McKay

Ms. Krystie Coyne

Mr. John McKay

Ms. Krystie Coyne

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

1445

The Chair

Ms. Krystie Coyne

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney

Rev. Gary Landers

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Rev. Gary Landers

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Rev. Gary Landers

1450

The Chair

Rev. Gary Landers

The Chair

Rev. Gary Landers

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Reverend Robert Wilkins (First Baptist Church)

1505

The Chair

Mr. Marco Thériault (Coordinator, Health Choices Program, ACCESS—AIDS Committee of Sudbury)

1515

The Chair

Ms. Wanda Eurich (As Individual)

1520

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

1525

Rev. Robert Wilkins

The Chair

Rev. Robert Wilkins

The Chair

Rev. Robert Wilkins

Mr. Richard Marceau

1530

Mr. Marco Thériault

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Marco Thériault

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Marco Thériault

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney

Rev. Robert Wilkins

Mr. John Maloney

Rev. Robert Wilkins

1535

Mr. John Maloney

Rev. Robert Wilkins

Mr. John Maloney

Ms. Wanda Eurich

The Chair

Mr. Marco Thériault

1540

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

Ms. Wanda Eurich

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Ms. Wanda Eurich

1545

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Marco Thériault

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Marco Thériault

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Marco Thériault

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Marco Thériault

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Marco Thériault

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Marco Thériault

1550

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Marco Thériault

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Rev. Robert Wilkins

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Rev. Robert Wilkins

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Rev. Robert Wilkins

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

1555

Rev. Robert Wilkins

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

1605

Ms. Linda Morgan (As Individual)

The Chair

Ms. Christine Mick (As Individual)

1610

The Chair

Ms. Christine Mick

The Chair

Ms. Sandra Houzer (As Individual)

The Chair

Ms. Sandra Houzer

The Chair

Ms. Sandra Houzer

1615

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Perreault (As Individual)

The Chair

Ms. Jennifer Howe (As Individual)

The Chair

Ms. Dawn Kelly (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Duncan MacRae (As Individual)

1620

The Chair

Mr. Duncan MacRae

The Chair

Mr. David Jones (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Jesse Greenwell (As Individual)

1625

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

NUMBER 035

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, April 9, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): I call to order the 35th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to standing order 108(2), the committee is resuming its study on marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions.

Good morning, bienvenue, to the panel and those who are here to observe. And a special welcome to Diane Marleau, our colleague. Thank you very much for joining us.

The way we proceed from now until 10 o'clock is that we will hear from witnesses representing the dioceses of Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay, Hearst, and Timmins, as represented by Barbara Stachulak and Anthony Man-Son-Hing.As individuals, we have Gary Kinsman, who is a professor at Laurentian University, and Denise Francey.

So without further ado, I'm going to go to the dioceses of Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay, Hearst, and Timmins, to Barbara Stachulak and Anthony Man-Son-Hing.

Mrs. Barbara Stachulak (Roman Catholic Dioceses of Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay, Hearst and Timmins): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

The bishops from the Roman Catholic dioceses of Sault Ste. Marie, Hearst, Timmins, and Thunder Bay, comprising more than 400,000 people, thank the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for the invitation to make this presentation on the topic of marriage and same-sex unions. These dioceses are made up of anglophones, including various ethnic groups; francophones; and first nations peoples.

[Translation]

I am appearing before you on behalf of His Excellency Monsignor Jean-Louis Plouffe, Bishop of the Diocese of Sault Ste. Marie, which includes Algoma, Sudbury and Nipissing, as well as His Excellency, Monsignor Frederick Colli, Bishop of Thunder Bay, His Excellency, Monsignor Paul Marchard, Bishop of the Diocese of Timmins, and His Excellency, Monsignor André Vallée, Bishop of Hearst. The bishops delegated me because they are all in Toronto this week for the spring semi-annual meeting. This presentation will be given in English because that is my mother tongue, although I do know French and Polish.

[English]

Regarding the Catholic position on marriage, we believe that the institution of marriage faces many crises today. The western tradition has, from the beginning, viewed marriage in at least four perspectives. First of all, marriage is a contract formed by the mutual consent of the marital couple, and subject to their wills. Marriage is a spiritual association, subject to the creed and canons of the religious community. Marriage is a social estate, subject to special state laws and to the expectations of the local community. Lastly, marriage is a natural institution, subject to the natural laws taught by reason, conscience, nature, and customs.

In one way, these four perspectives are complementary, for they each emphasize one aspect of this institution—its voluntary formation; its religious sanction; its social legitimation; and its natural origins. To omit one of these and to call the resulting partnership marriage is to end with something that is not marriage.

The church professes that marriage, as the sacrament of the covenant between husband and wife in body, soul, and mind, symbolizes the eternal union between Christ and his church. Participation in this sacrament confers sanctifying grace upon the couple and the community. On this point the church cannot yield to cultural pressures, no matter how widespread and militant they may be.

Roman Catholic theology teaches that the sacramental celebration of marriage is the public affirmation of the love existing between man and woman. This love is lived out each day as the married couple testifies to the presence of Christ in the world. Married love is therefore a proclamation of the word of God, which is made within the church as a community of believers, and with the church as a witness to the rest of the world.

As for the social view of marriage, research has shown that marriage results in long-lasting relationships in the majority of cases. The 2001 census shows that, of the 8.4 million families in Canada, 5.9 million or 70% are married couples, 16% are lone parents, 14% are common-law partners, and half of 1% are same-sex partners.

Regarding the global perspective on marriage, Canada is not the only country currently examining the traditional structure of marriage. The question is being entertained in many other parts of the world. Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, president of the Pontifical Counsel for the Family at the Vatican, states that “A cultural manipulation that tries to bestow credibility on cohabiting and same-sex couples is seriously threatening the survival of the family”. At a “most difficult historical time for the survival of the family and of its human reality, the institution of the family continues to be a necessary good and important truth, the basis and foundation of human coexistence”. In Great Britain and Australia, as mentioned in my brief, concerns also exist with respect to homosexual parenting.

Regarding marriage in northern Ontario, in the past the majority of people in northern Ontario chose to marry and to have children. The traditional family unit, made up of a father, mother, and children, has formed the fundamental essence of believing and evangelizing communities. Although this structure continues to be the ideal, it is presently in danger in this part of the province, as it is in other parts of the country, because of new notions of marriage.

The bishops of northern Ontario feel that it would be further threatened if the government were to legalize same-sex unions. We are basically an immigrant society with European values, traditions, and customs. The bishops of northern Ontario, as pastoral leaders of the church in this part of the province, want marriage to be maintained as an opposite-sex union.

¿ (0910)

In summary, we thank the committee for the invitation to participate in this discussion, which is of essential importance to the Catholics of northern Ontario. We strongly urge you to maintain this distinction and definition of marriage, as it promotes the well-being of mind, body, and spirit and is in keeping with the natural law.

[Translation]

Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to share the position of a number of northern Ontarians on the concept of marriage. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, merci.

I now turn to Mr. Kinsman and Ms. Francey, for seven minutes.

Professor Gary Kinsman (Laurentian University, As Individual): Good morning. The title of my brief is “Don't get me to the Church on Time: Ending Social Discrimination Against Same-sex and other Relationships”. I have the brief divided into a number of sections.

The first one, which I think is really important to start with, is the long history of systematic legal and social discrimination against lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, two-spirited people, and transgendered people in Canadian history.

The context for discussion of same-sex marriage needs to be set in the long history of systematic social discrimination against lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, two-spirited people, and transgendered people in Canadian history, which I document in my book, The Regulation of Desire: Homo and Hetero Sexualities. This includes the deeply rooted practices of discrimination against same-sex sexualities that were embodied in the Christian churches, including the Catholic Church. In the criminal law, same-sex sexual acts were criminalized and still are in some very major ways, directing the police against consensual same-sex acts and helping to construct homosexuality as having a criminal character. This has also been linked to the construction of notions of homosexuality and lesbianism as supposedly pathological, psychopathic, deviant, sick, or sinful in psychiatry, psychology, sociology, religious discourse, and in the mass media and popular culture.

Lesbians and gay men were also constructed as being supposed risks to national security, with hundreds losing their jobs in the public service and the military from the 1950s on. Support for these practices of social discrimination was enforced through official state policy from Confederation until the late 1990s and still exists in some very major areas.

These policies began to change only with the emergence of the gay and lesbian liberation movements. It's in this context that there has been a long history of systematic state and social discrimination against lesbian and gay relationships. The exclusion of lesbians and gay men from mainstream definitions of family and spousal relationships has organized oppression and marginalization in the lives of millions of people in Canada.

It has been only through social and legal struggles that advances have been made on these fronts, and the Canadian government has always had to be forced, almost kicking and screaming, to make the changes that are clearly mandated by principles of social justice and the equality rights section of the charter. The Catholic Church hierarchy has fought against every one of these equality moves.

The active exclusion of same-sex couples from the right to marriage in a context where marriage gives people's relationships greater social recognition and social privilege is a practice of social discrimination. The privileging of different-sex relationships in terms of the right to marry and the exclusion of same-sex couples from these rights is a practice of discrimination that must be ended.

But we also have to look at the history of marriage. If we look at the social character and history of marriage, what we see is that marriage historically in western cultures has to do with securing the patriarchal rights of individual men over their wives and children and with securing the transfer of private property rights to legitimate offspring.

As feminists have pointed out, the history of marriage is a history of patriarchal relations. It is important to remember that it was only in 1983 in Canada that a husband could be charged for sexually assaulting his wife. Prior to that, he was given legal right of access to his wife's body at any time, since it was assumed that through marriage he now owned her body.

Although there have been some very important changes in family and marriage law as a result of the feminist movement, this patriarchal and private property focus still informs marriage as a social practice and institution. At the very same time, marriage is constructed in state and social policy as the most privileged and important type of relationship. Marriage has granted social privileges that are denied to other types of social relationships, as is pointed out very clearly in the Law Commission of Canada report called Beyond Conjugality. Some types of relationships between people are treated differently than others, and this is also an important social practice of discrimination.

The next section is entitled “Formal Equality”. On the basic grounds of formal equality, the active exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is a practice of discrimination that must be ended. As long as different-sex couples can get married and this right is denied to same-sex couples, discrimination is going on. This also means that structuring some form of different but secondary form of same-sex relationship recognition that continues to deny the right to marriage to same-sex couples while allowing different-sex couples to marry will also be a continuing practice of discrimination.

¿ (0915)

At the very same time, we have to recognize that state institutionalization of marriage as a type of privileged relationship in comparison to other types of relationships in our society--for instance, common-law relationships, lesbian and gay couples, people raising children on their own, people providing support for people living with disabilities--is also a practice of social discrimination. I think we have to search for some important alternatives. As long as only different-sex couples can get married and same-sex couples cannot, there is a practice of discrimination going on that must be ended. At the very same time, as I've pointed out above, state institutionalized marriage is itself a state practice of discrimination against other forms of relationships, and it must be ended.

We have to begin to define and support relationships beyond the limitations of patriarchal and private-property-based notions of marriage. Instead, we need to recognize and support individuals and relationships on the basis of principles of social justice, on the basis of democracy, autonomy, equality, consent, choice, and the redistribution of wealth to those living in poverty and hardship. Those raising children and supporting other dependents require--and those living in poverty also require--special forms of social support. But all individuals in relationships require social support and recognition.

It is for these reasons I argue for the ending of state institutionalized recognition of marriage. This will end state institutionalized marriage as a social discriminatory practice against other forms of social and sexual relationships.

If people wish to enter into marriage relationships, it would then be a religious or private matter that would have no bearing on how state and social policy would address and deal with people. All social and sexual relationships built on principles of democracy, autonomy, and mutual consent would then be recognized equally, and we could move away from the practices of discrimination against single-parent-headed households, same-sex relationships, or other social and support relationships that people organize in their lives.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Francey, for seven minutes.

Ms. Denise Francey (As Individual): Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak this morning.

I'm a full-time student at Laurentian University and I'm not only speaking for myself, but I'm also speaking for a group known as Pride@LU. This group exists primarily to provide social support and advocacy for gay, lesbian, and transgendered students studying at Laurentian University. It's not an exclusive organization. We welcome all, and a number of our members aren't gay.

Our position on the issue of same-sex marriage is quite straightforward: not allowing same-sex couples the privileges and obligations of civil marriage is discriminatory. Whether one views this as discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender, it is nonetheless discrimination and would appear, from our humble vantage point, to be contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

When I say discrimination based on gender, the mere fact that I can't marry my significant other is because I'm not a male. If I had a penis, I could marry her. If I had a sex change, I could marry her. I don't want to do that. I'm happy being a woman.

We do admit to having a hard time making any particular case as to why same-sex couples should have the right to marry. It seems to us that it is a case of fundamental human rights that two people of the same sex who are in a committed relationship should have the same privileges as two people of the opposite sex. To us, arguing for same-sex marriage would be similar to arguing that people of colour should be granted the same rights and freedoms as white people. It seems not to do so is just fundamentally unjust.

Many of the groups presenting in opposition to same-sex marriage do so from a religious standpoint, yet many of these groups already have their own rules surrounding marriage within their religions that are at variance with the civil institution of marriage. For example, within some faiths divorced people may not remarry; candidates for marriage must be practising members of that faith; and in some faiths, the people seeking marriage must even be physically capable of procreation.

It's not our intention to interfere with any of these doctrines or sacraments. Freedom of religion is an inherent right and must be protected. However, we're not talking here about religious doctrines, but rather a civil institution. If gay and lesbian people wish to influence change within their faiths, that is a completely separate issue from that of civil marriage.

Many religions consider sexual activity out of wedlock to be immoral and prohibited. However, gay and lesbian people are not asking for permission to engage in sexual activity. They already enjoy that freedom--after a long-fought battle, I might add. They don't need a licence for sex; they wish to marry so they may make long-lasting commitments that have both social and legal recognition. To deny marriage is to simply classify them as second-class citizens.

There's a prevailing view among moral conservatives that same-sex marriage is unnatural and goes against the laws of nature. We wish to remind the committee that within the last hundred years, interracial marriages were often argued as being unnatural and against the laws of nature, and even were forbidden in many cases in Canada. Today we would consider such a prohibition to be immoral and unjust.

We also wish to remind the committee that within the last hundred years the institution of marriage has changed dramatically within Canada. For example, women became persons in the eye of the law. It is only within the last century that wholly civil marriages were permitted in this country. Prior to that they had to be religious. It's important to note that this separation of church and state has occurred and continues to evolve. One might ask why the church continues to want to control the institution of civil marriage.

Some would argue that the purpose of marriage is for procreation only. This view is generally presented within a religious context. If the object of marriage is procreation, should we restrict older people from marrying solely because of infertility? For that matter, should we prohibit any infertile or physically disabled people from marrying?

¿ (0920)

We've even heard the illogical argument that allowing same-sex marriage will ultimately result in the elimination of our species, for lack of procreation. This argument is flawed in two major aspects. First, the population within the world is growing at an exponential rate and one would think that less procreation would be a good thing. Secondly, however, the argument assumes that if one does not marry a same-sex partner one will marry an opposite-sex partner and procreate, which doesn't seem to be a logical assumption. One expects they would just continue the same-sex relationship out of wedlock.

Another argument often made is that homosexuality is fundamentally wrong or against God's law. We must be careful to recognize that this is not the issue being considered by the committee. Canadian people have already decided that homosexuality is not wrong and have cemented this opinion within legislation and within the very fabric of our society.

In summation, one might ask why same-sex couples should have the right to marry. We would ask why not? Granting same-sex couples the right to marry does not interfere with anyone else's rights, nor does it interfere with anyone's religious beliefs. There is no evidence that it will have an adverse effect on Canadian society, but rather if one buys the argument that marriage benefits society by establishing legitimate and stable relationships, one can only conclude that the effect would be positive.

Gay people are not asking for special treatment here; we're asking for same treatment. While marriage provides privileges within our society, it also carries obligations. We're asking for both. We don't support an alternate form of legal recognition, because it only provides legal recognition and not social. Once again, denial of the right to marriage relegates us to a position of second-class citizenship. As an analogy, it would be like going back 100 years in the south and saying it's wrong to make people of colour sit in the back of the bus, so we'll give them a separate bus. It doesn't meet equality.

We also don't advocate the abolishment of the civil institution of marriage, solely because we feel to do so would infringe on the rights of those who already enjoy the privilege of the institution. Although marriage as it exists may be flawed, as a group we know well the feeling of having our rights restricted and we would not wish to do the same in turn.

Please consider our arguments when you deliberate on this important issue. We look forward to hearing the results and to becoming first-class citizens

Thank you very much.

¿ (0925)

The Chair: Thank you.

I'll go to Mr. Marceau for seven minutes.

[Translation]

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

Good morning. Thank you to all the witnesses for coming and presenting their point of view this morning. Despite the major differences in the various viewpoints, this was done in a very dignified and respectful manner. That's the kind of tone we like to see at this committee, because we are dealing with a very emotional issue involving values that a number of people hold very strongly.

My question is for Ms. Stachulak. First, you will agree with me that what we are discussing here, as lawmakers, is civil marriage, and that the state can allow things that run counter to the tenets of certain religious organizations. I think divorce is the best example. The state allows divorce, whereas the Catholic Church does not.

There is a fundamental issue we need to take into account, and that is freedom of religion. Other religious institutions, including the United Church, the Unitarian Church and certain branches of Reformed Judaism, have appeared before us and said they would like to be able to marry same-sex couples, their theological interpretation would allow them to marry same sex-couples, but their freedom of religion is impaired and limited because the state does not allow them to.

If the reverse were true, if this committee were to recommend that same-sex couples be allowed to get married, and if that recommendation were to be accepted subsequently, that would allow these churches and religious branches to marry same-sex couples, while maintaining the absolute right of the Catholic Church not to marry same-sex couples.

If the state were to allow same-sex marriage, would you fear that you would be compelled to marry same-sex couples? Is that one of the reasons why you oppose same-sex marriage?

¿ (0930)

[English]

Mrs. Barbara Stachulak: I'd like to turn this question over to Father Tony, because he has the expertise in terms of the religious point of view.

Reverend Anthony Man-Son-Hing (Chancellor and Secretary to the Bishop, Roman Catholic Dioceses of Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay, Hearst and Timmins): I believe that the church has spoken very much on its recognition of the value of human life and the value it gives to the dignity of all peoples. If the government were to allow same-sex unions to be recognized as marriages in other churches, while still giving the Catholic Church the right to celebrate marriage as only between one man and one woman, that might be okay. As long as that imposition were not made against the church, I think the church would be alright.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you.

Mr. Kinsman, you have heard what Father Man-Son-Hing has said. Would you be comfortable if the committee recommended that same-sex marriage be allowed and that the legislation contained a very clear and very specific provision saying, like article 367 of the Quebec Civil Code, that nothing could be interpreted in such a way as to compel a minister to perform a ceremony that would go against his religious principles? That would protect churches like the Catholic Church and the Baptist Church that are wholly against marrying same-sex couples. If the act contained such clear protection, would you be comfortable with that?

[English]

Prof. Gary Kinsman: There are basically two different aspects to my response to that question. One, on the level of formal equality in terms of civil marriage, if different-sex couples are allowed to marry under civil marriage, then same-sex couples also have to be given the legal right to marry. That would not infringe on the rights of certain religious groups, on whatever basis they wish to make a decision not to marry people.

But my broader concern is the way in which marriage is constructed as being the most socially privileged relationship, giving people extra rights and privileges over other people who are in relationships and who are not married. I would also want to go further and suggest that state-institutionalized marriage should actually be done away with. This would then mean that all marriages would be private contractual relationships between individuals, or would be done within religious communities.

I just wanted to clarify what my position was on that.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Our problem, as lawmakers, is that it is not up to the federal government to decide who can marry two people. Father Man-Son-Hing can marry two people because he is licensed by the province of Ontario to do so. Those who are authorized to perform marriage ceremonies are civil registrars. So it is not for us, as lawmakers, to say who may or may not marry people. The problem I see with your solution is a constitutional problem, and I can assure you that the two of us would not agree on how to solve it. The problem is that one province could say that marriage is purely civil, whereas another province might chose to have religious institutions perform marriages. We could get into a very lengthy process, and there would be inconsistencies from province to province. And if the provinces didn't agree, there would then be a problem of marriage recognition.

¿ (0935)

[English]

The Chair: Did you want to make a comment, Mr. Kinsman?

Prof. Gary Kinsman: Yes. I think that it's really important for us to recognize that there are still institutionalized practices of discrimination against lesbians and gay people in religious institutions in this country. These still present lots of problems and difficulties to people in the lesbian and gay communities, including discrimination that can go so far as to affect the ability of someone in a Catholic school to actually take their partner to the school prom. These are issues that we're still very concerned about, and we do not wish to have these forms of discrimination tolerated.

But in terms of marriage, we're arguing on the level of formal equality for exactly the same rights for different-sex couples and same-sex couples in civil marriage.

But I also want to raise an important question about how institutionalized marriage itself actually systematically discriminates against all sorts of other relationships that people are involved in in this society. This is a social policy question that relates to the federal government. This committee has the possibility of being forward looking and actually raising some important questions about how we could move away from state-institutionalized marriage as a practice of discrimination against other relationships, and move towards a different basis upon which we could support people's relationships that would not be based solely around conjugality and marriage.

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

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

I believe I heard you state, Father Man-Son-Hing, that your concern about broadening the definition of marriage is that it might be a threat to your church in terms of the potential for obliging you to marry same-sex couples. Is that a correct interpretation of what I thought I heard?

Anthony Man-Son-Hing: Yes.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: In looking at divorcees within your church, do you feel that in some way you are going to be put under pressure or attacked through the legal system to force you to deal with the marriage of divorcees?

Anthony Man-Son-Hing: The church has within its structure a process we call annulment, which we ask divorced couples to go through before we will recognize another marriage. That has already been in place for some time. Although it is difficult to go through that process, it is one of the places in which the church exercises a pastoral presence to those who need to heal a wounded relationship. So our experience in dealing with divorced Catholics has already been in place for many years.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: So you don't have a fear in relation to that in terms of your religious freedom.

With regard to the fact that you do not ordain women priests, do you feel that you might also be under attack through the legal system in that regard in terms of inequality?

Anthony Man-Son-Hing: I think that's outside the scope of what we're discussing today.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Not necessarily, if it goes to the issue of religious freedom and the protections provided by the charter. A number of religious institutions have indicated to us that one of the fears they have in this process of finding equality for members of our society is that they would fall under attack and within their religious institutions they would be required to do ceremonies, covenanting, blessing, and in your case a sacrament, on the basis that they were discriminating and that discrimination was inappropriate. The question then becomes, how do you feel about your protections with regard to religious freedom as provided under section 2 of the charter, and do you believe that protection is adequate for you?

That's where I'm coming from in terms of these questions.

¿ (0940)

Anthony Man-Son-Hing: I think that if you were to include a clause that said the Catholic Church would be outside the realm of that possibility, we could live with that. That would work.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: But at the moment you don't see that there is a “crack” within the constitutional protection you're provided under section 2 in terms of religious freedom.

Anthony Man-Son-Hing: At this point I don't.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Thank you, Father.

With regard to Mr. Kinsman and Ms. Francey, many people have come before us, from the heterosexual community for the most part, suggesting that marriage has had goodwill, if you wish, built up over a period of time that relates to a heterosexual relationship. Many of them, on questioning, appear not to be against equalizing rights generally, but they are concerned about the symbolism that marriage reflects and represents. They have suggested that it might be preferable to leave the word “marriage” as a symbol defining a heterosexual union and to allow those who would seek equality in all other respects to define themselves differently. I know that you've talked about different buses and so forth. I would like to know if there is some ground on which you might find that acceptable, to allow the community to build up its goodwill using a different form of identification, assuming that the rights generally would be the same.

The Chair: Ms. Francey.

Ms. Denise Francey: I suppose I can refer back to my brief. It's our feeling that to have some alternate form of recognition in itself doesn't give us the opportunity to enjoy the same social status as heterosexual unions would, and that is what we're seeking. We're seeking that equivalent social status; it is very important to legitimize our relationships in the eyes of society and not have them categorized as something different.

The Chair: Mr. Kinsman.

Prof. Gary Kinsman: It is precisely the heterosexual-only character of marriage that is one of its central discriminatory features in relationship to lesbian and gay relationships, so this is actually something that has to be tackled head-on. If marriage is only allowed to different-sex couples, it is a practice of discrimination that must be ended.

Now, if we actually moved away from state-institutionalized marriage, where it was no longer something the state used to differentiate between different types of relationships, and it became a religious or a private matter for people to enter into marriages, then it might actually be quite useful for the government and for social policy to formulate some other way of recognizing and providing support for relationships, but that would have to be for all relationships.

Constructing one set of relationships that's most privileged, one being only heterosexual in character, is going to continue to be a practice of discrimination, and people in our communities will have lots of difficulties with that.

The Chair: Mr. Toews, you have three minutes.

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): We've heard a number of statements from a number of presenters to this committee, Professor Kinsman, some you would perhaps agree with and some you may disagree with.

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada may have made a statement you would agree with. They state “At its core, this debate is about preserving the social, cultural, religious and legal means of facilitating the long term exclusive sexual bonding of male and female”. I know that you would take a different point of view than the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada does, but certainly that is what this debate is.

There's another statement made you may not agree with--and in fact you would not. Daniel Cere from McGill says “...upholding dignity and respect for gays and lesbians does not require assent to demands for the reconstruction of an institution fundamental to heterosexual bonding and critical to the social ecology of human life.” What Dr. Cere says about this particular institution is that it is not so much an institution to do with equality or equal rights as it is in fact a unique institution to preserve bonding between male and female. In that sense it is a uniquely heterosexual institution that has nothing to do with same-sex couples or that type of relationship.

I'm wondering if you could comment on Dr. Cere's position.

¿ (0945)

Prof. Gary Kinsman: I would actually strongly disagree with both of those remarks. What they seem to be arguing for--I should of course read them in context to fully grasp what they're trying to get at, but I haven't had that opportunity--is that somehow questions of equality rights shouldn't be applied to questions of marriage because there's some sort of unique or specific aspect of marriage that gives it this ability to have an only-heterosexual character to it without that being under the purview of the equality rights section of the charter. I would reject that.

In terms of how it's recognized socially and by state agencies, marriage is recognized as being the most important and the most privileged type of relationship. If lesbians and gay men are actively excluded from this type of relationship, that is a social practice of discrimination that must actually be ended. It is one of the terrains upon which discrimination against lesbians and gay men and against our relationships is actually organized in our society.

I would prefer us to move in the direction of moving away from state-institutionalized marriage so we can recognize the actual diversity of ways in which people live, so the types of discrimination that currently exist, for instance, between heterosexual married couples and heterosexual common-law couples, would also be ended.

The Chair: We'll have Mr. McKay, for three minutes.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Kinsman, you suggest that the ending of state institutionalization and recognition of marriage is the way to go here as an alternative. This is a somewhat curious idea, given that pretty well all social commentators before us and outside have suggested that marriage is probably the best institution for outcomes for both children and parents alike; that it has a stability factor like that of no other arrangement among human beings; that the economic outcomes for those families are better; that, as you should know, the educational outcomes for children out of those relationships are better; that the psychological outcomes are better; that the social outcomes are better, etc.

Yet you argue that the state should just can this institution, presumably eliminate it, and go on to some other institutions that are based more on democracy, equality, consent, choice, etc. It is a very curious position to take, given that the state gets huge benefits out of this institution and doesn't have to backstop it as it has to backstop all kinds of other relationships that exist in our society. Why would you invite the Government of Canada to can the institution of marriage, from which it gets an enormous benefit, in order to address issues of equality, democracy, consent, choice, and other reasons you put in your paper here?

Prof. Gary Kinsman: My suggestion is not that marriage would no longer exist. For those individuals who wanted to get married in a religious context or in terms of private contractual relationships, that would be entirely fine. But it would not mean that state agencies would actually address those relationships as having more rights and more privileges than other relationships.

Part of what you have just been describing is some of the outcomes of systematic social discrimination against other types of relationships. Because of the ways in which marriage is privileged in our society, it means, for instance, that single-parent-headed households get discriminated against. People trying to raise children in other contexts get discriminated against. Lesbian and gay couples who aren't allowed to be married get discriminated against. People providing support for people living with disabilities get discriminated against.

Part of what I'm talking about is that we actually need to have a social policy in relation to questions of social support to people in various, diverse forms of relationships that actually recognizes, first of all, the reality of what's going on in Canadian society, that lots of people are living in committed relationships that aren't related to marriage and that lots of people are raising children outside the context of marriage. We need to recognize that those relationships are also equally valid and deserve social support. We should not be privileging those individuals who actually enter into the relationship of marriage over all those other people who are involved in committed, long-term supportive relationships with other people.

I really think you might want to look again at some of the research and data that is pulled together in the Law Commission of Canada's Report called Beyond Conjugality, because I think they make some very important suggestions on how we could move forward in a creative way that would be much more defined by principles of social justice and not by notions of the cost-effectiveness of particular types of institutions.

¿ (0950)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Kinsman. I would note that the Law Commission appeared before the committee and presented their document.

Mr. Marceau, you have three minutes.

[Translation]

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

Prof. Kinsman, I know you have done a lot of thinking about this and are aware of what's going on in various provinces, including the establishment in Quebec of civil unions.

If Prof. Cere had a copyright and made money each time he was quoted in this committee, he would be very rich by now. However, I took a closer look at what he wrote in an article entitled Wars of the Ring, on the civil union debate in Quebec. I am going to read you some passages from his writings and would like you to comment on them.

[English]

“[T]he civil unions arrangement may put Quebec on a path that will foster a growing sexual apartheid between men and women.” He goes on to say, “Men will now have to compete against better-educated attractive women in the search for long-term spouses.” Then he asks, “Will men and women begin to cluster and gravitate into separate sexual spheres?”

[Translation]

In your opinion, have any of Prof. Cere's predictions come true after two years of civil unions in Quebec?

[English]

Prof. Gary Kinsman: It's quite clear from studies in Québec that none of those things have taken place. The development of civil unions and the registration of relationships beyond the limited confines of marriage have actually not had any of the suggested repercussions.

A lot of fear-mongering goes on, like the arguments that say, if we actually allow lesbian and gay couples to get married, or to have some sort of recognition for their relationships, it's going to mean the end of western Christian civilization. You hear this rhetoric a lot; it's overblown rhetoric that has nothing to do with actual social trends and actual social reality.

One of the things I would want to suggest is that if we do move away from state-institutionalized marriage, we may want to look at something like civil unions, or that type of process, as another way of registering and supporting a diversity of relationships in our society.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Maloney, for three minutes. That will probably wrap it up.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Ms. Stachulak, you've indicated that same-sex marriages would be a threat to family and a threat to heterosexual marriages. You've also indicated that in this region, same-sex couples make up roughly half of 1% of the—

Mrs. Barbara Stachulak: Not in this region, but across Canada.

Mr. John Maloney: That perhaps even emphasizes the situation more.

Why are you so afraid that one half of 1% of the people are such an onslaught on family or heterosexual marriages?

¿ (0955)

Mrs. Barbara Stachulak: I don't believe I'm afraid. I was just quoting a census where I was trying to state that 70% of families are married couples. That's what I was trying to say.

Mr. John Maloney: But you also indicated that same-sex marriages would be a threat to family. If it's so minuscule, why would it be a threat in itself to family and heterosexual marriage as we know them?

Mrs. Barbara Stachulak: Because, as I stated in my brief, marriage has four components. I stated that it is a contract; it is also a spiritual association, a social estate, and a natural institution. I would like to state here that natural law is very, very important in the sacrament of marriage.

Mr. John Maloney: We've also heard from many same-sex couples who feel that if their relationships were allowed, they would in fact reinforce family, because they are so committed to their respective relationships, whereas there doesn't seem to be the same commitment in many heterosexual relationships . What are your comments on their position?

Mrs. Barbara Stachulak: My comments would be that the definition of marriage would then have to change. We have to look at the Catholic teaching that respects the dignity of every human being. We have to be compassionate and sensitive, and we have to respect every person. But if we changed the definition of marriage, then it would not be marriage in the Catholic Church.

Mr. John Maloney: But it could be marriage in a church other than the Catholic Church?

Mrs. Barbara Stachulak: Perhaps.

Mr. John Maloney: Perhaps.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I want to thank the panel very much and to invite you to stick around, as we'll be here all day.

I would take the opportunity to ask the present panel to excuse themselves and the new panel to please step forward.

I'm going to suspend for three minutes.

¿ (0958)

À (1004)

The Chair: I call the 35th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights back to order.

From now until 11 o'clock, we will be hearing from one group, the Congregational Christian Church, as represented by Douglas Edwards and Lily Murphy. As individuals, we have Colleen O'Hare and Diane Ikonen, and Scott James Robertson.

You have seven minutes to make a presentation, whether as an organization or an individual—even if you are two. Then there'll be an opportunity for discussion back and forth.

With that, I'm going to turn to the Congregational Christian Church, and Douglas Edwards and Lily Murphy, for seven minutes.

À (1005)

Mr. Douglas Edwards (Congregational Christian Church): Christ is the end of the law, so there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. I thank you for the privilege here today. I would have hoped it was a right, but these standing committees seem to be the best-kept secrets. I understand a press release was to go out from our member of Parliament to inform the public, but this did not happen--or were the news media not interested?

The scripture says no man can serve two masters. If I come as the world does, why should I care? As I come with the leading of the Holy Spirit, I have to speak out.

We have seen how our government and the courts are being challenged by people who feel their rights have not been addressed. But then there are some who are more radical. I believe this to be happening in the case of the union of same-sex couples. They are out to prove a point and make a precedent.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms added to our Constitution has given everybody with an axe to grind the right to challenge. In a land where the government is supposed to be about the rights of everybody, it has been weakened to the rights of those who feel they're being discriminated against.

First it was the Lord's Prayer in the schools, then the removal of Christian emblems in public buildings. Now we see the right of one lifestyle being eroded by another. We see materials that promote homosexuality being allowed in the schools by a judge. The judge's ruling in essence stated that if your beliefs are on a moral issue based on religion, they are not valid.

On morality or political correctness, Canada was the only nation not to allow prayer at the memorial service on Parliament Hill on November 11, the Canadian armed forces chaplains are restricted, and the list goes on. The marriage of two people in itself is not the question here today; the question today is being able to use it in a way that takes God out of the picture.

It is my individual right to oppose what I feel is wrong, yet the law states that if I object to the use of our streets to something I don't condone, I am in violation. As an elder, if I refuse to allow the use of my church against my principal belief, will I be breaking the law? No. Marriage vows as we know them should remain as God ordained them. This radical movement is out to prove that there should be no variance between what I consider marriage and their right to be united under so-called legislation.

In a land that is following so-called political correctness, can we legislate our beliefs away because somebody opposes God? Does the difference in our cultures not mean we should respect and honour each other? What is happening to moral rights in Canada? Do we follow in the footprints of others because of their lifestyles? Just because other countries are more liberal, does this make them right?

Yes, I believe if a couple makes an honest commitment, they should have the right to be recognized. The law has given them the same rights under the income tax law. I don't believe the proposed Bill C-250 should take away my belief in what the scriptures say.

It is not an offence to lead people to Christ through the scriptures. The scripture tells us to love the sinner but not the sin. If the people we send to govern us accept the Bible as truth, how can they turn their backs on people they represent and allow this proposed bill to be passed? How soon will another bill be presented, perhaps to legalize prostitution?

In conclusion, if the people pushing this law to tear apart the definition of marriage--the joining of one man and one woman--are left to get their mandate of political correctness to change the definition of marriage under the guise of discrimination and add that to the laws of Canada, we'll crucify Christ twice by turning our backs on the cross. God is supreme, one only, for all people, regardless of race, colour, creed, or religion. In the end He will judge what is right in His eyes, not ours.

As a Christian I have taken my stand. Just remember, discrimination works both ways. I would pray that in the land we call Canada, the people be allowed to vote with their conscience if this comes to Parliament.

À (1010)

Mrs. Lily Murphy (As Individual): I am here today to express my feelings on same-sex marriages. The Bible tells me that homosexuality is wrong. So are many other things that are accepted in this world today. This does not mean that I hate those who practise it, but I do not agree with what they are doing.

Leviticus 20:13 says that if a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. To say that it is okay to accept same-sex marriages goes against that which God has ordained and what I choose to believe.

Genesis 2:24 says, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” If it were meant for woman to be with woman and man to be with man, mankind would have died off long ago. We would no longer exist. We have been designed by God--even if we claim we are accidentally evolved--to procreate. That is not possible when man lies with man or woman lies with woman. We need the opposite sex.

We are already looking at Bill C-250, which states that if courts force the legislation of homosexual marriages, clergies would be fined or even jailed for refusing to marry homosexuals in their church. If we allow this bill to be passed, we as pastors will eventually be forced to marry them because of discrimination.

Where have our rights gone? Why is it we Christians are forced to accept the things of the world and do away with the things of God? In a society where our children are no longer permitted to pray in schools; where Christ has been taken from Christmas concerts, yet on Halloween they are exposed to all kinds of witches, vampires, and devils; where they have to listen to evolution theory, but the teachers have to be very careful with creation; where in the classrooms, if a kid expresses their opinion on demonic cards, they are asked to apologize, and these are accepted in the schools--now we are asked to accept same-sex marriages in families. If we allow this to happen, it will be showing our children that this is acceptable and normal. Where have our rights as Christians gone?

I ask you today not to let this be passed. Do not force us to go against that which we believe, the undistorted word of God.

The Chair: Now to Diane Ikonen and Colleen O'Hare, for seven minutes.

Ms. Diane Ikonen (As Individual): Here in the centre of Sudbury it feels very much like being a citizen of Greece in the years 900 B.C. to 100 B.C., when the Greek form of government, known as demos, the people, was conceived and accepted. Just as Greek citizens congregated in Athens to discuss issues of importance, we thank you for this opportunity to present our concerns about the legal recognition of same-sex unions, and to ask you to keep the ideal of marriage protected in Canadian law.

We represent ourselves, as we speak for the universal feature of marriage. Marriage is the foundation of the family, society's responsibility to the family, responding to change and philosophy of government.

On the universal feature of marriage, across all cultures and religions since time immemorial, marriage has been defined and valued. This ideal of marriage is the solemn public commitment of one man and one woman to unite their lives to become one and be responsible for the rearing of any children they may produce. As with all ideals, personal and communal, we rarely live up to them, but it is necessary to have the goal before us in order to know in which direction we should head and to measure our progress.

If we compare the institution of marriage to agriculture, marriage is an apple. By definition and characteristics it cannot be said to be an orange. An apple is an apple, and an orange is an orange. They are both organic. One is not first class, one is not second class. Similarly, the comparison of marriage to slavery is to discredit marriage by connotation, and although some may experience marriage as a form of slavery, their histories are vastly different. Thus it is not fair or logical to compare marriage to slavery.

My second point is on marriage as the foundation of the family. Each new marriage forms the foundation of the next generation of our community and society. Therefore it is important to ensure that this foundation is solid and stable and able to provide the best possible environment and guidance for children. Healthy marriage is the best foundation for families and the raising of children and brings social stability, thus undergirding society.

It is well known that the way children are cared for has a direct impact on the quality and well-being of the community. For this reason, all of society has a great interest and responsibility in maintaining the integrity of the family unit.

Thank you.

À (1015)

Ms. Colleen O'Hare (As Individual): Society's interest and responsibility in enhancing the well-being of family is as expressed primarily through the laws and policies of the government. Laws and policies that assist and support marriage and the rearing of children serve to affirm the important role families carry in our society. When these laws are eroded and policies are negated, the importance of marriage and the family appears to be diminished.

The laws of the country not only serve to protect the interests and safety of its citizens, but they are also an effective instrument of instruction regarding the beliefs and values of its people. Strong laws protecting the integrity of marriage assist parents in their duty of transforming youth into sexually responsible adults.

As for responding to change, one feature that seems to be quite common in modern thought is that we must be changing, moving, and progressing. Times are said to have changed in that there is no longer a need for the old values and rules. Our contention is that people today are biologically and fundamentally the same as people have always been. We are born, we grow, we work, and we will die. New technologies have changed the way we work for our living, but the core of human beings today remains the same as it has always been—our passage through life, and experiencing all of the joys, sorrows, and challenges it offers, and our interaction with our family and friends. That's what we contend life is really all about. For this reason, our core values and the laws that enhance and protect all society are timeless and must always be safeguarded.

Canadian citizens are free to experience love and happiness in the relationship configuration that is legal and that they choose. However, these do not alter the definition of marriage, which is the bonding of two sex-opposite lives, weaving men, women, and offspring into complex genealogical histories and kinships and forming bridges between past, present, and future generations.

Regarding the philosophy of government, the Haudenosaunee people of the longhouse have a very rich and revealing philosophy of government, which we would be very wise to adopt when considering any legal recognition of same-sex unions. Their philosophy is that everything that we do today has an impact for seven generations. This means that community governance cannot be based on the wishes of individuals, but must be directed to the good of society far, far into the future. We think that many experts have already shared with you the calamitous consequences that may result if any of the proposed options for recognizing same-sex unions were to be passed into law.

Today, we ask that the Government of Canada use the notwithstanding clause of our Constitution to ensure that marriage remains recognized in Canadian law as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. We ask our MPs to make every effort to support our families—above all, by keeping marriage on the pedestal where it belongs.

Thank you so much.

À (1020)

The Chair: Thank you.

I should make the point that Bill C-250 is mentioned regularly in this discussion. I understand that it speaks to the question of the intersection of secular and religious freedoms, or secular rights and religious freedoms, so I understand why it would come up. But I think it's important for everybody to know that while we're also dealing with Bill C-250 as a committee, we are doing so apart from this study. I can understand why it would be relevant to this discussion in a general way, but I wouldn't want anybody to be confused. Bill C-250 is being dealt with by this committee this month, but in a different way.

Mr. Toews, for seven minutes.

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

And thank you for that clarification on Bill C-250, though I think it is a recurring theme that we hear from citizens who are concerned about the incursion of the state through state instruments, such as human rights commissions and courts, into the practice—not necessarily the beliefs but the practice--of religion in this country. I think we hear that concern raised time and again, and I think the fear is not a misplaced one.

Thank you very much for your presentation.

Wherever we come from on the issue of marriage, whatever the justification for the traditional definition of marriage, there's no question that the government and the people of Canada receive an immense benefit from this institution. Through statistics, we know that marriages are generally twice as stable as common-law relationships, and that second unions tend to be less stable; we know that there is a far lower risk of violence for women in intact marriages; and we know that children living with their two married biological parents are much less likely to experience neglect or abuse, or to witness violence, in the home. In fact, some of the testimony we've received, which I think is all based on credible and reliable statistics, indicates that almost one-half of child maltreatment cases, or about 44%, involve children living in lone-parent families. I'm not casting aspersions on any particular parents here, but when we as a Parliament look at these statistics, the statistics are staggering, and they are staggeringly in favour of biological two-parent families. Statistics Canada tells us this, and other statistics do.

So in looking at some of the proposals made, such as from one of the last panellists, who suggested that we radically reform marriage, I have to echo the concerns of my colleague Mr. McKay. Why should we dump this institution when it provides us with so much benefit, and given that the impact of what we do here today is so difficult to understand in a generational context? One of the witnesses indicated that what we do here today may be felt through seven generations; the decisions we make here may not impact on us at all, but may in fact impact seven generations away for good or bad. So I'm left with the question, why do we want to take that kind of risk?

In another forum, one of the witnesses suggested that what doesn't kill us will only make us stronger. It's hardly a principle on which I could go to my constituents and say, look, I think this is a real good idea; if it doesn't kill us, it's going to make us stronger. I think that's a very silly way of approaching social change.

I'm wondering if anyone wants to comment further on that issue.

The Chair: I recognize Ms. O'Hare.

Ms. Colleen O'Hare: As you are saying, I think that marriage is fundamentally beneficial to the whole of society. As a society, we don't recognize how beneficial it is, unless you go and really look at the issue and start studying things. It seems that we are just like a couple of fools in love who decide to get married because we want to be together, and then children may or may not come. Now, of course, you have a choice or not.

I think that we have this feeling underneath.... For instance, when I was talking with the friends I work with, the people I meet as a volunteer at an adult daycare centre, where there are a lot of handicapped people who we work with, I happened to mention that I was coming here today. I couldn't believe the response that I got from everyone there. They were saying, yes, it's a really good thing that you speak out for marriage and--as several people mentioned--for protecting our children. It wasn't until I received some information over the weekend from another study that I realized that traditionally, as a community, support for marriage is a guiding principle helping young people understand marriage and to grow in their respect for it. Otherwise, if we did not have that, young people are less likely to choose that commitment of marriage and its ties, as they are doing more and more now, because the strengthening of marriage has been reduced over the last few years.

I believe that we see a greater incidence of same-sex unions because young people are thinking there is really no difference between a same-sex union and a heterosexual union. But throughout history people have traditionally protected and formed those heterosexual unions for marriage in order to propagate the species and to make a safe environment for the children we have. Often we don't understand the complexities and the depth of that value.

À (1025)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

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

Thank you for your presentations, which were very interesting. My question is for Mr. Edwards.

Your position on marriage is based on your interpretation of holy scripture. There are churches, such as the United Church, which is the biggest Protestant denomination in Canada, the Unitarian Church and one branch of Reformed Judaism, that have appeared before us and said they would like to be able to marry same-sex couples, but the state does not allow them to. So, their freedom of religion is limited and impaired because they cannot follow their religion through to its logical conclusion.

If it were the other way around and the state allowed same-sex couples to be married civilly or religiously, these churches could do so. Yet nothing would compel you to marry same-sex couples, and I would be the first to support you in your defence of so-called traditional marriage in your church.

If the state didn't force you to marry same-sex couples—and in my opinion, it couldn't—would you be wiling, as the Catholic Church has just said, to accept same-sex marriage, provided you weren't required to accept it in your church, given your religious convictions?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Edwards.

Mr. Douglas Edwards: I'd like to start by answering that question. A while ago there was talk about the social trend and the time to change. I would like to say, in whose eyes?

We have seen over the last 20 years what has happened to our youth, if you want to go back to the time of the pill, women's rights, and all that, down to today, where sex is on the mind of all these children who go to school. It doesn't actually go with marriage.

We talked about marriage through the church. I'm not so concerned about gays being married, if that's what they'd like. If they have a commitment, that is none of my business. If they feel that they need some commitment to make the same as we have, marriage, I have no fault with that. I respect their wishes. I can't condone it through religion, but as a human I can understand it.

As far as the churches go, what was said in the United Church and some of the other churches was never brought to the congregation. It was done by the hierarchy. So how can you say that the whole of the United Church congregation is in favour of it?

One thing I would like to say is that if you're going to give the rights to these people, what about the rights of a father or a mother and a daughter or a son who have stayed home and looked after them for many years? Why shouldn't they have the same rights? What about a sister and sister or a brother and brother living together but not as lesbian or gay? I believe they have the same rights. If you're going to open it up to one category of people, why not open it up for these other people?They are in a loving relationship. Many people have stayed home with their fathers and mothers and let the rest of the world go by because they felt it was a duty to look after them. I believe they should have the same rights.

À (1030)

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: To answer your question briefly, I would say first of all that the difference is that this is about conjugal relationships. I would agree that another committee could be asked to deal with non-conjugal relationships, and that is a recommendation I would like to see the committee make. You talked about siblings or about a man or woman looking after parents. I would like a House of Commons committee to take a look at that. You are right that the problem is somewhat different from conjugality.

Ms. Ikonen, your reasoning was that an apple is an apple, therefore it is an apple. To you, marriage is the union of one man and one woman because that's the way it is. Isn't that a bit of a circular argument? Couldn't we say that up to now, marriage has been the union of one man and one woman, but from now on, it's the union of two people?

[English]

Ms. Diane Ikonen: I don't think it is a circular argument. I think that an apple is an apple. We can call it something else, but it still has the same characteristics. It still has all of those unique scientific characteristics of an apple. Similarly, marriage, which has approximately 5,000 years of recorded history, has had this characteristic.... May I finish, please?

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: What are the characteristics, in your opinion?

[English]

Ms. Diane Ikonen: Do you mean characteristics of the apple or the marriage?

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I am talking about the characteristics of marriage.

[English]

Ms. Diane Ikonen: The characteristics are that it was from the beginning of the existence of man and woman that they were created to be complementary, that they are there to provide different talents and strengths, that they are there to help each other in different ways, that they come together and have a unique ability to create new life. This has been the biological imperative or the creation by God, depending on your point of view. Our recorded history is approximately 5,000 years in length and we've had that particular approach to marriage for all of these years.

We now have that conjugal position that you were saying. We have a situation today where our society is constantly evolving and people are coming forward who want to live in different ways, and we're having increasing respect for this.

I agree that an apple is an apple, marriage is marriage. If I'm living with my sister because of our particular life history, that does not make me a second-class citizen. Because I have not chosen to get married, or have not had opportunity to be married, I don't like the idea that this makes me a second-class citizen. I am a first-class citizen of Canada whether I'm an apple or whether I'm an orange, whether I'm married or whether I'm not.

Marriage is unique to its characteristics. I don't want to put anybody down because they choose not to be married or they haven't had the opportunity to be married. If a father and son live together or a mother and a daughter, they live together very happily as first-class citizens of this country.

À (1035)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We'll go Madam Marleau, for seven minutes.

Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): Thank you very much.

First of all, I chose to come here. I'm not a member of this committee and I really wanted to hear the opinions of the people of Sudbury, and so I asked if I could come and sit at the committee for at least part of the day, and so I'm here to do that.

Mr. Edwards, there were many articles in the newspaper about this visit of this committee. I actually was quoted---

Mr. Douglas Edwards: There was nothing in our local paper.

Hon. Diane Marleau: I was quoted in it in one article. I know that much.

I also want to tell you that there were all kinds of notices that went out to the local media, and not only that, but my staff and I made a point of contacting everyone who had contacted our office on this issue to make sure those people who were interested knew in case they hadn't seen it in the paper. I wanted to tell you that if you didn't see it, it certainly wasn't because I didn't want you to. I went out of my way to make sure everyone knew about this, as much as I could.

I do have one question, and it bothers me a lot because I find that the institution of marriage is really not very strong these days. Not many of our children are choosing to marry. Many who do marry end up splitting up, and we have more and more children living in single-family units.

It worries me a lot, and I'm wondering whether you have thought that perhaps having another kind of a legal institution might foster more care of the children. It's very difficult to be raised in a single family. I was. I was one of three children raised by a single mother. It was incredibly difficult for her. I'm wondering if you have any ideas about how you protect the children in what we have now, because they're not always very well protected in the institutions we have now.

The Chair: Ms. O'Hare.

Ms. Colleen O'Hare: Exactly, Diane. I see also the number of young people living together and having children outside of the safety, I might say, of the married state, and I think a lot of that is because we as a society have not held up this value strongly enough.

I just happened to receive this article from Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson, who are researchers from McGill University. They've done research--and they seem to be very capable researchers--and the initial basis they put forward about marriage is this idea that it is cultural, that we as a culture, as the citizens, have to enhance and guide and strengthen that idea of the importance of marriage.

.I think over the last 30 to 50 years that culture of strengthening marriage and how important it is has been diminished because of this progress, and I think the more we give recognition to other forms of union.... People have a choice to live the way they want to live, but they have to accept the consequences of the choices they make. That's the same for every part of life, and it is the same for unions. But we as a society must try always...and the government, as I said, has a big responsibility in making sure they keep always before the public the importance of marriage simply for the safety of the children and the stability of future society.

If we start recognizing other unions, then that diminishes the importance of marriage.

À (1040)

Hon. Diane Marleau: Don't you believe, though, that the safety of the child should be first?

Ms. Colleen O'Hare: Yes, that's what I'm saying.

Hon. Diane Marleau: There have been good marriages and there have been bad marriages, but there are also many vulnerable children out there who would benefit from stable relationships of any kind. There's a great deal of difficulty in being raised by a single parent. Society often looks down on those children.

Do you think there would be some way for us to ensure that a child--wherever it is born, in whatever relationship it is born--has a protection of sorts so that the child is not discriminated against because it either doesn't have a father or doesn't have a mother? Wherever that child grows, we have to make sure it has the best support mechanism there is.

Marriage has not always been there. My mother was married. Obviously my father took off and didn't want to have anything to do with us. That institution wasn't very good. Thank God I had a great mother.

Ms. Colleen O'Hare: Yes, Diane. I want to answer that because I too have to say that I share the same kind of background as you have. I was from a married family, and with a single mother basically raising children. Sure, it's difficult, but also, and I think certainly in my case, in the case of marriage you know that you did have a father and a mother.

As I said in our presentation, the ideal has to be there, and we do always have a great difficulty sometimes in living up to that ideal. But it has to be there before us that this is what we are aiming for. This is what is best for all of us.

The Chair: I'm going to go now to Mr. Cadman for three minutes.

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

I have a brief question. It's been argued before this committee at other times that procreation is not now considered by some to be a fundamental component of a marriage. I'd like to throw that out there for the panellists to comment on, whether they would agree with that, and if not, why not. Anybody.

Mr. Douglas Edwards: I think the biggest thing now is that people are not into raising children like they were before. In a lot of cases, big families were used for helping around, and now people need more time for their extra activities and they don't want children. A lot of people are being married now and don't even want children.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: So you would agree with this, that procreation is no longer a fundamental component of marriage?

Mr. Douglas Edwards: If you are fully committed, it is. You think about continuing your family heritage. But we've gotten to a point where it doesn't seem to matter. There are a lot of children out there who don't even know their father anymore.

We've lost all respect for ourselves. We've lost all respect for public buildings. We can see that as we've come down it's getting worse and worse. We see all these single mothers out there. Did the person who fathered the child have any respect for that woman?

The Chair: I'll go to Ms. Ikonen, who also wants to answer Mr. Cadman's question.

Ms. Diane Ikonen: Today, with our changing culture and the many opportunities we have, people still have to make choices as to lifestyle, and many people now have the ability to choose whether, in marriage or outside of marriage, they want to have children or not.

We have a situation today where we have great capabilities in terms of social engineering. Unbelievable amounts of social engineering are possible.

A couple of years ago we had one of the key anthropologists in the world, Don Johanson, who discovered the Lucy bones in Africa, come to speak to us here in Sudbury at the Falconbridge lecture series. He was asked at the end of his presentation--where he talked about how they discovered the Lucy bones and named Lucy after the Beatle song and on and on--by somebody in the audience about whether, because of the time we are at in human history, we could now move into same-sex marriage and not worry about procreation and the biology of the man and the woman. His response was--and it took me by surprise and interested me greatly, although I'm not an anthropologist and haven't gone on to read any anthropology--that we tamper with biology at our risk, and that the existence of man and woman and the biology we have is a very delicate natural balance. He said that if we think we can tamper with that we are sadly mistaken, because there are great anthropological implications for it.

Even though today we have the opportunity in Canada to be free to choose this or to choose that, we are still human beings and we still have a biology that drives us, that affects our health. All we have to do is look at the SARS virus and at the existence and prevalence of AIDS. There are consequences to our desire to be social engineers and to ignore our biology.

À (1045)

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Diane Ikonen: I don't know what all of them are, but that's what I can share with you today.

The Chair: Thanks.

I'm going to go to Mr. Maloney, for three minutes.

Mr. John Maloney: Mr. Edwards, I feel I'm getting mixed messages from you. You seem to speak out against same-sex marriages but then you also pass a comment that if they have a commitment you have no fault with that. You respect their wishes but you can't accept it on religious grounds. Are you suggesting to us that provided your church, or some religions, weren't required to perform same-sex marriages, they could be acceptable in another form, perhaps other churches that would acknowledge this, or civil marriage? What are you telling me this morning, sir?

Mr. Douglas Edwards: In this time of social trends, we have to acknowledge that they're out there. We may not like it, if we're scriptural... it shouldn't be, but we have to acknowledge that they're there. Even through the Bible they've been there. I feel that as long as they don't affect our church and my right to talk to people about what's in the scriptures, I have no trouble with it. But when my rights are stepped on--and it says thou shall not--then I can't agree with it.

We're talking here about single-parent families, and they're there; we have to live with them. We have to do the best we can to support them. But the way they got to be single-parent families is not right. A man should respect a woman, or a woman respect a man. And if they don't respect them and walk away from the marriage...and you're talking about marriage. People are walking away. There's no commitment anymore. They don't have to be committed. If they don't like something, they walk out the door.

This is the way we're going, and we've seen it coming and coming. We look at all these poor women who have one or two children and nobody supporting them. I don't like what happened, why they got there, but they're there,and we have to do what we can to support them.

Mr. John Maloney: So if there was a commitment between persons of the same sex, and they are in a committed relationship and they are prepared to respect that, then the possibility of their marrying isn't necessarily---

À (1050)

Mr. Douglas Edwards: I can respect that as long as.... The thing that bothers me most about it is the parades in public places, where you turn the television on and you see them wandering down the streets with a great big parade. If they want to do it in the bars, that's fine. But don't do it out where I have to watch it.

The television is mine, and I don't want to see it on the streets or in my living room.

Mr. John Maloney: Thank you. I appreciate your position on that.

The Chair: Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

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

Ms. Ikonen, I come back to you because I didn't have time to finish my questions earlier. I noted that according to you, marriage has five characteristics.

[English]

Ms. Diane Ikonen: My apologies.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: This is an answer period, not a question period, unlike Parliament.

You identified five characteristics: it is a 5,000-year-old institution; it has to be a union between one man and one woman; the man and the woman have different strengths and talents; mutual support; and procreation. I will comment first and then I would like to hear your comments.

You say that's the way it was 5,000 years ago. With all due respect, that is not necessarily a valid criterion, because slavery was allowed for 5,000 years. Slavery has been illegal for only 140 years. Just because an institution is old doesn't necessarily mean it has to stay the way it is.

As for the union between one man and one woman, I'll come back to that. I have no problem with that.

I would like to talk about different strengths and talents. I would like you to explain that to me, because I have to admit I am always a bit surprised to hear that. Perhaps my personality is a bit problematic, but I don't think so.

I have been married for nine years, and the toolbox belongs to my wife. That is her forte. When it comes to boiling water, she could make water stick to the bottom of a pot. I, on the other hand, am not a bad cook. Strengths and weaknesses vary from one couple to the next. I don't think there are exclusively male strengths and exclusively female strengths, unless I'm a woman and my wife is a man.

What do you make of this problem of strengths and weaknesses?

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Ikonen.

Ms. Diane Ikonen: You've made three points, and I'd like to address each one.

You've mentioned the fact that a 5,000-year history should not be continued if it's something wrong, just as with slavery, which was wrong in every single way. Again, I have to stress that we must look at the connotation of comparing marriage to slavery. Slavery was wrong; it was a bad thing and it hurt people.

Now, there are some similarities with marriage, and as I tried to mention with humour, some people do see marriage as slavery and they then get out of it. But in an ideal form of marriage, it's not slavery, it's a contract. It's like a bank, where you put in good and you get good out of it; you share and so on. I don't think comparing marriage and slavery is fair, because there are many ways in which they are not alike. We're looking at marriage as an ideal and as a positive thing in our society, the ideal we're upholding.

Now, in terms of the strengths and weaknesses, what I'm referring to there, Richard, is the biological fact and the cultural fact that men and women are different. We are genetically different, we are different in our hormones, we're different in our drives and in our responses, and vive la différence, I say. It's all good.

It's a very fortunate family that has men and women to be in a relationship and to share those differences, those beautiful characteristics of both, which are biological as well as cultural and social, with a child so the child can have a full experience of humanity. That's what I mean.

The Chair: I'm going to go to Mr. McKay for a brief intervention.

Mr. John McKay: Ten minutes? Twenty minutes?

À (1055)

The Chair: You wish.

Mr. John McKay: Thank you, Chair, and thank you, witnesses.

I'll direct my question to Ms. Ikonen and Ms. O'Hare.

If you read gay literature, there's a concept in gay literature called “the marriage project”. Essentially, the marriage project is to try to crack open the institution of marriage by saying that the requirement of having a male and female in a marriage is not necessary, that the procreative element is a kind of sidebar issue with respect to marriage, and that it's really a love institution; gays and lesbians love each other, so what's the problem here? The argument further unfolds and says that really, these are people who want into marriage, they'll strengthen the institution of marriage, and society will be a net beneficiary of the exercise.

Then you go to the next stage, and that's Professor Kinsman's stage, which is that really the state should get out of the business of marriage; marriage should be privatized, and it basically becomes anything to anybody at any time.

You'll find priests, ministers, or pastors who will from time to time marry people regardless of orientation, regardless of commitments, regardless of anything. You have at the end of the day essentially a privatized notion of marriage with a variety of social consequences, a concept that frankly, after three or four weeks of doing this, none of us really understands.

We have absolutely no idea what will result. We can analogize with what happened when the legislature messed around with the Divorce Act and see consequences that have fallen from that over the last 30 years. We can look at Quebec society and say maybe there's a model we should look at. Nevertheless, we really have no idea.

I want to ask you what you think about Professor Kinsman's notion that really the state should get out of the business of marriage; we privilege this institution above all others, and we should simply privatize it and leave it to churches, synagogues, mosques, or city hall.

Ms. Diane Ikonen: Well, if the church gets out of the business of marriage, that's not possible, because one of the roles--

Mr. John McKay: If the state got out of the business of marriage, it would be the only show in town.

Ms. Diane Ikonen: One thing I'd like to mention is that with our current cultural situation.... Say we went into an experiment whereby the church were allowed to marry people and the state were allowed to have other ways of recognizing unions of various kinds, whether it's same-sex, sisters living with sisters, brothers with brothers, and so on. We talked about the fact that some churches are willing to marry people if they're allowed by the state to do that. Some churches have different opinions on that than other churches do. Many churches today that follow the scripture of the Bible, whether it's the Jewish scripture or the Muslim scripture, would not consider marrying anybody except a man and a woman. A few churches--which are declining in population, by the way, because they are falling away from the teachings of the Bible--are willing to do so, but they're in the great minority.

Now, we talk about the rights of a church to marry people and say that there would be no infringement on the church's rights or the right of a pastor, priest, or minister to marry someone if there was new legislation created that would give people the opportunity to be married. Based on the Marc Hall case in southern Ontario and based on the many court challenges that exist today in many provinces, I suggest to you that there are people who would want to push the envelope and who would again bring this forward to the courts. They'd say, if a local minister, priest, or pastor is not willing to marry me, my rights are being infringed on; I'm a second-class citizen if I can't be married where I want to be married. Then it would be into the courts again.

We've been shown here recently in the last few years that according to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, equality rights are being observed over religious rights in 67% of cases, so there is no safety if there is some kind of legislation. There is no safety that a priest, a pastor, a minister, a rabbi, or whoever would not ultimately be endangering their own health through the stress of that situation and the church's health through the fact that the congregation would have to somehow come up with money for these legal challenges. We do not have access to the moneys available in the court challenge program because we're not a minority.

Á (1100)

The Chair: Thank you very much. I'd like to thank the panel and I'd like to thank the committee.

The time for this particular panel has expired. I would ask the panel to excuse themselves and let the next panel come forward.

Once again, thank you for your help in this very challenging question.

We're suspended.

Á (1101)

Á (1107)

The Chair: I call the 35th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights back to order.

From now until 12 o'clock, or shortly thereafter, we will be hearing from the Glad Tidings Tabernacle, as represented by Kevin Serviss and Greg Mayhew. We will be hearing from Lisa Jensen and Lita McDonald as individuals. Unfortunately, the third group that was identified in your agenda has had to cancel.

Each will be asked to make a seven-minute presentation. I, or one of the committee members who replaces me, will indicate when there is one minute left and then when time is up. The only reason we do this is because extra time offered now is time denied later this afternoon to somebody. So we'll try to keep it within the parameters I've explained.

I go first to the Glad Tidings Tabernacle, for seven minutes.

Mr. Greg Mayhew (Glad Tidings Tabernacle): I'm going to read our statement. Our position is very simple. A marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman. This definition is one that has been supported for centuries by law and government, including Canadian law. In fact, this definition of marriage predates what we know to be civil law.

Marriage was the first institution created and blessed by God. In Genesis 2:24 it states “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” That's the New International Version.

In addition to being a civil institution, to most Canadians marriage is also a deeply religious and spiritual ceremony. This position is grounded in the interpretations of the holy writings of such major world religions as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

It must be clearly understood that since marriage was not created or defined by law, it is beyond the authority of any court or government to alter its definition, intent, or purpose. Further, there would be strong opposition by these faiths to the use of the term “marriage” to define a same-sex union. A same-sex union may be labelled many things in law, but the term “marriage” must not be included among them.

The necessity of what is now termed as the traditional marriage--namely, one man and one woman in a lifelong union--has been recognized and upheld by the Supreme Court and federal and provincial governments. I quote Justice La Forest in the Egan v. Canada case:

...marriage has from time immemorial been firmly grounded in our legal tradition, one that is itself a reflection of long-standing philosophical and religious traditions. But its ultimate raison d'être transcends all of these and is firmly anchored in the biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate, that most children are the product of these relationships, and that they are generally cared for and nurtured by those who live in that relationship. In this sense, marriage is by nature heterosexual. It would be possible to legally define marriage to include homosexual couples, but this would not change the biological and social realities that underlie the traditional marriage.

Heterosexual unions have the unique ability to procreate. Further, a traditional marriage provides a stable framework in which children may be raised and nurtured. The mother and father each bring unique qualities, which are essential to the full development and palette of a child's life.

This institution provides a foundation for our society with many and varied benefits. The social implications of the breakdown of this traditional marriage have been well documented. This is a critical time for the courts and government to recognize and support marriage, as it is currently defined, as the basis for a stable family unit.

Former Justice Minister Anne McLellan stated in parliamentary debates that the heterosexual definition of marriage is “considered clear law by ordinary Canadians, by academics and by the courts. The courts have upheld the constitutionality of that definition.” In her conclusion she stated “I support the motion for maintaining the clear legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.”

The position of former Justice Minister McLellan is also supported by a majority of the members of the House of Commons. One June 10, 1999, Parliament approved a statement of opinion by a vote of 216 to 55. It states:

That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary, in light of public debate around recent court decisions, to state that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada.

We call on you now to honour and uphold this clear pledge Parliament made to the people of Canada.

In summation, we would like to emphasize that we do not support government recognition and registration of same-sex unions as marriages. Defining a same-sex union as marriage is contrary to the expressed intent of Parliament and at odds with Canada's diverse social and religious heritage. We adamantly encourage the justice committee and the federal government to take a stand and strongly uphold the current definition of marriage.

Thank you.

Á (1110)

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

Next are Ms. McDonald and Ms. Jensen for seven minutes, please.

Ms. Lita McDonald (As Individual): I'd like to quote my son Tadhg, who said “our family is good”.

We can procreate. Lesbians are procreating all the time. A third of the practice where we went to get sperm for our son is lesbian. We are here. We have children. Our children need to be protected.

This is Ciaran D'Arcy; he's 11 days old. Had I been a man, had we been able to be married and gone to the same fertility clinic, my rights to my son would not be in question. I would be his father.

I went for the same reason as the men are going--low sperm count. But I don't have the legal right to my son. I have to jump through hoops. I have to adopt him. And he's my son, as Tadhg is my son. Tadhg is five. I'm his mom; she's his mommy.

So everybody else is talking about why we can or cannot get married, and sometimes I wonder why it's anybody else's business. I'm not planning to invite most of you to the wedding.

We want to speak about same-sex marriage, the rights and responsibilities of parents, and the rights of children. We believe that our family, with two mothers and two children, is a variation of normal. What we have is a marriage. We love each other and our children. We model it on our heterosexual parents and the way they treat each other, with dignity, respect, and kindness, and putting each other first.

We are emotionally committed to each other. We are emotionally bonded. We are raising children together. So if you took the word “heterosexual” out of this definition of marriage, we would be there too. We are procreating. Other than the opposite-sex definition, we are a social unit of a married couple with children. Our family deserves equal protection under the law, and our children deserve to be treated equally to the children of heterosexual unions. By the denial of our marriage, our children are relegated to second-class status.

Á (1115)

Ms. Lisa Jensen (As Individual): Ours is a typical story. We met and fell in love. We discussed our love of children and having a family together during our courtship. We decided to make a commitment to each other and share a home.

We spoke to our family doctor here in Sudbury about our desire to have children and we were referred to a fertility clinic in Toronto. We chose my womb to bear our children because my family history has normal pregnancies, and Lita's family has lots of high-risk pregnancies. We attended every appointment together for our first child at the fertility clinic. We paid for all the expenses out of our joint chequing account.

In December 1997--and I'm passing pictures around of our two sons--we had our first child, Tadhg Matthew McDonald-Jensen, and 11 days ago we had Ciaran D'Arcy at home. We have been parents to both of these children from conception, both mentally and physically.

I learned from an early age that parenthood is about emotional bonding and being there, not about biology. I was born from my father's first marriage to a biological mother who was entirely out of my life by age two. She wasn't very present while she was there. It was a rare thing at the time, as I'm 38. I was raised by my single dad and had no contact or support from my deadbeat mother. When I was four, my father and I had the good fortune to meet my father's second wife, who became my real mother--real in every sense of the word, through emotional bonding, care, and love, but not in law. We never did that.

No one would question that the parental relationship between my real mother--my father's second wife--and me is real, because it is real. Similarly, Lita is as real and full a parent, equal to me as a parent to Tadhg and Ciaran. It is through love, hard work, packing school lunches, picking your children up, taking them on outings, reading books, and getting up in the middle of the night. All of those things are what make you a real parent.

I want Lita to be recognized as the equal and full parent she is under the law without our having to jump through hoops and go through some expensive and time-consuming adoption process.

Ms. Lita McDonald: If I die, it's not clear my children would have survival benefits. We have to go through the adoption process. If Lisa were to die, it's not guaranteed these kids would be mine. In the heartbreaking event that our marriage would fail, it's not clear my parental rights would be assured.

What we have is a marriage--the same type of relationship as our parents have, as my brother and sisters have with their spouses. We're treated as daughters-in-law by each other's parents. Our brothers and sisters refer to us as sisters-in-law.

We're treated as married spouses by our respective colleagues, employers, insurers, our family doctor, midwife, day care providers, the Y, the library, Statistics Canada--with whom we are going through an extended census and employment information--and the bank--all those institutions to whom we pay bills. They recognize us as full married partners. We need the government to do so as well.

The law says we cannot be discriminated against. We want to get married. Not something like marriage, not practically the same thing and almost as good--marriage. We cannot. That's discrimination.

We feel our children are vulnerable because of it. Permitting us to get married will not weaken the state of marriage. Our marriage should not affect anyone else's. Marriage is not an institution because of who is not allowed to get married. Marriage will simply protect our family.

As long as the law continues to hold us, our relationship, as not worthy of marriage, it aids and abets all those who denigrate us. People have to be taught to revile homosexuals. It's not a natural instinct.

All of the children from day care and school who've grown up with Tadhg and his two mothers see us as just another variation of family--something to be accepted. At two, when they started to notice the difference and started asking why Tadhg had two mommies, the simple answer, that we're both girls, was all they wanted. “Ah.” That seemed to be the reaction.

Lately we've been hearing stories of something akin to envy. Tadhg's friend Elizabeth has been asking lately why she can't have two mommies, and Helena said the other day on the way home, “Tadhg's so lucky. He's got two moms.”

We love each other, we love our children, we've made a commitment to each other, and we have proposed to each other. We have one of the longest-standing engagements in my family's history. We believe one day we will be legally married. We think it's unfair we have to wait so long, because we could really use a new blender.

Oh, and I just wanted to tell you that she has the toolbox, but I won't ask for directions when I'm driving and I have no fashion sense.

Á (1120)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Chuck Cadman): I'd like to thank the witnesses.

Mr. Toews, for seven minutes.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony here. And thanks to all of the panellists.

The evidence we've received here over the course of a number of weeks, not only while we were on the road but in Ottawa itself, speaks to some of the statistical benefits of traditional marriage in terms of the stability of the family unit and safety for children. I appreciate we have not been able to determine that in the context of the same-sex raising of children, because we simply don't have the statistics. It's new ground for us as a society.

I did note with interest one comment Ms. McDonald made. She said she was able to pattern her relationship on the fact that she had a model of heterosexual parents. I found that to be a very curious comment to make.

We need to see marriage, of course, in the context of generations or a generational continuum. You've had the benefit, as you've admitted here, to seeing that heterosexual relationship and have modelled your marriage on that, as you stated in your testimony. Three, four, or five generations later, there may not be that model, that distinct clarity in our society. I'm concerned, then, with what impact that would have for society in general as the clear model is broken down.

We heard a witness today talk, and I was reminded of another witness in Vancouver, Dr. John Redekop, who talked about the experimentation Stalin did with families in the 1930s, basically abolishing families--families weren't necessary. And of course, there were huge detrimental impacts to Soviet society during the 1930s. He soon reversed his position and thought, well, maybe traditional marriages weren't such a bad idea after all.

I'm just wondering what assurances...or maybe you'd want to elaborate, maybe that's a better way to do it. You've had the benefit of the heterosexual model, you've admitted. How do we maintain that benefit or that model if we're to basically make marriage a relationship that society can essentially define however it wants?

Ms. Lita McDonald: I think the heterosexual aspect of my parents was the least important. I never saw my father naked. I didn't know he was different. It was the fact that I had two parents who loved each other and treated each other kindly. I didn't see them sniping at each other. When I looked for a mate, I looked for someone who had the same sense of family that I enjoyed.

When I said we modelled it on our parents, it was on the relationship they had, not because they were men and women but because they're good, decent, honourable people. If you put a dress on my father, he would be equally honourable, just with really hairy legs.

So it's not about the heterosexual model; it's about the same thing we're trying to give my sons--that we stay together. If we argue, we solve it. We act as a family. We support each other. We appreciate each other's unique qualities. We appreciate our good qualities and we forgive each other our weaknesses. Together we're stronger than we are separate; we bring out the best in each other. That's what her parents do. That's what my parents do. That's what my son's parents do.

Mr. Vic Toews: Mr. Mayhew, do you have any comments on that?

Mr. Greg Mayhew: As far as statistical proof of family is concerned, you're correct in saying we do not have a history with regard to what would come out of same-sex unions in raising families. As far as the legalities go, I'm not informing anybody of anything new by saying same-sex unions are already recognized in law. They're recognized by provincial governments in most provinces. Our position has nothing to do with civil recognition. Our position is based on the separation of church and state. It's the ownership of the institution of marriage by the church.

Civilly speaking, the law and government have merely recognized an institution that already existed in the church with a religious significance. What we're saying is that the institution of marriage and the term “marriage” belong to the church. What the government chooses to do civilly and in law is really separate from the church itself. That is beyond our control, just as we feel the institution of marriage is beyond the government's control.

It's a very simple statement, but that is our position. Marriage is innately originating in the church. It's an institution that was created by God, and it is one man and one woman.

Á (1125)

The Chair: Ms. McDonald.

Ms. Lita McDonald: I was just going to say if it's just a question of the church being able to marry us, great, because we can get churches to marry us. There are churches that will recognize our marriage. So the problem's solved--as long as the state recognizes it as well.

And we do not have the same rights. I don't have legal recognition of my relationship to my children.

My partner wants me to be quiet so she gets to talk.

The Chair: Ms. Jensen.

Ms. Lisa Jensen: Our family lawyer has advised us--I spoke to her before the birth of Ciaran--that even though we're now recognized as a common-law couple, the rights of our children are still in a very nebulous and grey area. That's still very murky.

The other thing I wanted to say is that marriages are breaking down. That's been talked about. In my own childhood I had both models. I had the model of my father's first marriage dissolving when I was at a very early age and then his second marriage being very successful, loving, and committed.

The other thing I was going to say is that I believe it was about a year ago the American Pediatric Society came out with a statement that they were of the opinion lesbians and gays could raise healthy children just as effectively as heterosexuals.

The Chair: Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Chairman, I would like to apologize to our witnesses for missing part of their presentation. Unfortunately, the world does not stop turning while we are here, and I had a few issues to deal with.

I wasn't going to ask any questions, but then I heard someone say "the ownership of institutional marriage by the church." If that's true—and Ms. McDonald took the words right out of my mouth—that it belongs to the church, we have to recognize that there are several churches, not just one. So why shouldn't the state recognize marriages in the Unitarian Church, which recognizes same-sex marriage, or marriages in the United Church?

[English]

Mr. Greg Mayhew: Yes, it's true that some churches will recognize same-sex unions as being valid. That doesn't negate the general and overwhelming position of the church. While we're talking about church as an institution, in reality what we're talking about is something that God—regardless of what your belief in God happens to be—guaranteed protection of. And God and Holy Scripture is how we gauge our life. It develops and defines our world view.

The fact of the matter is what we are calling the traditional definition of marriage, which is one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, is supported by Judaism, Christianity, Islam. That is a fact. It is also a fact that law and the civil elements of law and government did not define marriage or create marriage. It was merely recognized and supported by law.

Á (1130)

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I'm trying to understand, and perhaps you were there earlier. I would be the first to fight by your side so that your religious institution was entitled to protect your interpretation of holy scripture. I would be the first to take your side in whatever situation that involved. To my mind, that couldn't happen, but if anyone were to challenge your right to keep that definition, I swear to you that I would take your side.

However, other churches have a different viewpoint. To date, two rabbis have appeared before us and said they supported same-sex marriage. Their interpretation of holy scripture allows for same-sex marriage. Why infringe on their freedom of religion by imposing your version of holy scripture on them?

Let's talk about same-sex marriage. First of all, we are obviously talking about civil marriage. If there are churches that support same-sex marriage, no problem, and that would protect your right to keep the current definition of marriage and your religious group's interpretation, which I respect 150 per cent. The definition of freedom of religion and the whole debate around this freedom are such that today, some people and some churches would like to perform same-sex marriages, but they can't because the state does not allow them to. So there is an infringement of freedom of religion. If it were the other way around, if same-sex couples could get married, freedom of religion would protect your right to refuse to marry same-sex couples, just as freedom of religion protects the Catholic Church, which refuses to ordain female priests and to marry people who are divorced.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Mayhew.

Mr. Greg Mayhew: You're correct in saying that there are individuals who support same-sex unions. You mentioned two rabbis who support same-sex unions. We're not talking about individuals here, a pastor, a minister, a rabbi, or someone else in a church who has decided to support this union. We're talking about what the official interpretations of the Holy Scriptures of these various religions inherently mean. The fact that this is where marriage came from is not in dispute by anybody that I've heard. What we're saying is that we require the protection of that union, or that institution of marriage, and the term “marriage” to mean what we have been talking about—one man and one woman.

What some churches then choose, based on what you decide to do as government civilly in recognition of same-sex unions, setting up equal institutions, is really up to you and is beyond our control. We're speaking on behalf of the church, not on behalf of the state; they're two separate things. What we want to get across here is that maybe it is legally possible for you to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions, but it is not the morally correct thing for you to do. You do not have the moral authority to change the definition of marriage or to use the term “marriage”. It predates law and it predates what we're all doing here.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I don't want to put words in your mouth, but if I understand what you're saying, you would be willing to have the state recognize some kind of union for same-sex couples and would have no problem with that. They would have roughly the same rights and responsibilities as married heterosexual couples, but it wouldn't be marriage. Did I understand correctly what you were saying?

Á (1135)

[English]

Mr. Greg Mayhew: No, you did not.

You are correct in your summation, but we're not talking about what is okay with me. We're not talking about what is okay with the church. We're merely recognizing the reality today that same-sex unions are already recognized in law. Our opinion of same-sex unions is a totally moot point. It's not something that should even be discussed here.

What we're talking about is protection of marriage. I'm certain the ladies next to me really aren't concerned with my opinion of their lifestyle. It's something they've chosen to do and they're probably not concerned with my opinion about it. And I'm not going to debate that here. That really isn't the point of this proceeding. What we're talking about is the fact that marriage belongs to the church. Marriage originated in the church. It was merely recognized and supported by law because they recognized the necessity of marriage--the procreation process and the support of our society.

So I'm not saying I support the government making changes to recognize same-sex unions. I'm merely saying the church and the state are separate. If you choose to recognize same-sex unions in an equal institution, that is beyond our control. But we insist you do not use the term “marriage” in relation to that civil institution.

The Chair: Ms. Marleau.

Hon. Diane Marleau: First of all, I want to congratulate Lita and Lisa on their new baby. I know they've waited a long time for this one. I think the arrival of a child is always a joyous occasion and I celebrate that with you.

I want to go back to what would be best for children. I will ask all of our witnesses to give me a statement on what they think would be best for children. I worry that if we don't do something, Lisa and Lita's sons, at some point, will be discriminated against, that it will be very difficult for them.

You heard me say I was raised by a single mother. My mother was married to my father. I never knew him. The church that we belonged to said she could never marry again; therefore, I never had a man in my life.

Some might say I turned out okay and maybe some would think I turned out badly, I don't know. But I have been married--it'll be 40 years this summer--so something happened right.

What I want to say is it's who nurtures you, who loves you, who cares for you, that makes you the person you become. You're also born with certain qualities and whatever, but it worries me that in the context of churches, we do discriminate against children in some ways.

I wonder how the churches would ensure--if marriage, as you say, stays defined the way it is--that all of those children out there, be they from same-sex couples, from married people who now are single because the union didn't work out, or by some misfortune, from some poor single girl who ends up with a child or two, would be treated equally, that they'd have the same chance to be nurtured and not to be discriminated against by society.

Mr. Greg Mayhew: I don't know what your experience is with the church. We say “church” loosely termed, or religion. What people call religion we call a relationship. It's how we gauge our lives. It bothers me that you would say the church discriminates against children. That certainly is not the case.

The church is about community. It's about support and caring. There are a lot of misconceptions about what the church is. The world and the liberal media would like to paint it as being an intolerant institution, hopelessly outdated and old-fashioned, when in reality they don't have the foggiest understanding of what the church is all about.

The church really is about taking a stand based on our religious interpretations of scripture. That's vitally important to us, but the fact that God is love, that he cares not only for heterosexuals but homosexuals, that he cares not only for children derived from heterosexual unions but for those who are raised in homosexual unions, is not in debate.

The fact that something needs to be done with regard to protection of children would not be debated by anybody. We certainly would not stand against that. The fact is the church supports individuals, not based on what we believe but on the fact that God loves each individual equally, regardless of where they are, where they're from, the colour of their skin, the language they speak, or their sexual orientation. Whether the church agrees with that behaviour is not a matter for me to debate here, and it really is a moot point.

What we're talking about here is the inclusion of a same-sex union in marriage. I have to get back to our basic point, which is very simple: the church owns the institution of marriage and that term.

We definitely agree with the support of children. What you choose to do civilly to support that, I don't know. That's a large issue, and debating the ramifications...even in the briefing that was given to us for this presentation, there were three options that were laid out. Obviously none of them is perfect, and we are not going to stand here and support one or the other. That's not our position. Our position is that what you do civilly really should not affect the stand the church is taking on this particular institution. That is the vital issue here--the crux, as it were.

Á (1140)

Hon. Diane Marleau: Basically, what you're saying is you're supporting one of the recommendations, which is that with the cooperation of the provinces and territories, Parliament should leave marriage to the religions. That's one of the alternatives here. Is this what you're saying?

Mr. Greg Mayhew: No. I'm trying to get this across. What I am saying is that the reality today is that same-sex unions are already recognized. Our opinion on that situation is really moot. There's no point discussing it. What we're talking about here is the institution of marriage. What the government decides to do civilly is up to the government to decide. But we're here to claim ownership of the institution of marriage and the term “marriage”.

We are not supporting any of those three options. The legalities and all of the details involved with those options are beyond my scope of understanding. I wouldn't purport to sit here and say one is better than the other, and I'm not supporting one over the other.

We're not even here to make a recommendation on what you choose to do. I wanted to be clear our position is that the institution of marriage predates law. It predates what we're all doing here. It predates this procedure. It predates these public opinions. It belongs to the church--what you would call the church or religion, what we call God, and relationship with God. That really is our position.

The Chair: Ms. McDonald.

Ms. Lita McDonald: I guess things could be worse. Microsoft Corporation could own marriage and we'd never get it changed, just like where you're going today.

What I'd like to say about discrimination is that I'm not quite so worried about it any more. My son has been mercilessly teased because he wears glasses. It was a pretty traumatic day, the first day he wore glasses to school, and he was laughed at. Lisa had dropped him off, and I went up to talk to the kids. While I was sitting waiting to talk to the kids, two of them looked up and one of them said, “There's Tadhg's other mom”. And the other one said, “Yes, Tadhg doesn't have a dad”, and they went back to what they were doing. This was not anything of import. Glasses were a big deal.

What I did with those kids is I talked to them about glasses and I asked for their help, and I explained why he was wearing glasses. I juggled for them--I'm pretty entertaining--and they promised to help Tadhg remember to wear his glasses. I did it by treating them with respect and dignity and asking for their help, which is much the same as my family would like to do now.

As often as you like to say that we are recognized, we are not. We are not equally recognized. What we have is a marriage; it's not something like a marriage. I'm not worried about discrimination from the church. I'm the leader of the children's liturgy at my parish. My older son has both of our names on the baptismal certificate. We are in those pews on Sunday so that people know that it doesn't matter what people might say about us; gay people are part of this family, are part of God's family, are part of the community. And they may say things behind our backs, but we really haven't met a lot of, or any, discrimination as a family in this community.

Once you have children, you're not hidden any more. You're completely out. Hi, this is Lita, this is Lisa, this is our child. We need to sign him up for swimming lessons. We need to do this, we need to do that.

The reason I haven't adopted him yet is that we were waiting until our family was complete, but it's also because I forget. And if my mother didn't occasionally say, is he adopted yet, do we have rights, what's going on....? My son is a part of an extended family. He has over 60 second cousins. He has cousins he sees every week. He has grandparents, and aunts and uncles, and as many heterosexual role models as you would like to see.

We are welcomed by all of these people. We are welcomed at the school. We are welcomed at the church. We are welcomed at the grocery store. But we still need to be married so that we have our family completely protected, because as long as we can't get married there's a stigma. We're not quite good enough.

I'm not going to go to a church that doesn't want to marry me and ask them to marry me for some kind of points. That's not what it's about. It's about my family having the same rights as every other family. It's for me to be equal to my brother, and my sisters, and every other taxpayer in this country who falls in love and wants to form a family and goes and gets married. Why go through all the time and trouble and legal implications of finding some other way to do it?

Marriage is there. If you include us, it's complete. It's easy. It's done.

Á (1145)

The Chair: Mr. Toews.

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

The concepts of discrimination and equality are fairly nebulous concepts and are always seen in some sort of societal context. We make distinctions all of the time. That's what laws are all about, making distinctions.

Some see them as inappropriately discriminatory; others see them as justified. We can look at all kinds of examples. In restaurants, for example, downstairs in the restaurant I'm sure they don't allow dogs because of certain health regulations, for example, yet if a blind person came into the restaurant with a seeing-eye dog, we'd say, no, that's justified. That's different. We see it in the context of assisting this individual, of helping him, understanding that there is a harm that could come to this individual if we didn't permit that kind of discrimination in favour of him or her, depending on the gender of the blind person.

In the same way, there are two questions that arise. As a society, recognizing the good that traditional marriage has done, isn't there an imperative that we strengthen this traditional marriage that has done so much benefit, especially in the context of raising children and the protection of children?

The second question I have, and perhaps I'll direct it at Mr. Mayhew or Mr. Serviss, is if we as a committee decide to continue with the definition of traditional marriage, what happens to the children outside of the context of that traditional marriage, outside of the protection that traditional marriage has afforded children?

Would you see anything wrong with laws being passed to strengthen the protection that we grant to children even though they don't come out of a traditional marriage relationship?

The Chair: I believe there was a specific question directed to Mr. Mayhew or Mr. Serviss first. And then there was a general question put to the panel.

Mr. Serviss.

Mr. Kevin Serviss (Glad Tidings Tabernacle): I think your question has very much to do with Ms. Marleau's question with regard to the discrimination against children and how the church is handling that particular issue.

If I could speak candidly with regard to the church as a clergyman on a staff of a large church in the city of Sudbury, there are five full-time pastors on the staff of that church, and two of them are directly involved in children/youth ministries. One of them is a full-time children's minister. One of them is a full-time youth minister.

We care very much about our youth and our children in our church. Does that mean we're perfect? Does it mean that there may not exist some kind of systemic discrimination within our institution? Probably there may be. We may still be at the point where we see the family unit as a man and a woman and we're working hard--

Á (1150)

Mr. Vic Toews: I respect that. That's very important. My point is that whatever you do as a church is wonderful, and I think we need the influence of the Church in our society. The question is this. We as a state have an obligation to children outside of the context of traditional marriage and outside of the context of those who attend churches.

Mr. Kevin Serviss: Yes, and I was getting around to that.

Mr. Vic Toews: All right. I wanted to make sure you did.

Mr. Kevin Serviss: I was going to pick up on the comment that Mr. Mayhew made with regard to the uniqueness of the heterosexual union, that being the uniqueness of man and woman, and the things they bring into a marriage, the tools in the toolbox, so to speak--the characteristics of man as he is the father of the family, the characteristics of woman as she is the mother of the family. And there is the integral part that both of them be there working in conjunction with one another to ensure that the family is a strong family unit.

The Chair: Ms. McDonald.

Mr. Kevin Serviss: To finalize, I was just going to say--

The Chair: My apologies.

Mr. Kevin Serviss: --I don't know what government can do to strengthen that union in the way of man and woman. But I'm certainly in favour of the strengthening of the family unit, seeing that it is a heterosexual unit, and that men and women are involved in it.

The Chair: Ms. McDonald.

Ms. Lita McDonald: The first thing I wanted to say was that discrimination isn't nebulous or difficult to recognize when you're on the receiving end of it.

Again, the issue is protection for my child, protection for our family, recognition that my relationship and my responsibilities to these children are the same as those for any other married family, which has nothing to do with the church and nothing to do with discrimination, or teasing, or anything else, other than that in a legal court right now I don't have the same protection that I would have if I could marry Lisa.

What I'm finding most difficult to understand is how our marriage, or lack of marriage, affects anybody else's, how not letting us get married strengthens someone else's marriage. Anybody else in the world can get married as long as they're of different sexes. Rapists, serial murderers, politicians can get married, but we can't, because we happen to be the same sex.

If it's about love, then I dare anyone to say that I don't love my partner or my children, because I do. My view of God is of love. That is how I understand Him, and that is why I live a life of loving my family and wanting to protect my family.

So for anyone else to come and say that I cannot protect my family is discriminating against my family. And they can say anything else about how they don't mind, we're okay, just as long as we aren't parading or aren't in your face and we're not trying to say that we're married, because actually we refer to each other as wives. And other people refer to us as married. My colleagues say, how's your wife doing?

It's there. It's in the community. I have no doubt that within the next generation children who have grown up with children like my son will be saying, so what's the big deal? It'll be the same thing about people of different races or different creeds getting married.

At some point, people are going to say what we say at three o'clock in the middle of the night when we're both exhausted and we're saying, what are people so worried about? It's just that we're really boring when you get right down to it. We're ordinary middle-class people who spend a lot more time being parents than parading or anything else. We just need legal recognition in the courts. Any church, any parish, can say whatever they want about our relationship. My sons know the truth about our relationship. They know the truth about what makes a family. But we need the court to give my sons protection.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Macklin. This would be the final question.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Thank you, Chair.

I have a couple of questions. This morning we had as a witness Father Man-Son-Hing, who was reflecting the interests of the Roman Catholic Church and the diocese here in Sudbury. We were asking him, because it's been brought up on many occasions, whether the church felt under attack in terms of the legal challenges these days, and did section 2 of the charter, providing for religious freedom, give the protection that was necessary. I get a sense from you that obviously you're very concerned about what is, if I can use the term, a proprietary right, and I would go maybe further and say a fundamental freedom.

Do you feel that section 2 of the charter is giving you all that you need in terms of protection, or ought we, as legislators, to be looking at in some way trying to strengthen that from your perspective; and if so, what way or ways would you suggest that we might approach this, if that is your view?

Á (1155)

Mr. Greg Mayhew: You're correct in saying and reading between the lines that it is our fundamental concern here. In our opinion, the government has created a situation with equality rights that is going to bring it into direct and immediate conflict with the freedom of religion, and that is why we've taken the position we have, that the term “marriage”, the institution of marriage, belongs to the church.

In the panel before us, Ms. Ikonen brought up a point that I wholeheartedly agree with. It's okay to say right now that section 2 protects the church and their religious freedoms, but the bottom line is that the envelope is always going to be pushed. We know that. That's the way things work. Once inroads are made to a certain extent, those inroads are going to be pushed. The envelope will be pushed further. There will come a time--and this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone--when equality rights, individual freedoms, will come into direct conflict with our constitutionally guaranteed religious freedoms.

What we're talking about here is perhaps increasing the separation between church and state, recognizing areas of authority. What we're saying is that the institution of marriage does belong to the church, that government has only supported it and recognized it. It was created in the church. It was defined by the church. What you choose to do with this particular situation is really a matter for the courts, a matter for legislation, and that we consider to be a civil institution. We do not want the term, which we feel belongs to the church--as we've expressed throughout this entire debate--being utilized to define that particular union.

The Chair: Mr. Macklin?

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Thank you.

The Chair: I thank the panel and the committee. This is, as you can well imagine, a complex issue--arguably less complex perhaps than some make it, arguably more complex than some make it. I want to thank you for your assistance in helping us work our way through this.

I have a couple of announcements, and this is as much for the folks in the back as anyone. This room is going to be locked during lunch for purposes of securing the stuff that is here. Also, those who are not intending to return, please make sure the interpretation equipment is returned.

We'll be back here at one o'clock. The meeting is suspended until then.

Á (1158)

· (1303)

The Chair: I call back to order the 35th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee is resuming its study on marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions.

This afternoon until two o'clock we have from the Association des femmes et du droit, Margaret Denike; as an individual, Jane Djivré; and from the All Nations Church, Reverend Michael Mieto, associate pastor.

Each panellist has the opportunity to make a seven-minute opening statement. When there is one minute left, you'll see this. When your time is done, you will see this. Please bring it to a close. Then we'll have an opportunity for the members of the committee to participate in a discussion.

Please proceed, Ms. Denike.

Professor Margaret Denike (National Association of Women and the Law): My name is Dr. Margaret Denike. I'm a professor of gender equality and social justice at Nipissing University in North Bay. I am presenting on behalf of the National Association of Women and the Law, which is a non-profit, equality-seeking organization promoting equality for women and minorities through the courts, legislation, and legislative reform. We are pleased to have the opportunity to present to members of the standing committee our views with respect to the question of whether the federal government should recognize same-sex marriages.

In addressing this question, we urge you to keep in mind your constitutional obligations as lawmakers to promote a society in which all persons enjoy equal recognition at law, to advance the equality of historically disadvantaged groups, and to not be swayed by political and social prejudice and stereotyping, such as that born of religious dogma. These basic guiding principles comprise the purpose of our constitutional equality guarantees, as affirmed unanimously by the Supreme Court of Canada. It is your role to ensure that Canadian law reflects the egalitarian values and human rights enshrined in our Constitution.

With this in mind, we call on you to remove the discriminatory restrictions on marriage between persons of the same sex, and to recognize their equal human dignity and their freedom to make such fundamental personal choices about their relationships. It is NAWL's position that the prohibition against same-sex marriage is discriminatory and in violation of section 15 of the charter, and that such discrimination is not justifiable in a free and democratic society. Furthermore, we submit that registered domestic partnerships and other similar options are not an acceptable alternative to recognizing the right to marriage and to respecting the human rights of lesbians and gays in the 21st century. What is required here is nothing less than the equal right to marriage.

In this regard, we agree with, and urge you to adopt, the equality considerations and related conclusions provided by the Law Commission of Canada in its final report on personal relationships. These are as follows: that governments cannot continue to maintain an institution of marriage in a discriminatory fashion; that in light of the state's current objectives underlying its regulation of marriage, there is no justification for maintaining the current distinctions between same-sex and heterosexual unions; and finally, that while a registration scheme might serve to recognize the diversity of relationships, it should not be seen as a policy alternative to reforming marriage. On this note, we recognize that as long as heterosexual couples have the option to marry and/or to register their domestic partnership, and same-sex couples have only the latter, the registration scheme simply reinforces the second-class status of same-sex couples.

Historically, marriage laws have been shaped and deeply influenced by medieval Christian theology and canon law, which once buttressed the exclusive jurisdiction of the church over what it called a sacrament. Such features of the history of marriage law are important to understanding how marriage has been construed traditionally as a sacred, indissoluble union between a man and a woman—or as a relation that commanded the silence and obedience of women to men, or as a relation that was once thought to sanctify sexual relations that might otherwise be associated with sin.

Whatever the objectives of the early church, and however influential they have been in the past in the state's role in regulating marriage, it has been widely recognized that they are no longer in keeping with the lived reality of personal relationships, and as being inconsistent with the egalitarian values that Canadians have increasingly embraced. Since the state has assumed jurisdiction over marriage, we have consistently witnessed profound changes in the state's regulations, as evidenced by its current objectives of providing a more equitable distribution of benefits, protections, and legal obligations during and after a marital relation breaks down, and in its general interest in providing a non-discriminatory framework to assist in organizing private affairs of married persons. These changes have been influenced by social values that have been more and more accepting of cultural and religious diversity, just as they have been of the principles of gender equality and the universality of human rights and the freedom to make such fundamental choices about one's relationships.

· (1305)

While many of our laws regulating relationships have been changed to bring them into line with such principles of equality and freedom of choice, as we see, for example, with the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, the laws that restrict marriage to heterosexual couples continue to rely on archaic stereotypes and social prejudice, and they remain explicitly discriminatory. It is NAWL's contention that the prohibition against same-sex marriage is direct, formal, and explicit discrimination against lesbians and gays that is not permissible under our current constitutional framework, nor is it under section 1. We submit that excluding gays and lesbians from marriage will be judged by the Supreme Court to be discriminatory for the very same reasons that it has recognized the exclusion of gays and lesbians from other social benefits and protections to be contrary to the charter equality guarantees.

In addition to seeking benefits and protections that are conferred by marriage, there are many reasons individuals choose to marry, and these hold true for same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike. Since to many people marriage continues to be an important practice or ritual validating one's choice and commitment to another person, and since marriage continues to provide a wealth of tangible and intangible benefits that have a direct impact on the psychological, social, and economic well-being of so many persons, it's NAWL's contention that as long as the institution of marriage is in the realm of public law and state control, the right to marry must be extended to same-sex couples. The denial of such benefits to them and their exclusion from such choices confers a second-class status on their relationships and it perpetuates the view that they are less worthy of protection.

Thank you.

· (1310)

The Chair: Next is Jane Djivré.

Ms. Jane Djivre (As Individual): Members of the justice committee, guests, and fellow witnesses, thank you for convening to hear the views of Canadians on this topic.

As you know, any decision that alters the fabric of society must be analyzed and its consequences be carefully considered. This is such a decision. I've read the discussion paper and various viewpoints, and frankly I'm not sure if I have something to say that is vastly different from what you've heard before. Perhaps this only reinforces that there are distinct streams of thought on both sides of the issue. It is up to you as a committee to choose not necessarily the most pleasing of all choices but the most appropriate for Canada and the generations to come.

Three years ago, the federal government stated that, “...the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same-sex marriages". I believe the government should honour this position, and I further recommend the following.

First, the government should not change the definition of marriage. The discussion paper proposed that marriage could remain an opposite-sex institution, leaving its definition unchanged. The definition of marriage has its roots in historical decisions, such as the 1866 British case, Hyde v. Hyde, stating the definition of marriage as occurring between a man and a woman. This is a definition that no Canadian court has changed since then.

Webster's Dictionary states that marriage is the mutual relation of husband and wife, 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. It is at this point that we must realize that the definition of a word does not change, even if it is debated. If this debate is about changing the meaning of a word, then indeed we're talking about a different word—not about marriage.

Unlike oppressive traditions in history, marriage and its meaning are not being cultivated with racism or hate. It is stemming from a solid belief in the family unit, and a definition of what that family unit comprises.

Second, we should uphold marriage as a heterosexual institution only. The discussion paper offers an option of including same-sex couples in marriage. However, not all Canadians agree with same-sex lifestyles, let alone marriages. It is important to note that many Canadians of a variety of faiths and philosophical backgrounds view homosexual activity to be morally wrong. This includes the Muslim, Christian, and Jewish faiths, and others as well. It is premature in this democratic process to assume that this is a moot point.

However, since this is one of the main alternatives being discussed, I would like to draw your attention to some recent Canadian polls on the issue, some of which indicate that approximately the same percentage of people oppose as support the issue. However, a closer look at those numbers reveals that twice as many people strongly oppose gay marriages than the number that strongly supports them. Should we be changing legislation in light of these statistics?

Similar opinions are found even when considering other options, including the partnership model. I am sure you know that countries such as Belgium have registered partnership models and are now considering legalizing same-sex marriage. The Netherlands has already gone down that road and has come out as the only country in the world legalizing same-sex marriage. Are we really ready to be the next?

Making marriage a same-sex institution would fundamentally change its intent and meaning and should not be pursued.

The final recommendation is that same-sex relationships should be viewed legally as common-law relationships, having the corresponding laws, obligations, benefits, and status. Ontario's Bill 5 and Canada's Bill C-23 have already given legal status, common-law rights, and obligations to same-sex unions. In fact, 41 of the 61 statutes amended through Bill 5 extend new rights to individuals in a same-sex relationship.

In conclusion, same-sex relationships are valid under law if they are conjugal and have the intention to commit for a period of time. It is no wonder then the debate has come to this point. Intellectually, there appears to be little difference between a homosexual and heterosexual relationship. However, physically, socially, spiritually, perceptually, there is a difference.

Heterosexual marriage should remain distinct as an important sign of affirmation to our culture and our values. And though other lifestyles are free to coexist, this should not overshadow the fact that heterosexual marriage is distinct in its intent and its make-up—a man and woman committed by covenant for life—and the fact that heterosexual marriage is a foundational relationship in this country.

· (1315)

In summary of the recommendations: do not change the definition of marriage; uphold marriage as a heterosexual institution; and view same-sex relationships legally as common-law relationships, with the corresponding laws, obligations, benefits, and status—but not the ones provided by marriage.

Just like you, I am one who's standing in the crossroads and considering the legacy that I'll leave behind for future generations. We must carefully consider the long-term consequences of short-term solutions. History has shown us that introducing partnership models is a relatively short step to changing the definition of marriage and, consequently, to legalizing same-sex marriage. If Canada is not ready to legalize same-sex unions now, then Canada is not ready to legislate a partnership model or a system that facilitates its creation a few years from now.

Thank you.

The Chair: We go now to Reverend Michael Mieto.

Reverend Michael Mieto (Associate Pastor, All Nations Church): Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to come here today.

Marriage, by definition and tradition, has been the union between one man and one woman. This has been recognized by societies and cultures around the world. Courts have also found that the traditional definition, nature, and structure of marriage do not violate the human rights of gay and lesbian people. It is our position that the Canadian Parliament should continue to maintain the traditional definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

We are very concerned that the role of courts has been raised to the position of determining the correctness of the will of Parliament. No court should have the authority to overrule the expressed will of Parliament, nor the authority to dictate the terms and direction that Parliament will take to enact new laws. We believe that no court—and, in fact, no parliament—should have the authority to redefine the traditional definition of marriage as it has been recognized worldwide from ancient history to modern man.

Marriage has been in existence from the beginning of our history. As Christians, our understanding of marriage is based on Genesis 1 and 2 in the Bible. Genesis 1:27-28 says: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; males and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it'”. Furthermore, Genesis 2:24 says: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and they will become one”. In the New Testament, Jesus repeated this latter statement and so confirmed the understanding of the verses in Genesis found in Matthew 19:4-9.

Marriage in the Bible is rooted in a biological reality. Men and women were so created that in joining together in marriage they form a biologically complementary union that, in an ideal situation, develops into a union in which each is respectful, caring, and loving toward the other and to the children who they may bring into the world. All the world's major religions have an understanding of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Christians, Muslims, and Sikhs have joined together to support the opposite-sex definition of marriage in Canadian courts.

What is of concern is that a fundamental redefinition of marriage could have a serious and detrimental impact on the legal and social status of married couples in our society. The definitions of marriage used by the church and the state inform and influence each other.

Marriage has benefits for couples as well as for their children and society as a whole. Of all the opposite-sex unions, marriages are the most stable. Married people tend to be happier, healthier, longer living, with better mental health and lower rates of family violence. Married couples are the ones who are most likely to have children. In 2001, 68% of children 14 years and under lived with married couple families. Regardless of income, family structure influences the child's conduct, psychological well-being, educational outcomes, and future relationships. Children raised in the home with both their mother and father have close interaction with role models of both sexes. Children living with their two biological parents are less likely to experience neglect or abuse or to witness violence in the home.

British Home Office Minister Paul Boateng stated that more should be done to support marriage as the foundation of family stability: “We know that cohabitation is less likely to inculcate stability in a family than marriage”, he said, “But that is not a moral judgment. It is just a fact”.

Marriage is the relationship upon which human society is founded. The legal definition comes from the common law, which defines marriage as the voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. This definition has been confirmed by Canadian courts in many decisions. Should marriage be redefined to include homosexual relationships, it will further undermine the very foundation of the family and society. A redefinition will lend ultimate legitimacy to the lifestyle that carries with it many social costs in a variety of areas.

There are great concerns in the area of freedom of religion. Christianity is not alone in its view that homosexuality is a moral offence against God. Every major religious tradition shares this view, and most, if not all, primitive tribes have a taboo against homosexual behaviour. Of major concern is the possibility that changes in legislation to include same-sex unions in the definition of marriage will result in Christians losing their freedom to hold, declare, and practise our religious beliefs. In addition, there is a very real concern that if the definition of marriage is changed to include same-sex marriages, Christian clergy will face charges for failing to bless same-sex unions. In effect, we will lose the freedom of religion that this country was founded upon. Churches will be legally challenged if they openly teach certain passages in their holy scripture, the Bible, even though they have a strong conviction that the Bible contains the infallible word of God.

· (1320)

Gay and lesbian theorists have recognized the impact on marriage that a redefinition will entail. Lesbian theorist Ladelle McWhorter states that if homosexuals are:

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

A widening of the definition of marriage will not have the desired result of adding legitimacy to same-sex relationships, but will have the result of decreasing the value of marriage. We believe this will result in a reduced level of commitment between couples. The negative impact of this on children and society as a whole cannot be underestimated. We are seeing a situation where “some” who are choosing an alternative lifestyle are using the court system, and are attempting to use the parliamentary system, to change a traditional worldwide definition of marriage to gain recognition of their choice, to the detriment of Canadian society.

The right to alter marriage to include same-sex couples is a major thrust of the homosexual rights movement. It is the final legitimation of homosexual behaviour. There is no need to redefine marriage.

Marriage is now recognized in law and public policy as distinctive from other relationships. Marriage describes a unique relationship, whereby one man and one woman commit to a permanent relationship to the exclusion of all others. Should a same-sex couple wish to make a commitment to one another, that is their choice; but it must be done outside the definition of marriage.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Cadman, for seven minutes.

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

I'd like to thank the witnesses for coming today.

Dr. Denike, you made reference to the Law Commission of Canada. I'd just like to explore something here. A couple of months ago, the Law Commission did appear before the committee in Ottawa, and there was some discussion around the rules of exclusion. I believe that it was my colleague Mr. McKay who asked the question, “What is the reason for excluding a grouping of more than two people? Explain to me what's wrong with a threesome marriage or a foursome marriage? What's wrong with polygamy? Why are they excluded?” To that, Ms. Nathalie Des Rosiers, representing the Law Commission of Canada, responded, “In our view, what's interesting is that there is no reason for why it”—referring to polygamy—“should be excluded”.

I guess all I want to know is whether you would share that opinion. Would you concur with that opinion?

· (1325)

Prof. Margaret Denike: I don't have an opinion on polygamy.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Well, somebody from the Law Commission actually put this forward.

Prof. Margaret Denike: I have had the privilege of being a member of the advisory committee to the Law Commission of Canada since its inception in 1996 or so. I have seen and heard the many submissions and panels of professionals that they have put together over several years with respect to their mandate to investigate personal relationships.

From that experience, and the many times that I have heard Nathalie Des Rosiers speak on the matter, I would trust that what she is primarily concerned with are the many different kinds of relationships of interdependency—let's say between a disabled person and their caretaker, for example—that are not recognized in law, and the need for our law reform initiative to take more care in recognizing the nature of those relationships and how fundamental they are to the fabric of Canadian society. But I have to say that I've never heard her speak on polygamy. My experience with the commission has not been with this, I guess, very catastrophic question, but with the many different kinds of relationships that we are well aware of—including relationships between members of same-sex couples, for example. And it has been with relationships between people, such as those with disabilities and their caretakers, and many long-term relationships of people cohabiting, whether they're relatives or aunts or as you wish.

As I understand the Law Commission as a group, I understood that her concern was to move beyond a model of strict conjugality, as it is no longer justifiable in Canadian law.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Does anybody else have any comment on that?

The Chair: Reverend Mieto.

Rev. Michael Mieto: To answer briefly, sir, I would obviously not agree with relationships involving polygamy. I think we have to go back to the time when common-law relationships were accepted in our society. They are the norm right now, but we can also read, study, and research statistics on the results of that family structure once it was accepted and instituted, namely, dealing with its effects on children and single moms. In changing the family structure from anything other than a married man and wife to any other form, whether it be, as you mentioned, polygamy or same-sex, or to what we already have accepted, we can see from research papers the negative impact on children and single moms and costs to our society.

In saying all of that, opening this up to what we're discussing here today will probably, and eventually, lead to a panel such as this in regards to polygamy and/or any other relationships, which I won't mention right now.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I know there are those who have said before that bringing up this whole issue is irrelevant, but I have to emphasize for the record that as parliamentarians we have to consider all of the ramifications that flow from decisions we make. When somebody representing the Law Commission makes a statement like that, we have to take seriously that it is something we could be facing in the future. That's why these questions get asked.

Thank you very much.

· (1330)

The Chair: Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

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

Reverend Mieto, thank you for your presentation. I was a bit surprised to hear some of your statements and would like to give you an opportunity to clarify them.

You said that if we changed the definition of marriage, that would have "serious legal impacts on married couples." What impacts?

[English]

Rev. Michael Mieto: The impacts we're speaking about are what I just shared, prior to the other gentleman here. We know of the statistics, and we know of the cost to society and the effect on our society from common-law relationships when a man and a woman have children, and so forth. But we know that the stability is not there, as it should be; we know about the violence; we know about their offspring's educational strengths, criminal activity, and so forth. We have statistics to give weight to our concern.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Are you telling me that if same-sex couples were allowed to get married, there would be more violence, more problems with education and more criminal activity?

[English]

Rev. Michael Mieto: No, I'm not saying that, because I cannot predict the future. But as we look back on another relationship than a married man and a woman, we know the statistics of that. We know the statistics of common-law relationships and their effects thereafter.

I cannot predict, but as same-sex unions are another relationship than marriage, I question what the results or costs of them are going to be, because they are another form of relationship outside the definition of marriage as we know it today.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I would appreciate it if you would be so kind as to provide us with the statistics you are quoting on violence and so on. I would appreciate it if you could send them to the clerk of our committee, Mr. Martin, at the same address you used to send us your brief.

You said that to open the door to same-sex marriage would lead us to open the door to relationships you won't mention here. Here is your chance to mention them. Other than polygamy, what are the possibilities?

[English]

Rev. Michael Mieto: As for the brief and the statistics that you were questioning, the presentation I made today is just a brief version of the 10-page report that we were allowed to hand in. Some of those statistics are in that 10-page report we submitted to the committee.

As for your next question on whether this will open it up to other forms of relationships, yes, I believe it will, mainly because—

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: What other forms of relationships would it open the door to?

· (1335)

[English]

Rev. Michael Mieto: We are dealing with an acceptance and a redefinition of marriage to include another form of relationships, namely, same-sex unions. And you're asking the question, what do I believe this might lead to in the future?

We mentioned polygamy. People might tend to believe in same-sex relationships or, as in polygamy, that these are biological tendencies and/or preferences that we have rights to, as we've heard today in many of the sessions. Then I just raise the same question: are we going to be dealing with a panel such as this in 5, 10, 15, or 20 years, where those who would wish to have incestuous relationships should be accepted—and/or polygamy and other forms that were mentioned? I question these. And I am fearful of them, yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: So you are fearful. I wanted you to say so. I thought so, but I wanted that on the record.

You talk about your interpretation of the word of God and you mention the importance of freedom of religion. You said, and once again I was quite surprised, that you were fearful of Christians losing their freedom of religion and churches being forced to marry same-sex couples.

Do you know of any place in Canada where the Catholic Church has been forced to ordain female priests? Such discrimination goes against the Charter and violates equality between men and women. Are you aware of any case where, for example, the Catholic Church was compelled to marry people who were previously divorced? Once again, that is discrimination.

[English]

Rev. Michael Mieto: As I am not a member of the Catholic clergy and am not aware of all of their history and policies, my answer to that is no. Because I haven't researched that, I don't know.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I have done the research, and I can tell you that the Catholic Church, which is the one I know best, has never been forced to marry same-sex couples and has never been forced to ordain priests. With that knowledge—for argument's sake—what makes you say your church would be forced to marry same-sex couples, when it goes against the tenets of your religion, which I respect and do not question? In fact, I take no issue whatsoever with that.

Second, what makes you say a same-sex couple who wants to get married, who wants to celebrate their love, would wish to do so in a place where they are not welcome? Don't you think same-sex couples would want to celebrate their marriage, which is supposed to be a joyous event, in a place with open doors, where they are welcomed with open arms to celebrate this happy event?

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Marceau.

Rev. Michael Mieto: To answer your first question, I believe that it's not a question of our being forced somewhere to marry, but more the fear of being forced to marry by legislation that is passed saying that we must do so.

To answer your second question on same-sex couples wanting to have a happy celebration to be married and that they wouldn't come to a place where they're not welcome, again that is their choice. But I personally and/or the church that I represent are not discriminatory. We are probably one of the most open-door churches in our area, but we will also go by the standard that is written in the scriptures that we adhere to, believe in, and live out.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Mr. Macklin.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for appearing. We do appreciate your testimony, and you've given us a good variety of testimony at this particular panel.

There's one thing that seems to emerge. I don't know if you were here this morning; you may have heard us pursuing what we believe is starting to appear as one very fundamental part of the puzzle we're looking at, which is whether you, as the church, feel under attack by society and whether you feel section 2 of the charter is not adequate to meet the needs and concerns you have in terms of protecting religious freedom.

I'd like to get your response. I would even care to hear from the other panellists on this issue, because at the end of the day, one of the issues we keep hearing over and over again is that marriage flows from the church. As a matter of fact, it was clearly stated this morning that marriage is a proprietary item of the church and it's been taken without their consent by the state.

The question is, do we have a right as the state to change it, then? We may have a technical right, but do we have a moral right to change it?

Do you feel, Reverend Mieto, that your religion is under attack in this process? Do you feel uncomfortable about your only protection being section 2 of the charter? Do you believe we should be doing more to protect you if that is true?

· (1340)

Rev. Michael Mieto: I feel, first of all, regarding section 2 of the charter, it's always been a surprise to me personally that religious freedom is at the end of that sentence.

Secondly, yes, I do feel somewhat...not this massive or great fear, or even concern, for that matter. I believe God is above all of this. But when it comes down to equal rights of an individual--and the last panel answered this question very well--it seems to me, having been in the law profession prior to the ministry, that the individual rights, when it comes right down to the bones of it, override the religious rights.

Yes, there is a concern on my part, and I would say the church--churches in general--would be somewhat concerned about this, even though there is the clause of freedom of religion. When it comes down to the crunch of rights, individual versus religious, there seems to be more weight, if I may use that term, in our land on the individual end.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Ms. Denike, do you wish to comment on that, because it sort of crosses all lines.

Prof. Margaret Denike: Yes, it does.

I'm a bit surprised at the extent to which--and I think your comment actually captures it well--some religions appear to feel under attack by extending equality rights to different individuals. I haven't quite come to fully understand that, in part because it seems to presume there are perhaps only a certain number of marriages to go around.

I want to direct my comment more on an international scale, because it's something I think we can all notice happening universally. We recognize the kinds of human rights abuses that are perpetuated in the name of certain belief systems. One thing many of us in the equality-seeking community appreciate is the extent to which we are increasingly requiring under international human rights obligations, for example...there's a problem with that at the very moment, that such obligations could recognize or even require a basic respect for the dignity of individuals. I'm sorry, I lost my train of thought.

I'm thinking specifically of instances of things like female genital mutilation or the requirement of women to wear a veil, or things that I think are very apparent to us as gross human rights abuses. We are less and less tolerant of their being justified in the name of freedom of belief or freedom of cultural expression and this kind of thing. I think we are increasingly challenged as a global community that promotes the equality and human rights for all persons to ensure our religions and our beliefs, as precious and important as they are to the fabric of all of our nations, are in keeping with these fundamental universal principles.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Now, to pursue that, if the churches believe this is vital--and I say that generally, because obviously there are some churches that don't--if there is a certain vitality in their requirement that we, as a government, not interfere with the definition, then I guess the next question is, how do you feel about our using section 1 of the charter, saying that this is a reasonable limitation that is demonstrably justifiable from the fears expressed by the churches to allow us to set up a parallel system and give it a different name?

I'd like to get a response from both Reverend Mieto and you, Ms. Denike, on this issue--because I think we're starting to see the word “marriage” is extraordinarily complex in the way it's applied and the way it is emotionally attached to both competing groups. Yet, at the end of it, the question is, where does section 2 protect the churches, as they believe in their proprietary right, and how do we not discriminate against those who would like to share in the benefits of the institution otherwise?

· (1345)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Ms. Denike? Or is it Reverend Mieto?

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: I would like to hear from both on the issue, please.

Prof. Margaret Denike: Would you like to speak first?

Rev. Michael Mieto: No, go ahead. I might forget the question, though.

Prof. Margaret Denike: I don't see religious freedom to be compromised. The churches can carry on to bless marriages in the way they do or to say, as perhaps in the Catholic Church, that divorced couples are not entitled to marry. I think that independent principle of one's religion is something that is important to protect. But we're talking about the state to the extent that the state is involved in this institution. I think as soon as we go there, we get out of that particular realm, at least for the purposes of the regulation of marriage and whether or not and to what extent one would invoke section 1.

Now, I think what section 1 requires--and I don't quite know how to put it together with section 2, I have to say--at least for the purposes of the state's involvement in marriage, is that we look at the relationship, the rational connection, between the prohibition on same-sex marriage and the objective the government has in marriage law. I fail to see that rational connection, which I think is required to be made explicit by the state. I also recognize that the ban on same-sex marriage is explicitly discriminatory from the outset and it wouldn't be able to be covered under section 1.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Reverend Mieto.

Rev. Michael Mieto: To set up a parallel registry or one of the three, or maybe one of the many that might come before you in later days and in months, whether you look into this as a form of legal union between same-sex marriages would, I believe, be something for this committee and Parliament to decide, if they chose to go that way. At the same time, to change the definition of marriage and what the institution of marriage stands for, what it has been all through history and what it is up to today, as we speak, a church institution...I wouldn't want to see that changed.

Will those two be able to complement each other? That might be a tough question to answer. Again, I go back to the gentleman, Mr. Marceau. He asked me about predictions, and I cannot predict. I can only, in my mind, guess from looking at history, because history will and does repeat itself on many occasions. Will there be any fallout? Will there be any outcome? What will the church have to do as a result of accepting maybe a parallel marriage in another name and/or registry?

Again, we can't answer these questions, but yes, they are a concern of mine.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thank you, Reverend Mieto.

Mr. Toews, you have three minutes.

Mr. Vic Toews: The concept of rational connection is, I think, an interesting one, and it begs the question as to what we as parliamentarians take into account when we fashion laws with which to address societal concerns. We need to consider the ramification of the decision we make in respect of same-sex unions and any other rational alternative.

Now, my colleague mentioned earlier that the Law Reform Commission has stated that there is no reason, no rationality, to exclude polygamy. In other words, it is a reasonable alternative. The reverend earlier raised an interesting issue, the one of incest, for example, a relationship that now falls within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity. We've heard from many witnesses in the course of these hearings that the procreative aspect of marriage is no longer a defining feature of marriage. We've heard that over and over again.

That raises a question in my mind, since the prohibition against incest relates to the concerns around the procreative aspect of marriage, which is why it was banned. If this is no longer important because we have abortions, we have sterilization, and we have birth control, on what rational basis can we exclude incest? If there is no religious or moral basis we can use as a guide, where is the basis, then, on which we can now rationally exclude incest or other marriage relationships that are currently prohibited? On what basis do we do it if we can't use morality or religion, and the only criteria, rationality and the procreative aspect, are no longer important?

· (1350)

Prof. Margaret Denike: I would submit that perhaps that basis could be one of equality, and tolerating incest relations within a family, I think, is clearly inconsistent with such fundamental principles.

Mr. Vic Toews: Let's just take an adult brother and sister. Adult. Why is that rationally wrong? I can see a moral objection to it. I can see all kinds of religious objections to it, but these are two human beings who may love each other involved in an incestuous relationship. On what rational basis do we exclude them?

Prof. Margaret Denike: In part I don't quite understand your question, because to me it seems to be at the bottom of a slippery slope I haven't really fathomed going down.

Mr. Vic Toews: The question is, are you saying that the only basis we can make our laws on is that of rational connection?

Prof. Margaret Denike: No, I wouldn't say that. I think it's important that we bracket the morality that is specific to very specific belief systems and look to general principles.

Mr. Vic Toews: So what morality do we use?

Prof. Margaret Denike: I prefer to use the words “general principles”, such as the universality of human rights and equality. I think that's what our law mandates us to do.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We'll go to Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: This is to Ms. Denike.

One of the presentations yesterday said that essentially the courts could not, nor could Parliament, interfere with the definition of marriage because it was a heading under the Constitution. The Constitution based itself on a clear common law definition, and in order to be able to change the definition of marriage we would actually have to change the Constitution itself.

You appear to have spent some time with the Law Reform Commission and you appear to have spent some time thinking about these issues. I thought that was quite an interesting argument. I'd be interested in your response to that, whether in fact you're of the view that a constitutional change is required in order to be able to even play with the word “marriage” in the Constitution.

Prof. Margaret Denike: I want to turn that question around and ask, how could you justify requiring a constitutional change in order to ensure that a fundamental institution that is actually lived by many different individuals is not accessible to groups that have been recognized as being equally deserving of full participation in Canadian society?

I realize that this argument was made in the B.C. courts, and in making that argument they invoked quite an archaic...either case or law to do so. I don't quite know what to say about that, because it just seemed to me to be so out of step with the kinds of values that in the hundred years that has passed since the judgment he was relying on.... So much has happened, really, in the movement towards equality that it honestly didn't make sense to me. I couldn't imagine how it could be justified, nor could I imagine how it could be saved through an appeal to the Supreme Court.

· (1355)

Mr. John McKay: So you don't take any view with respect to the clarity of definitions and the wording on which our Constitution is built and the wording as it was understood by the framers of the Constitution back many years ago when our Constitution was put together. If in fact a word like “marriage”, which had a particular meaning and was incorporated into the Constitution some 130 years ago, now takes on a new meaning, that doesn't overly bother you and you don't feel that would require any kind of constitutional intervention.

Prof. Margaret Denike: I don't think it should bother me or anyone, any more than when the word “person” took on a different meaning and went on to include women, people of colour, and first nations people in this country in its interpretation,even if that wasn't what was in mind at the moment the Constitution was framed.

The Chair: Mr. Marceau, you have three minutes.

[Translation]

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

I have a comment and a question. Firstly, I was surprised to hear it argued that opening the door to same-sex marriages could lead to incestuous marriages. To be perfectly honest, and with all due respect, that is something that I have difficulty in understanding.

My question is open to all three of you. I am asking you for your help. We are trying to balance the following. I do not wish to speak on behalf of everybody here today, but, in my view, it is a case of, on the one hand, allowing churches which so wish to do so to celebrate same-sex marriages and, on the other hand, fully guaranteeing the right of the Reverend Mieto and others to not be forced to officiate a ceremony which goes against the principles of their faith.

The paradox that I, personally, am trying to deal with concerns these two questions. In other words, giving same-sex couples who wish to get married the full right to equality, while protecting Reverend Mieto's freedom of religion. The line is a thin one, and one which I always try to bear in mind.

In Quebec, there is the option of civil union which, to all intents and purposes, is marriage under a different name. It is more or less the same thing. We could use the term marriage if Quebec had jurisdiction in this field and it would be the same thing.

Furthermore, in the Civil Code there is an article which clearly states that nothing can be interpreted as being able to force a minister to officiate a ceremony which goes against the principles of his faith. There is, therefore, not only the protection offered by the Charter, but also this guarantee in the Civil Code.

If the committee were to decide to allow same-sex marriages, and to clearly include in the act this provision which would protect your church, Reverend Mieto, and which would guarantee that you would never be forced to marry a same-sex couple—and I repeat that that is your absolute right—is that something you could live with? You do not have to accept or approve of a relationship with which you completely disagree. That is your absolute right. But that would not stand in the way of someone from another Church or from the secular community doing so.

¸ (1400)

[English]

The Chair: Reverend Mieto.

Rev. Michael Mieto: I'll go back to your first part of your question. You don't seem to see any relationship and/or you can't tie what Mr. Toews mentioned about incestuous relationships, as I mentioned earlier...and I thank him for his viewpoint on it.

What we're talking about now, same-sex unions, is a kind of step that way. Well, you're in the same boat I am, but I may have been there a little earlier than you because I can't see the step from marriage to same-sex marriage, and you can't see the step from same-sex marriage to incestuous marriage. I'm just saying, if you give a finger, a hand is taken and then an arm is taken. These things will lead and open the door to other things. We're on the same road but at different levels.

Going to the next one, you're asking me if I would approve that it could be done somewhere else some other way, that I would be protected by not having to do the same. I go back to my last point in my summation, and that is, if a same-sex couple should wish to make a commitment to one another, that is their choice, but it must be done outside the definition of marriage. I come back to what we're discussing here today, and that's whether to change the definition of marriage as it is to include same-sex unions. I would--again, I'll take my stand--say that it is to the exclusion of all others besides a man and a woman.

Again, that's up to the state to determine. It's being done. Yes, there are churches that are accepting this, yet I go back to the standard that is set. The standard that has been set in our land right from the beginning of the Constitution, as Mr. McKay said, is the word of God, the Bible. Yes, there are translations, there have been twists, but the word of God stands and there are references there in God's word that are still standard in truth. Truth hurts, and I go back to that. There are portions in the scripture where God says thou shalt and thou shalt not. Those are the principles I live by and we live by.

If it's done somewhere else, I can't go over there and bang their doors down. There's the play of words; even you used that word in there, “possibly”. You used the word “possibly” when you referred to me. “Possibly” is a weak word to me, because it opens up doors and it's not concrete.

The Chair: I want to thank the panel and I thank the committee.

We're just a couple of minutes behind schedule. The present panel can excuse themselves, and the next panel can find its way here. I'm going to suspend for three minutes.

¸ (1403)

¸ (1408)

The Chair: I call the 35th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights back to order so we can continue our study on marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions.

From now until three o'clock, we have appearing as individuals Reverend Gary Landers, Krystie Coyne, and Cathy Coyne. I think you're aware of the procedure here: each presenter gets seven minutes, and when your time is up, we will engage in questions and answers with members of the committee.

With that, I'm going to go first to Gary Landers, for seven minutes.

Reverend Gary Landers (As Individual): Good afternoon.

My experience in the last hour has certainly been educational and informative. I notice your comfort zone around this table is much greater than mine. I trust that we'll work towards the end of feeling somewhat relaxed by the hour.

My presentation is respectfully submitted today from the perspective of a Canadian citizen, husband, father of four daughters and grandfather of one--I have the pictures if you want to see them afterwards. I'm an ordained minister with the Free Methodist Church in Canada, a group of churches that, at their very inception, placed freedom from slavery, as well as freedom from any sense of social discrimination, as an integral part of our formation and preservation. Our national office will make presentation on Friday.

Accordingly, I am committed to the worth of all humans. My participation in this hearing is to reflect upon the three options for the justice committee to consider. Part one is to legally define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. When our nation was founded, laws were established to protect and shape a people, the end result of which would be good for society as a whole as well as representing individual decision-making.

Circumstance then was not intended to overrule existing direction; rather, circumstance allows flexibility, but law establishes directions. The established perimeters for marriage to both protect and shape a people was that marriage be recognized to have both religious and civil components, and that the law affirm a marriage direction to complement lifestyles that promote and protect the family, the core formation of society. Accordingly, marriage, by definition, has always been “the union of one man and one woman”. Historically, and within Canadian understanding, this means that marriage is, and in my opinion should ever remain to be, an opposite-sex union.

Part two is the establishment of a civil registry for other types of domestic partnerships. I'm aware that circumstances have resulted in other forms of relationships in society. Economic and social pressures have resulted in some adults and families to approve, for their well-being, that partnership is the best direction. It is not my intention to wade into the water of these relationships. Suffice to say that some of these involve sexual intimacy and some are based on other criteria.

My question is, what are the benefits of such a registry? Will such a registry be solely for partnerships that involve sexual intimacy, or will they include any partnership of convenience? The Pandora's box of the second is gigantic. The first, in the minds of the participants, is probably unsatisfactory unless viewed as a small step upon which to build bigger steps, the future of which leads to total marriage recognition. Therefore, does or does not this registry undermine marriage as presently defined?

To enter this arena of discussion brings another crisis to bear. This hearing today was initiated by the Government of Canada. Our elected officials have a difficult task to face. However, I firmly believe this task is theirs by election and ours as citizens to accept and affirm at election time or to replace our government and revisit such issues. Never, in my mind, should the tail wag the dog.

The non-elected court's interpretation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should not be the dictator in a free society. The present government voted to leave the legal definition of marriage as is. Although groups have the liberty to seek government change, no non-elected body has the right to force change upon a democratic society.

Option two, drafting a law to redefine marriage to be the union of two persons, would have devastating consequences upon our nation. Suffice it to say that a decision based on this decision would imply that the circumstances are so unalterable as to change the law. If government should choose to do this, I would suggest a referendum on such be considered so that the will of the people be exercised. Other secondary issues would have to be considered as well; for example, what protection would clergy of religious groups have who see such legislation as a violation of their religious convictions should they be approached to participate in a union contrary to their persuasion?

¸ (1410)

Finally, option three is that federal and provincial governments cease recognizing marriage and instead create a civil partnership regime. Here marriage would be left to religious institutions and would have no legal status. Such a position would be a suggestion by government that marriage is neither helpful nor hurtful to society. History has suggested strongly that marriage, as a divine and civil institution, has been foundational in the establishing of society. This proposed new concept for viewing marriage literally minimizes governments' view of marriage to a piece of paper. Such a “lowest common denominator” mentality benefits no one.

In conclusion, our nation has made many changes in relational and provisional matters dealing with those who live outside of the present definition of marriage. I agree that compassion reaps positive results. To continue to respect a person for who he is, is foundational. When necessary, to respectfully say no to suggested change is a privilege of democracy.

¸ (1415)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Landers.

Now to Krystie Coyne and Cathy Coyne, for seven minutes.

Ms. Krystie Coyne (As Individual): Thank you very much.

What is marriage? To me, marriage is to love another person so much that you would choose to declare that you will spend the rest of your life with that one person. It sounds simple, and beautiful, unless you happen to be in love with someone of the same sex. If this is the case, then you have to bend your will to the government as it stands and be denied this option.

Now, something to consider is that not all people want to be married. Straight and gay communities both have their share of people who choose to live a solitary life or live in a cohabiting relationship with another person and not be married. Could this be because they consider it a trap, that they don't want to be trapped in an institution set up by the government? Or perhaps they never saw or experienced a good marriage; they didn't have that sort of role model in their lives to understand what kind of benefit the marriage can bring. Some even see it as an institute of discrimination, setting apart those who are respectable and decide to marry against those who would be non-respectable citizens or anti-government.

So what is marriage to me? Well, my parents have a loving marriage. However, as it stands, marriage is an institute of discrimination. It decides who will be allowed to marry and who will not. As it stands, I'm in the “not” category because I'm in love with a woman.

What makes me so different that I cannot be married? Let's see. I'm a student. I study. I spend late nights cramming for exams. I go to work at odd jobs to help to get myself through university with a little bit less student debt. I have friends both straight and gay. I have sorrows and joys just like anybody else. I have a family. I have a family made up of a mother and father who are still married, and a brother. This family has shown me love and acceptance and support. They have shown me this through their relationship and to me personally.

So what makes me so different? I love another woman. It's not a big deal. I love her. She loves me. It's simple. Families on both sides, hers and mine, are accepting of our relationship. Her family likes me and my family likes her. She comes over for Sunday dinner, family dinner. It doesn't seem to be a big deal to our families. I have seen couples with less going for them try for a marriage and succeed wonderfully and I've seen couples with much more going into the relationship fail miserably.

All I want is the chance to choose. I want the opportunity to tell the woman I love that I do love her and I want to marry her and spend the rest of my life with her. So what do I have to do to be able to do this? I have to come out to a hearing. I have to talk to a panel of people who don't know me or her or anything about our relationship. And this panel will judge us and decide whether or not to validate our love or to deny us and say that our love isn't as good as anybody else's.

Try to consider it in terms of your own family. Could you tell your daughter, son, or grandchildren that they must come forward to a room full of strangers, possibly potential employers, and face possible hostility? This could lead to discrimination, harassment. It is in this environment that you must openly announce your love for a person, a love that is right now considered to be unworthy and wrong, or announce your support for equal marriage for same-sex couples. Now consider that this is a possible reason why you may see fewer people coming out to support this side of the argument--fear of discrimination and harassment that does occur, even though we are supposed to be protected by laws.

So I ask you again, could you tell your daughter or son or your grandchildren that they have to come forward in this type of hostile environment and say that they love someone of the same sex and have that love approved? My mother wouldn't ask me to do this alone and so she's here with me today. Now she has a few words to share with you as well.

¸ (1420)

Mrs. Kathy Coyne (As Individual): It came as a surprise when my daughter came out to me, but as I've always told her, it's her life. I have no right to tell her how to live it, and I gave birth to her. What make you politicians and religious leaders think you have the right to tell my daughter who she can and can't marry?

As far as I'm concerned, as long as she's happy, it doesn't matter what sex her spouse is. In the battle about lesbian and gay relationships not lasting, have you taken a good look at heterosexual marriages lately? We seem to be living in the divorce age. I'm proud to say I've been married 32 years, and I can tell you it has not been all hearts and flowers.

My daughter knows you have to work at any relationship. Nowadays people don't seem to want to put any effort into their relationships at all, but as you can see, Krystie is fighting tooth and nail to be able to marry the woman she loves. Just tell me, who is going to be hurt if lesbians and gays are finally given the right to marry? A relationship is only the business of the two people involved, not any other busybody with nothing constructive to do.

This is Canada, supposedly a country with freedom and equality for every citizen. I ask you, is it equality when you tell two people they can't marry? You say, let's call it a registered domestic partnership instead of marriage. If that's the case, then every heterosexual who is now married has to have their marriage changed to a registered domestic partnership. If it's good for one, then it's good for all.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

To Mr. Toews, for seven minutes.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you.

Reverend Landers, you raised an issue that keeps on coming up, and that is the protection of ministers and religious organizations. Freedom of religion is clearly, or it should be, more than the right to hold certain beliefs. It also involves the right to practise those beliefs and could include proselytization of those beliefs.

We see, as a result of various court and human rights commission decisions, clear incursions on the right to adhere to certain religious beliefs and to practise those religious beliefs. Beyond doubt in this country, this is already happening. I think the Brockie case here in Ontario is a very clear case that illustrates the clash between what is protected, which is belief, and what is not protected, which is the practice of those beliefs in the commercial marketplace. It's a very clear example of that clash.

My colleague Mr. Marceau has advanced a legislative proposal to protect the rights of ministers not to perform same-sex union marriages. With all due respect, that solution misses the point. It addresses a straw man that really has already been addressed by the charter. It's no more than window dressing, because the charter already protects your right to do that within the context of your religious organization.

The attack that will come on religious organizations, and this is the concern I bear on behalf of my constituents, is the indirect attacks on the church insofar as it relates outside of the four corners of the church organization, the benefits it receives from the state, for example, in terms of financial benefits--charitable tax status; and the direct funding of religious organizations by the province, which is in fact going on or proposed here now in Ontario by the Progressive Conservative government wanting to give religious educational institutions money directly from the state. The fact that these attacks have not yet occurred in that context is neither here nor there. Certainly we see it in other contexts, and when the definition of marriage changes, if it should change, those attacks will be the next rational or logical progression.

In fact, last Friday we were in Steinbach, where there were two witnesses who in fact advocated that a non-denominational Christian organization that received funding from government but had a code of ethics that prohibited homosexual conduct, among other things, should be denied that government funding. Both witnesses said these organizations should receive no government funding, that there should be a clear separation because of their discriminatory practices.

As far as I'm concerned, that's where we're going next. So Mr. Marceau's solution, with all due respect, is totally irrelevant to that. It doesn't address that interaction of the church in day-to-day life, in the commercial marketplace and otherwise.

I'm wondering if you have any further comments on that. You're the one who raised the issue.

¸ (1425)

Rev. Gary Landers: I agree that whenever change is made, the foundation of change is never known at that moment.

As a simple illustration, years ago there was a decision made that Sunday was to be open to the general public in every sense of the word, and no person would be forced to work on Sunday. The assurance was made that that's the way it would be. Rest assured, if you say no to your job, you will not have to work on Sunday. The outcome of that was this. When new jobs came into play, the application to the new jobs stated that you must be willing to work weekend hours. Therefore, people who had a personal conviction about that setting were voided from that job simply by the fact that they said, no, we want Sunday to be a special family day in our lives.

I think what you're saying is in the same direction as some of these thoughts.

Mr. Vic Toews: In fact, if we then just take the analogy, it doesn't matter whether the government passes a law saying you as a religious organization are entitled to go to church on Sunday and you don't have to work; the reality is that you don't qualify for certain jobs.

That's the interaction I'm talking about, which I haven't heard satisfactorily addressed by those who raised the concern that you have raised, and then the others saying, oh, don't worry about it; nothing is going to happen to you. That's the issue that I find has not been addressed in the testimony.

The Chair: Ms. Coyne, did you want to respond?

Ms. Krystie Coyne: Yes, I'd like to respond to that.

To begin with, Mr. Toews, you started by saying you were worried about funding for groups, churches, and religious organizations that the government gives out. My response to that would be that the government is the one who holds the purse strings. You're the ones who are making the decisions. So if you cut off funding, that would be your decision.

Then you compare it to a public division, privately owned institutions that make their rules based, yes, on what the government has outlined for them but are not necessarily directly governed at all times by the government. To make that comparison, I think, is unfair. To say you can't work on Sundays so you're not going to have this job--I don't think that is a fair parallel to saying the government won't fund religious institutions if they deny homosexual marriages.

The Chair: Monsieur Marceau, for seven minutes.

[Translation]

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

I have both a comment and a question. Firstly, I would like to make a comment regarding working on Sundays. I know of some instances when the Commission des droits de la personne du Québec ruled that people who did not wish to work on Sundays on religious grounds did not have to do so.

I also remember that, before people worked on Sundays, some Jewish people had to work on Saturdays and some Muslims had to work on Fridays.

We have, therefore, to be careful. The fact that Canada is a country with a Christian majority does not make Canada a Christian country. The difference is subtle, but nonetheless important.

Following my colleague Mr. Toews' question, I would like to talk about attacks on freedom of religion. The religion with which I am most familiar is that of the Catholic Church.

Are you aware of any court of justice, or any government decision, be it at a municipal, provincial or federal level, resulting in monies and certain tax benefits being withheld from the Catholic Church because it does not allow women to become priests, which is discriminatory, or because it refuses to marry people who are divorced? Can anyone give us an example of such a government decision? Are there any cases before the courts which could prove to me that the Catholic Church which, by the way, is the main church in Canada, has lost benefits due to practices which are clearly discriminatory in terms of a secular understanding of the world?

¸ (1430)

[English]

The Chair: Reverend Landers, I think this question was put to you.

Rev. Gary Landers: I have not heard of a government or legal direction that has withheld moneys from the Catholic Church because they hold particular practices that would be suggested as being discriminatory.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I am glad to hear it. Now, I would like to ask you for your help.

Mr. Toews does not agree with the argument which I put forward as regards protection, he says that it is already protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I agree that freedom of religion is already enshrined in the Charter. The section which I am proposing aims primarily to clarify the application of a broad principle which, in a constitutional charter, refers to a very precise activity, the celebration of religious ceremonies in a religious institution.

However, Mr. Toews has not managed to reconcile the religious freedoms of the United Church, the Unitarian Church, and the Reformed branch of Judaism, all of which wish to allow same-sex marriage, something the state forbids, with protection and respect for the principles of your faith, things to which you are absolutely entitled and which, together with you, I will always defend.

Help me. What can I do, as a legislator, to allow churches who wish to marry homosexual couples, given that it is acceptable in their interpretation of the sacred scriptures to do so, while protecting your right to choose not to? As much as you do not want the theological teachings of the United Church to be imposed on your church, I am sure that you would also not wish to impose your vision of things on the United Church, the Unitarian Church or any other church, given that we are all in favour of religious freedom.

If you could make a suggestion to us on how we could balance these two fundamental values of our society, what would it be?

[English]

Rev. Gary Landers: It's nice to be a pastor of a small church and not have to think of these questions in a broader perspective. But you've raised a very interesting question: how do we free--that's a good word in a Free Methodist church--religious organizations to behave according to their hearts' liberty? I guess the answer is that somehow in your wisdom you're going to have to deal with the question of the definition of marriage, because that definition dictates the freedom churches that hold to the scriptures in a fundamental way respond to, and churches that hold to scriptures in a directional way respond to.

The answer isn't simple. I appreciated Krystie's presentation of just how she feels as a person, and I commend her for being here today to take her stand because of her conviction. The issue still remains that Krystie has her definition of marriage: “To me, marriage is....” She gave that definition at the outset of her presentation. For Krystie to have that definition...she wants to go on with her life in passion from there.

Unfortunately, that definition is not the definition of the present day, so it's not going to be a simple transition from one to the other. Your first recommendation of the three, where you gave two options to marriage, would seem to invite different spirits of consensus to work together. However, it's still not complete enough for those of different persuasion to say, yes, we would want that.

¸ (1435)

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

Mr. John McKay: Thank you, Chair. Again, thank you, witnesses.

I want to direct my comments to Krystie and Cathy Coyne. You made a couple of points. You said if we stay with the opposite-sex definition of marriage you're not validated or approved, and really, “It's not your right to tell me who I can or cannot marry”.

Presently, as constituted, the definition of marriage has three elements: there's a number, there's a gender, and there's a claim on exclusivity--one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. We had testimony before from Professor Kinsman that marriage is a privileged status in our society. It's valued over other forms of relationship and should really be turned into an equivalency to other relationships based upon other criteria.

You, of course, object to the government, MPs, saying who you can or cannot marry. Would you take the view that we, the government or members of Parliament, should just basically get out of the marriage business altogether, just abandon the word to whatever it means, in effect privatize the word? Or should we simply abandon the gender part of the definition and leave the other two parts intact--the number and the exclusivity?

Other witnesses have said the number is not all that terribly important. We've had other witnesses who've said the exclusivity part of it is not all that terribly important. While the main thrust of the testimony to date has been on the gender part of the definition, as sure as God made little green apples, the next wave will be on the number, and then the next wave will be on the exclusivity.

So I want to be clear about whether you think we have a right--whatever that means these days--to be in the field. That would therefore impact upon who you might marry. Do you think we should just abandon one part of the definition, or do you think we should simply privatize marriage, turn it over to non-governmental institutions, be they churches, synagogues, mosques, whatever, or somebody who sets up a business called “Marry-R-Us” or something, and just leave it at that? We'll just get out of the field and privatize marriage.

¸ (1440)

Ms. Krystie Coyne: To answer your question, there are a number of parts that need to be addressed. First of all, I'm here today because I'm arguing against institutionalized discrimination based on gender. So right now I'm fighting to have the gender part changed.

I understand the position Gary Kinsman is taking, that getting out of the marriage business and finding something that would put people in all sorts of relationships on more of an even playing field may be an ideal to look for in the future. I don't know if society is ready for that just yet. But beyond society being ready for it just yet, I think that particular format would probably cause the longest delay in any decision. You would have to get all levels of government to agree to it. You would have the most challenges and it would be the most costly. Because of the way marriage, as I understand it, is divided between federal and provincial governments, to get out of the marriage business completely would be very difficult. I don't know how you would propose to come up with a way that it could be agreed upon by all levels of government.

Mr. John McKay: Neither do I.

So your major concern is that it is discrimination based upon gender. You're not as worried about discrimination based on number or exclusivity.

Ms. Krystie Coyne: I don't think that's the issue being addressed today.

Mr. John McKay: I agree, but in some respects it's interesting that it's a recognized discrimination that, by and large, is accepted among categories of people, even people in this room who would advocate in the same manner you would. They would accept the other two parts of the definition as justifiable discrimination.

Ms. Krystie Coyne: I'm not sure how to respond to that.

Mr. John McKay: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Toews is next, for three minutes.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you.

I note the issue of cost has been raised. I think cost is an important element, and when we look at the cost of marriage breaking down in our society, it's tremendous in emotional, psychological, and physical terms, and indeed in terms of the shift of cost from individual family units to government.

We know that marriages, in the traditional legal definition, last twice as long as common-law relationships, on average, statistically speaking. Statistics Canada will tell us that. We know that while 30% of marriages are expected to end in divorce, 60% of common-law relationships end in divorce.

Marriage is a more stable foundation for children in terms of the protection of children. The amount of abuse that occurs in the traditional marriage relationship is much less--even on a raw number basis--than in common-law and single-family relationships, even though there are many fewer relationships in that respect. Marriage, statistically speaking, not in any particular institution, is a safer place for women and children if you look at homicide rates, assaults, and that. Divorce clearly has long-term effects on everyone.

It seems to me that as an institution there are some very important reasons why we may want to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. We don't know what the impact of changing that definition to include same-sex couples will be. Will it go the same way as common-law or single-parent relationships? We don't know. We simply don't have the statistics; we've never kept them.

Given the kinds of benefits that we know occur in traditional marriages, isn't there some interest in the state perpetuating that so-called discriminatory institution? There are certain distinct advantages to the state and to human beings in general in continuing with that relationship and protecting it legislatively, socially, and financially.

¸ (1445)

The Chair: Ms. Krystie Coyne.

Ms. Krystie Coyne: Actually, I would say just the opposite. Knowing that marriage provides all these benefits, why wouldn't you want to let homosexual couples get married? As it stands, they have common-law status, so they have all the same pitfalls of common-law relationships. Why would you not want to give them the benefits of being married, seeing as marriage offers all of these benefits to those people who are already married? Why not take that chance and see just what benefits marriage can have, if it's such an improvement to society?

The Chair: Mr. Maloney is next, for three minutes.

Mr. John Maloney: Reverend Landers, in the opening of your presentation you indicated that your church believes in freedom from discrimination, yet you take the position that you would be opposed to same-sex marriages. We've heard from those advocating otherwise that this is very definitely discrimination. How do you reconcile those two positions? If I may coin the expression of my colleague, is there justifiable discrimination? If so, on what basis could that be advanced?

Rev. Gary Landers: First of all, I do not believe the forthright statement that marriage is the union of one man to one woman is a discriminatory statement. Therefore, I take the position that on the basis of that definition we have the religious and moral privilege of upholding the existing law.

Secondly, just to go a step further, for example, we are receptive to the ordination of women, and many of our ministers across Canada are ordained women, so our spirit, our direction, is to be equal in the status of everyday affairs. But when we come to the scriptures, we see the scriptures saying, “For this cause shall man leave his father and mother and shall cling unto his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”. That is our foundational position.

The Chair: You have half a minute, if you want it, John.

Mr. John Maloney: That's okay.

The Chair: Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: No, Mr. Chair. I am fine.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Macklin, for three minutes.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Reverend Landers, were you here earlier today? Have you been here most of the afternoon?

Rev. Gary Landers: Just the afternoon.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Okay. With respect to the questions I've asked of other religious leaders, I would like to ask you, too, how you feel about the protection that's currently being provided by section 2 of the charter. Do you believe the government ought to do something to assist in broadening that protection, or do you believe, in your experience, it is adequate for the needs of your church, that your religion is able to flourish quite comfortably and you do not feel a sense of potential attack or current attack by the groups that would advocate for change?

Rev. Gary Landers: I believe there is a high percentage of protection within the present charter for religious denominations to function. I do believe, should this definition be changed, there would definitely have to be some research done to assure that although couples can proceed to get married as they wish--it's their decision--if I'm approached and asked if I will, and I say, I'm sorry, by conviction I cannot, they won't be able to say they'll see me in court.

¸ (1450)

The Chair: Reverend Landers, it is obvious, at least to me, that as you're sitting here with these questions, you're internalizing them and formulating answers in a way that attempts to help us out very much, and I appreciate it.

Yesterday in Sussex, New Brunswick--I come from Fredericton--a United Church minister appeared before our committee. He expressed his desire to perform a marriage ceremony in his church. The national organization of the United Church has appeared before the committee and said they accept that. His is an affirming church in Sackville, New Brunswick. You could tell it was with the same level of conviction that he wanted to perform that ceremony. I can see the fear in your face when you would be asked to do something that your religious conviction would not allow you to do. I saw the same intensity in his face because he wanted to do it.

The problem is that we prohibit him. You would not want us to force you to do something you don't want to do as a pastor, yet we're forcing him by prohibition. How do I explain that to him?

Rev. Gary Landers: I guess that's why you're in Sudbury today, and not Sussex.

The Chair: But unfortunately I have to go.

Rev. Gary Landers: I can only respond to that from the foundation of where we are in the law as it is now stated. No, you can't, because it is illegal. Now, if he were to say to you that the law needs changing, then he has to put that opinion up against the citizenship of Canadians to say, does or does not this law need changing?

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Toews.

Mr. Vic Toews: Just as a matter of clarification, the United Church minister is not prohibited from performing that ceremony. He is free to do that, and it's not illegal. What is not recognized is the legal status of that marriage, in the same way as if this minister performed it. That's a distinction. So the law doesn't presently prohibit any religion from even...well, maybe a polygamous one, but certainly not a same-sex relationship.

I just wanted to put that on the record.

The Chair: Eldon Hay has asked to be allowed to marry in his church, and he can't marry legally in his church because the law doesn't allow it.

I thank the panel. I thank the committee.

As for the next panel, I think you know who you are, so please find your way to the table.

I'll suspend for three minutes.

¸ (1453)

¹ (1500)

The Chair: I'll call back to order the 35th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights as we continue our study into marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions.

From now until 4 o'clock we have, representing the First Baptist Church, Reverend Robert G. Wilkins; representing ACCESS-AIDS Committee, Marco Theriault; and appearing as an individual, Wanda Eurich.

Each of you will have seven minutes to present. At six minutes you'll see this, to say you have one minute left. At seven minutes you'll see this, which means you don't have any minutes left. But at that point, don't just stop cold; just try to bring it to a close.

I'm going first to Reverend Wilkins.

Reverend Robert Wilkins (First Baptist Church): Thank you for the invitation to be a witness at these proceedings. I have been here most of the day and I have the utmost respect for this committee and its endurance.

In all of the presentations that have been made, many of the points have been made over and over again, and I hope you will excuse the repetition. However, hearing different voices saying the same things is perhaps important, and on this issue it may only prove to demonstrate the polarization that exists. There can be no more important issue to the stability of society than its understanding of marriage.

The basic question, it seems to me, for us is what is marriage? The discussion paper for these proceedings is right when it states, “Under Canadian law, the legal concept of marriage as the 'union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others' has existed since before Confederation.” However, as a matter of fact, this concept of marriage has existed for thousands of years. Jesus said it existed from the beginning. The legal concept just described is actually founded upon Christian conviction that informed much of Canadian law from Confederation on.

Jesus stated his position on marriage by appealing to the Genesis account when he said, and I quote:

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'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore, what God has joined together, let man not separate.

The nature of marriage itself--and this is, in my judgment, slightly different from a legal definition--is captured by the expression “one flesh”. It is clear that marriage is more than a physical union; it is also social, emotional, psychological, and spiritual. If the physical and the sexual are basic to the “one flesh” union, especially since one of the purposes of marriage from the beginning is to legitimate propagation of the human race, it is biologically impossible for the union between two men or two women to produce children and a family. It is this “one flesh” relationship between a man and a woman that makes marriage uniquely a heterosexual relationship.

This does not mean to say that other relationships cannot be recognized in law. For hundreds and thousands of years, the major religions and cultures of the world have recognized marriage to be restricted to opposite-sex union. And, of course, this does not mean to say that there are not differences of opinion which we have heard even today. From a legal point of view, it seems that the basic question is whether or not the current legal definition of “marriage” discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. The recent court cases that have precipitated these hearings are divided, so it is still, in that way, a moot point.

If, as I have argued, the right and privilege to be married is based on the nature of marriage, then to restrict marriage to a man and a woman does not violate the charter, in my view. Gays and lesbians would be excluded by the very nature of things. In fact, section 1 of the charter allows for the law to set reasonable limits on certain rights and freedoms. It is the opinion of the author that marriage is such an important national value that such limits are legitimate.

One of the very important values to Canadians is religious freedom, the freedom to worship God and conduct one's life according to one's conscience. However, as I think we have already heard today, the separation of church and state and religious freedom can be a two-edged sword.

¹ (1505)

For us to live in a free society, the state must set parameters and the church must be law abiding. The state must also respect the freedom and convictions of religious bodies which are to be protected by the charter. If the Canadian government changes the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex marriages, this could place pastors and churches in a very awkward position.

In most municipalities in Ontario justices of the peace will no longer solemnize civil marriages. It is clear that in the future the clergy will be called upon to perform almost all of the marriages in Canada. And so what will be the result if most of the clergy, as agents of provincial governments, refuse to marry same-sex couples, which is quite likely? Will their religious convictions be honoured and protected on the basis of the charter? It could very well be expected that many court cases would result from this, and religious freedom would be challenged and even denied if the right to marry is viewed by the court to be a more important right than the right of moral conviction.

In terms of the possible approaches that the discussion paper outlined, I would urge the committee to actually recommend, number one, that marriage remain as an opposite-sex institution--an institution that has been with us for quite a long time--simply because of what marriage is in fact, in my view, meant to be.

In conclusion, as a local pastor and church, we are strongly committed to the legal definition of marriage as that between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. It is only that definition that is consistent with the nature of marriage as a “one flesh” relationship. Only this view of marriage, which has been held for centuries, can uphold and promote the importance of the family as foundational to society and can provide male and female role models in the home for the future generation.

We do not believe that it violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We strongly urge the government to uphold the long-standing definition of marriage but also to make sure that the proper rights and benefits due to gays and lesbians are in place. The position that we have taken, which is consistent with our long-standing heritage, should not be interpreted as being against gays and lesbians as persons for whom we have respect and love, even though we disagree with their lifestyle.

We also recognize the difficult position the government is in on this issue. Whatever legal decision you make will be also a moral one affecting the whole of our society, since none of us decides things in a moral vacuum. Whatever decision you make will have profound implications for marriage, for family, for society, for the educational system, and for the churches and religious bodies. Whatever is legal in society is most often viewed as right. We therefore urge you, first of all, to do what is right and then proceed to make that the law of the land.

The Chair: Mr. Theriault, for seven minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Marco Thériault (Coordinator, Health Choices Program, ACCESS—AIDS Committee of Sudbury): Thank you for having given me the opportunity to present this afternoon.

[English]

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present this afternoon.

I am Marco Theriault from the ACCESS-AIDS Committee of Sudbury, and I'm the healthy choices program coordinator. Our geographical area goes south to French River; north to Chapleau, Foleyet, Timmins, Kapuskasing; east to Warren; and west to Espanola. We are also in the process of amalgamating with the Algoma district.

My program specifically targets the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, and two-spirited population, and their present and future service providers. Over the past nine years, I have facilitated weekly groups for gay and bisexual men, and another one for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered youth. The average age of the men's group is 44, and that of the youth group is approximately 17. There have been 600 participants in the men's group and over 300 in the youth group. The program also offers presentations on homophobia and heterosexism to professionals, workplace environments, and future service providers. Over the past four years alone, I have done over 100 presentations on that aspect to over 1,100 participants.

I have lost count of the number of e-mails, phone calls, drop-ins, and other requests that I have received over the past nine years. I can humbly say that I am professionally and personally familiar with being gay. I am also familiar with some of its consequences on one's personal life, family life, professional life, and municipal life.

Before I proceed, I would like to clarify some definitions. Heterosexism is the promotion by institutions of the superiority of heterosexuality and the assumption that everyone is heterosexual. Heterosexism is based on the assumption that being heterosexual is inherently better or more moral than being lesbian, gay, or bisexual. Like racism, sexism, and other forms of oppression, heterosexism awards privilege to members of the dominant group—heterosexuals—and denies privilege to members of the group less empowered, in this case lesbians, gays, and bisexuals.

Not recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry is heterosexist. It is being promoted by some institutions, religious and otherwise, that are based in history. So was racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism. Historically, Canada has been racist, sexist, and anti-Semitic at times.

Over the last century and a half, Canada has corrected its laws and helped shape the way Canadians think and see themselves. Institutions have changed their attitudes. Canadian citizens have also changed. It is no longer acceptable to be racist, sexist, or anti-Semitic, for example. There are individuals out there who are, but most are not.

Younger Canadians have less of a problem or fewer issues with being lesbian, gay, or bisexual. The younger the Canadians, the more they recognize that same-sex couples should have the choice to marry. The key word here is choice. As it stands in Canada right now, people of the same sex in a committed relationship do not have this choice.

This has personal and professional consequence in their life. For example, Elisa, who is 15, told me with a beaming face the other day that she is looking forward to getting married some day. This is a dream of a lot of young teenage girls. As a parent, you might look forward to that day also. I smiled at the thought. Already it shows that she is a caring and loving individual. She has been seeing this other young person for six months, and they've been going to each other's houses, watching movies, listening to music and going to dances. Each has very supportive families. I had to tell her that, as it stands in Canada, she has no right to get married. Her face showed how crushed and hurt she was. You see, Elisa is a lesbian.

The committee is receiving input from Canadians on whether the government should maintain the ban on same-sex marriage, or change the laws to provide same-sex couples with equality or to get out of the Marriage Act altogether. Getting out of the Marriage Act would stop countless Canadians from affirming and legally recognizing their committed relationship. To keep the Marriage Act the way it is written is heterosexist and discriminatory. To make the Marriage Act inclusive of same-sex couples would be the right thing to do for the federal government. It would also help stop some of the discrimination lived by numerous Canadians. Many other countries throughout the world are having similar debates, and some have already changed their laws.

Many people here today have quoted, remarked, and cited thenegative impact of allowing same-sex couples to marry. Some of thestatements come from fear of change, fear of the unknown, and fear of losingpower. As a gay man, I live in fear every day--every day. Today is a perfect example of some of the things that I read, see, and hear on a daily basis. It takes its toll on a person's health and self-esteem and on how they relate to each other, their community, their politicians, and their country.

Changing the Marriage Act would benefit just under 100,000 couples who indicated in the 2002 census that they were in a same-sex, common-law relationship. Many more couples chose not to indicate that in the census. The benefits would be numerous for these couples, if they were to be recognized by the Canadian government as equals in the eyes of the law—not as second-class citizens with some rights and some responsibilities. It would also reinforce the patchwork of provincial laws that already recognize same-sex couples.

I just want to have the same rights as my brother or sister. I want to have the same rights from coast to coast, from sea to shining sea, as the national anthem proudly states—not depending on which province I live in or on which provincial government invokes the notwithstanding clause. I would like to have the choice to marry the person I love.

Thank you.

¹ (1515)

The Chair: Ms. Eurich, for seven minutes.

Ms. Wanda Eurich (As Individual): I will try my best.

Society views sexuality as a private or personal matter. Despite this, the modern state has historically attempted to exert control over its citizens' sexuality. One reason for this is that the family is the unit of reproduction; society depends on families to produce and care for the next generation.

Accordingly, with the aim of tying sexuality to reproduction, most western governments in the 19th century passed laws banning the use of all forms of contraception. In Canada, the 1892 Criminal Code made the selling or advertising of any contraceptive or abortion-inducing product an indictable offence. That legislation served the public policy initiative of increasing the population. It was also the product of racist fears that white, middle-class Canadians of northern European descent were not reproducing in large enough numbers, while immigrants of darker skin were. Not until 1969 was the Criminal Code amended to make contraceptives legal. Abortion remained a criminal offence until 1988, after Dr. Henry Morgentaler repeatedly challenged the law.

The state continues to attempt to control sexual behaviour in its refusal to grant gay and lesbian couples the same rights and privileges it accords to heterosexual couples. Homosexual couples in long-term relationships cannot be legally married. As a result, they have been denied access to the regime of rules and rights provided by family laws, including the right to equitable distribution and spousal maintenance upon dissolution of the relationship; the right to access for the non-biological parent of the child; pension rights; income-tax advantages; as well as no rights upon the death of their lifelong companions, so that when one partner dies the relationship is wiped out as if it never existed.

One argument used to deny family law rights to homosexuals is that the state clearly has an interest in maintaining a stable society, the foundation of which is the family unit. Therefore, it could be said that the promotion of marriage itself is a state interest. The argument is that the recognition of same-sex marriage would undermine the family and, as a consequence, undermine social stability.

Conservatives have lobbied against the extension of family status to gay and lesbian couples and have represented themselves as defenders of the family and family values. Family values conjures up memories of 1950s sitcoms, which portrayed families as representing all that was good, decent, and problem free. The Cleavers were the kind of family that formed the bedrock upon which society rested. This notion of the family permeated North American culture for decades and persists to this day.

The fact that the state refuses to acknowledge same-sex families attests to how central heterosexuality is to our notion of family. The tyranny of tradition dictates that society equates normal sexual development with heterosexual development. This gay-straight divide is fundamental to our culture. Strong social forces in our culture hold that families should be heterosexual and nuclear and be composed of a man who is the primary breadwinner and a woman who is the primary caregiver of children and a homemaker. Our political, legal, and social culture are organized around these conventional gender roles.

The contradictory nature of traditional family patterns in a rapidly changing society has led to a skyrocketing divorce rate since Canada revised its divorce laws in 1968. I'll skip over my text here.

Since the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, the gay and lesbian community has persistently pressed the government to end discriminatory practices and has launched several legal challenges against discriminatory definitions of couple and family. I've chronicled them, but I won't go into the legal details. Some of them are Andrews v. Ontario, 1987; Leshner v. Ontario, 1992; Obringer v. Kennedy Estate, 1996; and Egan v. Canada, 1995.

¹ (1520)

The Supreme Court made some headway in Miron v. Trudel in 1995, holding that it was unconstitutional to distinguish between unmarried and married opposite-sex spouses in the payment of automobile insurance benefits. Marriage was not relevant to the legislature's purpose of reducing economic hardship after a family member had been injured.

Finally, in Vriend v. Alberta, the Supreme Court spoke strongly about the role of courts in protecting minority groups and the psychological harm of excluding gays and lesbians from society.

The most important case for gay and lesbian rights in the family law was M v. H in 1999. The issue in that case was whether the failure of section 29 of the Family Law Act to provide same rights to members of same-sex couples infringed on an individual's right to equality—and if so, whether the infringement is justified by subsection 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Without going into detail, the Supreme Court judges ruled eight to one in favour of dismissing the appeal, ruling that section 29 of the Family Law Act was an infringement of section 15.

As a result of M v. H, the Ontario legislature moved quickly, albeit grudgingly, to pass Bill 5, amending various Ontario statutes. Federally, Bill C-23 was introduced to amend 68 statutes. Bill C-23 passed third reading on the logic that the Supreme Court could not continue to face those kinds of issues case by case, as their decisions were having the effect of establishing social policy, which Justice Bastaracheconceded in M v. H. So M v. H has forced reluctant Canadian politicians to deal with issues related to the regulation and support of same-sex relationships.

If Parliament does not soon enact legislation to allow formal same-sex partnerships, it seems highly likely that the Supreme Court decisions regarding same-sex partnership will require it to do so in the future. It seems that the traditional definition of marriage may no longer be able to withstand constitutional scrutiny.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses for their presentations.

Reverend Wilkins, you said you attended the debate this afternoon. Let me simply ask you to answer the question that I have been asking everyone, but I will put it once again to refresh your memory. This question involves freedom of religion and the churches who want to have the right to celebrate marriages between same-sex spouses.

I apologize to those people in this room who have already heard this question over and over again, but I am really looking for an answer. I am asking for your help in all sincerity.

How can we ensure that your right not to celebrate same-sex marriages, which is, in my opinion, an absolute right, will be protected, while allowing the state and churches to do so if they wish?

Let us put it another way. The committee chairman just asked a question about this. Currently, there is a church that would like to marry same-sex spouses—there are churches that raised this issue, among them, the Sussex United Church who raised it once again before us—but it cannot do so because the state forbids it. Thus, there is an infringement of the religious liberty of this church.

Let us take the opposite situation. If this committee decided to allow same-sex marriages, the United Church, for instance, could do it without obliging you to celebrate same-sex marriages because this is against the principles of your faith. How could we reconcile these two basic values of our society? I would like to find a consensus that would allow Mr. Theriault to get married in a church that wants to marry him, while also allowing you not to do that.

¹ (1525)

[English]

Rev. Robert Wilkins: As I mentioned in my presentation, the freedom of religion can be a two-edged sword. Sometimes freedoms are infringed, and perhaps justifiably so, given whatever the government should decide. I think that on this issue the government is going to have to make a decision, as I have tried to emphasize, on what is the nature of marriage. When that is decided, then who should be able to be married would follow. It may turn out that some people will not be happy with that decision, and we would have to live with that.

At the present time the freedom to marry same-sex couples is not there, except in terms of the blessing, which has been mentioned. The United Church and parts of the Anglican Church--the Diocese of New Westminster is the only one I'm aware of that has made that decision--are the only church bodies in the country I know of that have made those decisions. There's the Roman Catholic Church, of course, and what might be called conservative Protestants, which in terms of an actual commitment to churches make up about 83% of Christianity within the country. So the vast majority hold to a same-sex view of marriage.

But, once again, I'm not sure that you can come to a satisfactory solution unless you deal with the very nature of what marriage is and--

The Chair: Before we go any further, because someone is going to read this someday in the future, I think you meant opposite-sex view. You just said that the vast majority of religions in Canada hold to a same-sex view.

Rev. Robert Wilkins: Did I say that?

The Chair: Yes, you did. I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but someone is going to read this in 10 years and call you up, and this will save the call.

Rev. Robert Wilkins: You are quite right. The opposite-sex view is held by the vast majority of Christians within the country.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: We understand very well that the issue of rights and freedoms cannot be boiled down to numbers, because if there are 300 Jews in Canada, this does not mean that because of their small number, they should not have the same rights and freedoms as the vast majority of Canadians.

You say that we must get right down to the basic definition. That is where the problem lies, because once we have the right definition, the problem is solved. Without going into detail, if we decide to keep the current definition, the problem would be solved, inasmuch as gays will not have the right to marry because the definition says that they do not have that right. By changing the definition, we change everything else as well.

I appreciated your introduction, where you said that these things were not very easy, and I thank you for trying to help me.

Mr. Theriault, in your environment, there are certainly some members of your family and some friends who are heterosexual.

¹ (1530)

Mr. Marco Thériault: Very much so.

Mr. Richard Marceau: In your environment, have people ever told you that if you ever had the right to marry, they would not want to get married because they would not want to share this institution with you? Have you been shown figures demonstrating that the birth rate would go down if homosexuals were allowed to marry, or even that the marriage rate among heterosexuals would go down because you, as a homosexual, would have access to the same institution? Have you ever heard this kind of thing anywhere?

Mr. Marco Thériault: I have never heard that and I have never seen this kind of report, although I am doing a great deal of research.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Up to now, two countries have allowed homosexual marriages. Holland allowed it two years ago, on April 1, 2001, if my memory is correct, and Belgium did so a few weeks ago. Research was done on Holland. The statistics cover two years. The study is brief, but it is all we have. People like to talk about serious consequences for society and for the institution of marriage as such, but here, we have objective figures. Let me read what was prepared for us by the excellent and extraordinary research service. We are talking about Holland:

...the implementation of the law permitting marriage between same-sex spouses, on April 1, 2001, does not seem to have had any impact on the curve of heterosexual marriages.

Thus, this means that even if gays are allowed to marry, heterosexuals still go on marrying in the same way, neither more nor less than before.

In your opinion, would the same thing happen in Canada if tomorrow morning, same-sex couples had the right to marry?

Mr. Marco Thériault: This would be highly likely, but our study only covers two years. Most likely, in 20 years, there would many more gay couples getting married as well.

I had a similar discussion with my brother on his wedding day, and he regretted that within his new relationship, so to speak, because he had just gotten married on that very day, he has far more rights than I have in my 10-year relationship.

[English]

The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Marceau.

Now to Mr. Maloney, for seven minutes.

Mr. John Maloney: Reverend Wilkins, Mr. Theriault in his presentation to us referenced the concept of the feeling of heterosexual superiority. Do you feel heterosexuals are superior to homosexuals?

Rev. Robert Wilkins: As persons, no.

Mr. John Maloney: What does the Bible say about this?

Rev. Robert Wilkins: My understanding of the biblical message is that homosexual practise is morally wrong, but that's not an indictment on the individual as a person. We all commit morally wrong acts at times and we need to understand that God's grace and love is open to us all. So I would not make that kind of judgment, that a heterosexual person is superior to a homosexual person. I don't think that's true.

¹ (1535)

Mr. John Maloney: Homosexuals or individuals in same-sex relationships are coming to us today as persons and asking us to recognize their relationships in a formal way by marriage. Is this so wrong?

Rev. Robert Wilkins: I would simply come back to my understanding of the nature of marriage itself. Marriage by its nature is really a heterosexual institution. That's not a moral judgment upon homosexual persons. It's just the way it is by design. Marriage is to be the foundation of society and of family, and frankly, only a man and a woman can achieve fully what marriage was intended to achieve, including propagation and so on.

We know full well, of course, that some couples who get married--heterosexuals, that is--choose not to have children, and some cannot have children because of physical reasons and so on, but the potential is there. Our view--at least my view--of marriage is not defined by the exceptions but rather by the rule as outlined for us.

Mr. John Maloney: Ms. Eurich has given us a history of the development of same-sex relations and same-sex benefits. These have perhaps been thrust upon us by the courts, and perhaps the veiled threat exists from the courts that if Parliament does not act on the issue of same-sex marriages, they will. The suggestion is that they would in fact, under the auspices of equality, sanction these.

That being said--you may or may not be correct--how can you assist us in heading off the court? Perhaps neither side would be happy with what the court may bring down. With that message in mind, we are tasked with trying to craft a relationship and marriage that may be acceptable to all or to most, or hopefully to some, if we so choose. We may perhaps choose not to, to just leave it as it is and let the courts move from there.

Can any of the three of you help us with suggestions to bring to Parliament addressing this issue?

Ms. Wanda Eurich: Reading the Supreme Court case law, especially M. v. H., which was considered an infringement under section 15 that could not be saved under section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, already said a lot. Justice Bastarache had said that this cannot continue. Legislation needs to be put in place because the Supreme Court is not the proper venue to be dealing with these issues continuously.

In saying this already, the Supreme Court clearly recognizes that same-sex conjugal relationships have just as much emotional and social and economic significance as heterosexual couples. It is already sanctioning laws that would go in this direction. To continue not to do this continues to delegitimize homosexuals and their relationships and identity.

Excluding homosexuals from the definition of family allows the state to continue to regulate sexual intimacy and to create hierarchy on the basis of identity, and protects the privilege of being heterosexual. Clearly the Supreme Court has spoken to that and has said it is an infringement of rights. It's clear to me that legislation needs to be put in place to allow same-sex marriages.

Now, as far as the churches are concerned, a lot of people get married outside of churches already. They get married in court. There are some who choose just the church. I don't see how it would put various churches in such a huge quandary. Maybe the churches could refuse to recognize it if they feel it is such an issue, but a person would still be able to get married in a court of law.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Maloney.

Mr. Marco Thériault: Thank you.

Right now I know for a fact that I don't have the choice. It's not an option, even though I have had a relationship for 10 years and Bill C-23, passed in June 1999, gave me some of those responsibilities and options, but it didn't give me all of them. My son isn't protected either. Regrettably, he is not here today; he is in Montreal doing his studying. We ran into major problems.

I understand the Metropolitan Community Church also does same-sex union ceremonies, as does the United Church of Canada. Regrettably, I am not Christian, so I am not inclined necessarily to go to a church. I know my sister was married on New Year's Day in her living room, and that was valid in the eyes of the law. I would like something like that.

I am hoping maybe in the future it will be possible, if not for my generation, for the next. I have seen 30 years of changes in the law. This time to perhaps see it coming from the government instead of the law would be something wonderful to receive.

¹ (1540)

The Chair: Now to Mr. Toews, for three minutes.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you for your presentations.

Ms. Eurich, I've read the M. v. H decision. My understanding of that decision is that it said that same-sex relationships need to be treated exactly the same as common-law, opposite-sex relationships. Therefore, Parliament passed certain laws in order to comply with that ruling.

The judgment also made very clear, as I recall, that this had nothing to do with the legal and traditional definition of marriage. It made that very clear in its judgment, saying that it was a separate issue that they were not dealing with.

The Egan decision, however, did deal with this. In 1995 the Supreme Court majority decision of Mr. Justice La Forest very clearly discussed the issue and stated that there are certain societal interests that justify the distinction between the traditional definition of marriage and all other relationships, including same-sex, homosexual relationships.

Have you read that judgment? If you have, can you provide me with any comments on it? First of all, do I have it right? That's my understanding.

Ms. Wanda Eurich: Yes, in Egan, Justice La Forest did make a speech about society's image of the family. He spoke of traditional views, about marriage being the unit of society, and about heterosexuality being intrinsic to marriage. But, also in Egan, four justices dissented and defended equal rights for all regardless of sexual orientation.

Justice Sopinka agreed with the minority in finding that the legislation violated section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but he sided with the majority, stating that the government should be granted some time to respond to the widespread discrimination against gays and lesbians because their claims to equality were “novel”.

Mr. Vic Toews: I'm glad you confirmed that understanding. Sometimes we hear so much about the same case, I can't remember if it's what I read or what somebody told me; but certainly that's my understanding as well.

What Mr. Justice Sopinka was in fact suggesting is that, because of the “novel” nature of the arguments being advanced, there wasn't a requirement of government to move forward to address this issue. This seems to me to reflect a position urged on us by some of the academics who have come here, who were not speaking necessarily only from a religious point of view but also from an anthropological, sociological point of view. They have said that the level of the academic debate at this point, or the material available, simply isn't sufficient to conclude with any certainty as to what the consequences of this would be. They suggested we should exercise caution, given the fundamental nature of this institution in our society. I'm just wondering if you have any comments to add on to those.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Toews.

We go now to Ms. Eurich, and then to Mr. McKay.

Ms. Wanda Eurich: I interpreted it a little bit differently. He did speak of the traditional views, but my understanding was that he was directing the government to actually start thinking about legislating because the Supreme Court could not continue to deal with these kinds of issues.

In M. v. H. they were much more explicit in saying that legislators needed to start legislating these issues because they had found out that rights had been infringed and could not be saved under section 1 of the charter. And Bastarache—actually, who was it? I can't find it.

¹ (1545)

The Chair: I want to go to Mr. McKay. You can continue later.

Mr. McKay.

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

I wanted to ask Mr. Theriault a question about his course on heterosexism. I take it that the purpose of the course is to counter, if you will, the promotion of heterosexism in our society. Is that the case?

Mr. Marco Thériault: Actually, it's to counter homophobia. It ties in with a little bit on heterosexism, but basically it's on homophobia.

Mr. John McKay: You made an analogy in your testimony that those who are concerned about this issue might be akin to racists or anti-Semites or sexists. I want to clarify whether you believe that people who advocate for the traditional definition of marriage are akin to anti-Semites, racists, or sexists?

Mr. Marco Thériault: I didn't say they were, first of all.

Mr. John McKay: I'm hoping you didn't. I just want to clarify this point.

Mr. Marco Thériault: I absolutely didn't. What I was stating is that the law as it stands, “to the exclusion of all others”, is heterosexist. Heterosexism is a form of discrimination, and there is a variety of them.

Mr. John McKay: We want to clarify the point. You wouldn't want to take people out of the debate by virtue of name-calling with “racist”, “sexist”, and things of that nature. I just want to make that point, that when you argue by analogy, some people can leap to the conclusion that those who are on the opposite side of the argument might be considered racist, sexist, or things of that nature.

The other question I had is with respect to this fear of losing power. I'm curious as to what the power that's being lost here is. I don't quite understand that point.

Mr. Marco Thériault: Some of the things I've heard this morning.... Actually, a perfect example is the one--I think it actually came from you--of the government getting out of marriage entirely. That's a loss of power in a way. Granting unions is a form of power. Accepting and recognizing is a form of giving power to someone. What I have also seen from other establishments is that they are also afraid we will start telling them who they can and cannot marry. In a way, that's taking decisions away from them; that's a form of control and also, again, it's a form of power.

Mr. John McKay: So let me just understand this. If in fact the federal government abandons the field of marriage, you see that as a loss of power for whom? Is it for the government or for those who would advocate the traditional definition of marriage?

Mr. Marco Thériault: It would also affect the people who are presently married through civil law.

Mr. John McKay: It would affect them, but I don't understand where the power shift is here.

Mr. Marco Thériault: The power shift is that they most likely would question whether their relationships were now recognized. I was quite serious when I said my sister got married January 1 in her living room through a civil ceremony, and she would probably wonder if that ceremony would be considered legal now.

¹ (1550)

Mr. John McKay: So you wouldn't advocate the abandoning of the field, then?

Mr. Marco Thériault: No, I wouldn't.

The Chair: We'll go to Mr. Macklin, for three minutes.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Thank you, Chair, and thank you, witnesses. I know it's been a long day and I certainly appreciate your attention.

I really do appreciate your admonition, Reverend Wilkins, which was to do what is right. Clearly, as we are members of Parliament, our goal is always to do what is right. It all depends on our perspective.

One of the perspectives you conveyed today, one I'd just like to go back and talk to you about, Reverend Wilkins, is that you talked about changing the definition of marriage. In a sense I can accept that argument, but in another sense we are only determining as legislators what we are prepared to accept for registration purposes and what then flows from that.

I suggest that if you wish within your church to carry out a marriage ceremony--or, as in the United Church, it appears in those affirming churches that they will carry out a covenanting service--in the eyes of God and of those who would gather before you, you would be able to go through and perform all of the ceremony and the commitment process, in the eyes of God, whether or not the government legislated. Is that a fair comment?

Rev. Robert Wilkins: There may be some who would agree with that statement. I personally would not.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: And why not?

Rev. Robert Wilkins: Because I believe that marriage is more than just a vertical relationship between the couple and God; it is also a horizontal relationship in society, so society has a way of knowing who is married and who is not. I think that is in fact the responsibility of the federal government in that regard. Every society has had some kind of social way of knowing who got married. In some societies it was just jumping over a broom, but it was understood to be the case.

To simply conduct a wedding ceremony without it being legitimatized legally, I don't think I would be prepared to do that.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: But in some societies wasn't it such that the local church merely kept a register of births, deaths, and marriages and in fact that was the record, not necessarily reflecting governmental interference?

Rev. Robert Wilkins: Yes. I think Mr. Marceau would be able to speak to that, because I believe in the province of Quebec that was in fact the case. But that was still understood. It was still legitimatized in society, so even in that case people would know who was married and who was not. Mr. Theriault mentioned someone--was it your sister?--who wondered whether her marriage was acceptable because it happened in a house. Even in that case we have ways of knowing who is married and who is not, and I think the government has a responsibility to do that.

In fact, I have been approached--not recently but as a matter of fact quite a few years ago--to conduct a wedding for a couple who did not have a marriage licence because they wanted it to be recognized only in the eyes of God. I simply refused to do that. My view of marriage is that it's also a societal matter and needs to be recognized within society.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: From a parallelism perspective, do you see a problem from the government's perspective with setting up a registry that would acknowledge those relationships, that is, conjugal relationships of lesbian and gay couples that would be recognized by churches as they saw fit to solemnize them? Would that be acceptable to you?

¹ (1555)

Rev. Robert Wilkins: I mentioned in my brief the possibility of such a register. I would not personally regard it as marriage. The government is going to have to make up its mind as to what they would call that registry. I think the rights of same-sex couples and so on need to be there, and whatever aids them in the rights they have, we need to do it.

The Chair: Mr. Cadman.

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

This is just for some clarification. We've heard a few times today the comment made that the state should not be in the business of regulating who should and who should not be able to get married. Have I heard that correctly? I thought I heard that a couple of times, that the government shouldn't be regulating who.... I just wanted to clarify that to make sure nobody was suggesting there should be no regulations at all. I heard that a couple of times today, and I just wanted to make sure that wasn't what people were saying.

The Chair: I think that wraps it up. First of all, thank you very much to the panel. It has been very informative. In fact, thank you very much to Sudbury, Ontario. It has been a very informative day. We're not done yet, but I just wanted to say that for those who might not stay around for the next session.

I'm going to suspend in a minute, but before I do, I want to tell you what's going to happen when the suspension is over. We have more people who want to appear as witnesses. In fact, I think this has happened in every location we have been in; more people have asked to be witnesses than we could accommodate in this fashion. So we decided that what we would do was, at the end of the day, allow two-minute statements from those people who wished to make a statement but were not able to be accommodated. It was basically done on a first come, first served basis.

I have a list of 10 names. If you could see this, you'd understand why I hesitated. I'm going to read them so you'll know who those people who are going to be speaking are. I apologize in advance for any mispronunciation or for misreading my clerk's writing. We have Linda Morgan, Linda Kosiba, Christine Mick, Sandra Houzer, Gene Samarian, Pierre Perreault, Jennifer Howe, Dawn Kelly, Duncan MacRae, and David Jones.

I'm going to suspend for five minutes while we set up the open mike, and when I reconvene in five minutes we will be listening to Linda Morgan for two minutes.

I suspend for five minutes.

¹ (1558)

º (1604)

The Chair: I call back to order the 35th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

I thank you all for spending the day with us. We've enjoyed spending the day with you.

In order to allow for the maximum input we can get while we spend our time in Sudbury, we have a list of.... I made a mistake, which seems to be a recurring theme here. Jesse Greenwell is also on this list. I'm going to read three names at a time.

I'm not going to do the one thing and this thing and all that, because it's too confusing and people get sort of shaken when they see my fingers go up. In order for this to work, people really have to abide by the two-minute rule. At two minutes I'll allow somebody to take a breath, and then I'm going to say time. When I say time, I'd like you to finish in a sentence. Do we understand each other? It's just to be fair to everybody. At some point I'm going to cut somebody off, and then I'm going to feel compelled to cut everybody off. It's not something I enjoy doing, frankly. So we're going to do two minutes, and you'll know when your time has come.

The next witnesses are Linda Morgan, Christine Mick, and Sandra Houzer, in that order. Please identify yourself when you come to the microphone, because I probably mispronounced your name.

º (1605)

Ms. Linda Morgan (As Individual): I'm Linda Morgan.

I've always believed that marriage is a contract between two people and is about love and commitment. Extending equal marriage to couples of the same sex will not threaten what marriage is all about. I've heard it said that same-sex marriages would lead to polygamy and incest. I think that's a bit of a red herring. What we're really looking at here is extending equal marriage to couples of the same sex because currently there is discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act, which has 11 prohibited grounds for discrimination, one of which is sexual orientation, and of course the charter. So we have to concentrate on that issue alone and not think about what if. That isn't what this is all about.

I think that extending equal marriage to couples of the same sex is also about values and tradition. The values I'm talking about are those of justice, fairness, and equality, which Canadians embrace. The tradition I'm talking about is the tradition of Canada leading many countries in advancing human rights.

I believe that marriage is the ultimate commitment two people can make to each other. Couples of the same sex who wish to make this commitment should really be applauded for wanting to make this important commitment.

Extending equal marriage to couples of the same sex will offer the freedom and choice to many. Religions will still have the freedom and choice to refuse to marry couples of the same sex. However, religions that want to marry couples of the same sex would have the freedom and choice to do so, something they don't have now. I'd like to point out that if any religions were told that they had to marry people of the same sex and they said that they could not do that, I would stand up here and defend their right not to do so. So I think we need to make that point.

Offering options other than marriage is not equal, in my mind. Equal marriage rights must be offered for couples of the same sex to be truly equal. I wanted to quote Justice MacKay when he ruled, and that was one of the things he had said, not to set up a separate regime.

Thank you.

The Chair: Next are Christine Mick, Sandra Houzer, and Gene Samarian.

Ms. Christine Mick (As Individual): My name is Christine Mick. I think first and foremost, in order for society to understand where we come from as gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered and two-spirited people, it is not a choice. If people understood that I was born gay, they wouldn't be so hard on me. That's what it comes down to.

I do think I should have the choice to marry my partner, if that's what I decide. I'm not sure where I stand on that. I was married before. I don't think marriage is what I want at this time in my life, but if I were to choose that, I should have the same choice as I had 15 years ago when I was 21. I think that is very important.

The reason it's so important is that not giving us the same rights as heterosexual people gives the message to society that it's okay to bash me, to bash my family, to bash my fellow gay and lesbian friends and family. But that's not okay. That's the message it puts out there. It says it's not okay to be gay or bisexual or transgendered, so the whole society believes the same thing and we end up feeling the repercussions of that in our lives and, more importantly, in the children's lives.

This is why I wanted to speak today, because my daughter, who is in grade seven, came home in September and was quite distraught about a lot of comments that were made in the classroom that day. One of the comments was one that is used everywhere: “That is so gay”. When people say “That is so gay”, they're saying that is so stupid, that is so ridiculous, that is so dumb. That's what they mean by that. So my daughter internalizes this stuff. She came home that day and she was hurting, she was crying. To help her out, I asked her to write down what she would like everybody to know about her mom and her partner, what she would like to say to the people in the classroom and why she thinks it's not okay to do the gay bashing that goes on. So could I read that to you?

º (1610)

The Chair: I'm sure we're going to get unanimous consent from the room for you to read it, but nobody's going to take advantage of this round to get more time for the next person. However, I'm not going to cut off this little girl.

Ms. Christine Mick: She didn't even want to be in this room right now because she's too shy. She knows everybody's going to be on her and she's a very shy person, just like her dad is. She says:

I would want to say that my mother and her partner, whose name is Terry, are just as normal as your parents. They take care of me and love me so much. I couldn't be more happy or be with any other family. I mean, when I'm with my dad and his girlfriend, I'm not as happy. His girlfriend gives me more grief.

There is nothing wrong with my parents. Do you see me? I'm a straight A student.

--she is at the top of her class and always has been up until this time--

I'm beautiful.

-- I always tell her to love herself first so that she can love other people--

I'm popular. I'm smart. I'm intelligent. I'm very loving because of the family I was brought up with. I also help others. I do volunteering and I'm good at school. I'm a good person. It's not like my mom or Terry are murderers or hurt anybody or do drugs or smoke or drink. They're wonderful. I couldn't have better parents.

That's coming from a child in grade seven who hears the residual of gay bashing that really stems from the fact that society does not accept us.

The Chair: Thank you, and tell your daughter she got 1 minute and 45 seconds.

Ms. Sandra Houzer (As Individual): That's not fair. I have a daughter too.

The Chair: Don't you know? You have two minutes.

Ms. Sandra Houzer: My name is Sandra Houzer. I'm a mother, a sister, an employee and a partner. I was married to a man for 11 years, but I am now divorced and have been living common-law with a woman for four years. We are eagerly waiting to marry.

There were so many things said today that I would love to talk on, but I have only a minute and a half left. I'd like to focus on the definition of marriage because I think that's one area on which we're stuck. I really wish there were a minister here, or a reverend, but I think they've all left.

We've talked about their fear and we've heard about their fear today and why they're stuck and what they believe in, and that it's traditional and foundational and natural. They also talk about stability. I am a lesbian, but I am also a very spiritual person. I do read the Bible. I do go to church. I do not disagree with the stability of marriage. I believe that together, my partner and I are stronger. She's better financially; I'm better emotionally, spiritually. We bring different things to the union.

We heard John McKay say today that the Charter of Rights is about 130 years old and it may be that the wording needs to be...Constitution, sorry. I would also say that the Bible itself is thousands of years old and there's stuff in there that needs to be interpreted and looked at.

One of the things I'd like to read is this: “The man who committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death”. Now, we do not do that today, and I do not think any of the reverends would agree that we should. So how can they say that we have to stick with this one? Who are they to judge that one thing is right in the Bible and another is not? If you're going to use the Bible, you need to read the whole Bible and you need to interpret it with someone who knows its history.

Am I almost done?

The Chair: Yes, you are. Very much so.

Ms. Sandra Houzer: I want to finish this with one thing. This is my last statement: “And be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind that ye may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God”.

So I think God should be the judge, not the reverends and the interpretations.

º (1615)

The Chair: Thank you.

Gene Samarian, Pierre Perreault, and Jennifer Howe.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Perreault (As Individual): Good afternoon. I am Pierre Perreault.

I have a few comments to make at the end of this day. I am a 35-year-old gay man and I have lived with my partner for 14 years.

Five years ago, we decided to get married and hold a union ceremony. We did not call it a marriage. Given the fact that big institutions like government and churches were not catching up with the rest of society with regard to family reality and all that, we decided that our union meant far more than that. It is like a business contract; it truly involves sharing. There is not just a masculine and a feminine role. People contribute all kinds of things to a marriage.

As far as I am concerned, I noticed today that we are getting very entangled with the term "marriage". For instance, some do not want to include gays and lesbians in marriage. Personally, as far as I am concerned, this is more of a partnership than a marriage. I think that sooner or later, whether it likes it or not, Parliament will have to make a decision about this issue. It is only a matter of time.

My partner and I have decided to get married. We have invited 50 people, friends, colleagues from work, etc. We know that it is the upcoming generation of voters, like my goddaughter, who will decide our future, after we have grown old. They are growing up knowing that they have two daddies, two uncles or two aunts. For them, the important thing is to be loved. That is the only important thing.

Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chair: Some of us are little old people now.

We now have appearing Jennifer Howe, Dawn Kelly, Duncan MacRae, and David Jones.

Ms. Jennifer Howe (As Individual): Mine's significantly shorter, but that's all right. My name's Jennifer Howe, and I am definitely for gay-lesbian marriage.

Being only 20 years old, obviously I haven't given too much thought to whether I want to get married or not. Obviously, as for everyone else, it would be very nice to have the choice if I wanted to do that in the future.

That's it. Thanks.

The Chair: Thank you.

Dawn Kelly, Duncan MacRae, and David Jones.

Ms. Dawn Kelly (As Individual): Hi. My name is Dawn Kelly. I've heard a lot about stability in heterosexual relationships. I was raised within a lesbian family. My aunt and her partner have been together for 20 years, and I'm 22 years old.

I wanted to make the point that between homosexual families and heterosexual families there's no difference in the child rearing that I've found. I'm 22 years old, and I think I've turned out fine. I'm an outstanding student at Laurentian University.

Mind you, I'm gay myself, and I'd like the opportunity to marry my partner. My brother, who is a heterosexual who was also raised in this environment, feels that I should have the same rights as he has.

I thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak today.

The Chair: Duncan MacRae, David Jones, and Jesse Greenwell.

Mr. Duncan MacRae (As Individual): Two minutes. All of this doesn't seem to make sense anymore, but I want to say that in two minutes I can't begin to really speak to the issues.

So I'll start by saying maybe I'm the only ordained minister left in the room. I do have a bachelor's degree in theology and a master's degree in theology. What bothers me in this whole debate is the pro-homosexual proponents will often use the scriptures to back their position, but if you interpret the scripture carefully--and there are rules to interpreting called hermeneutics, the science of right interpretation--you will discover that certain interpretations are just not allowable. You have to take history into consideration, you have to take normal literary devices into consideration, and in the end, the scriptures are actually quite plain. You have to do violence to the word of God in order to render a position from the Bible that wholeheartedly embraces homosexuality as a wholesome lifestyle.

Having said that, I have boyhood friends who are now practising homosexuals. One of them happens to be a member of what was the Kids in The Hall , which used to play on national TV. I love those guys, and I'm always glad to see them. But I don't agree with their lifestyle. I think it's something that is of concern to our nation.

I think what we're deciding--or at least what the Government of Canada is deciding in this issue--is a watershed issue, and it is going to set the moral standard for decades and centuries to come, if we live that long. I think what we're going to see in the aftermath, if we choose to change the definition of marriage--

º (1620)

The Chair: You know your time is up. I'm--

Mr. Duncan MacRae: —is something that is going to result in what would be the case when you have a moral vacuum.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

David Jones and Jesse Greenwell.

Mr. David Jones (As Individual): Thank you, panel. Two thumbs up to all those who could present without reading it, but I'm going to read it.

My name is David Jones, as already has been mentioned. I'm a lifelong citizen of Sudbury and I'm married. My wife and I have three daughters.

I would like to talk about possible approaches in your discussion paper, in particular page 24, where it says marriage could be changed to also include same-sex couples. Therefore, it would duly be redefined.

Earlier presenters mentioned a nurturing, loving God who cares for us all, and I agree. Nearly 2,000 years ago when marriage was being attacked, Jesus Christ, who fully embodies love and is God, took the debate back to the beginning. I think it is important to examine this beginning and look at the models presented there.

Genesis 2:24 shows how God presented a woman to man and he called her woman, and then God said, “For this cause shall a man”--male--“leave his father and mother”--male and female--“and be united to his wife”--female--“and they shall become one flesh”. The model for marriage in the very beginning was one man and one woman.

Earlier I mentioned models, plural, and another model in God's decree was the foundation of the family. Adam and Eve, our first citizens, had no father and mother. So God, stating a man leaving his father and mother, was laying out the foundation for future families and, by extension, future nations. The outcome of this eventually became you and me. Not one of us here today is from a union other than the prototype.

Please reflect carefully on the first marriage, the model, and how any change to this could negatively impact your children and mine and theirs. As a citizen of Canada, I urge you to keep marriage defined as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

And Jessie Greenwell.

Mr. Jesse Greenwell (As Individual): Hi. First of all, I'd like to say I greatly appreciate the opportunity. And secondly, I'd like to say that I'm coming to the microphone with a great deal of respect both for you, as members of Parliament and members of the committee, and also for all the other speakers, be they on my side, or on another side, or on no side at all. I think it's important that everybody is coming to voice.

Having said that, I'd like to use this opportunity for two quick, short things. First of all, I'd like to respond to some of the arguments I've heard against gay marriage, with the speculation that it's a slippery slope leading to many different horrible, immoral things that we've heard, including incest and any number of other things.

I'd like to say that I think, contrary to what many people are saying, it's the exclusion of gays from marriage that leads to these immoral--in their opinion--acts, as in promiscuity, etc. Whether or not you believe it's a man or a woman, or anything, people have always been taught that marriage is the consummation of love and an agreement between two people. And as we all know, people here love family members who are of the same gender in obviously a different way, but also have the capability to love their spouses, be they straight or gay themselves. It just shows that we all do have the capability for that. As humans separate from the rest of the animals that we've been blessed with on this earth, I think we know we all have that ability and that we need to be able to express it as members of society, especially as voting citizens, and also just in general, because we deserve to be loved just as much as anybody else.

Regardless of what other people think, we're not asking them to get married to another person of their gender if they don't want to. We're just asking them to let us. That's about all I have to say, except for the fact that there is one statement that was made by someone who I understand is the bane of the existence of elected officials in first world countries and a superstar at the same time--Bono--when he was at a conference on third world aid. He made the statement, and this in relation to civil unions as opposed to marriage, that there's no honour in going halfway up a mountain.

Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

º (1625)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I thank you all. I thank everybody. There are people here who were here when we arrived this morning. I admire your stamina.

We are leaving directly to go to Toronto. We'll have hearings in Toronto today and tomorrow. We go home to visit our own families for a little while and then we'll be doing more hearings in Montreal and Iqaluit.

We hope to report to Parliament, as we've been requested to do, probably in early June. Understand that we've only been asked to take a position paper to the country to consult. As a committee we will recommend something, although I can't imagine at this point what that's going to be. We are going to recommend something in June, in the early part of June, I hope. The government will consider our report over the summer, presumably, and respond in some fashion in the fall.

I will say, as the chair of the committee, that I feel quite gratified we've been able to take a very difficult issue to our country in the way that we have and that the reaction of the community of Canada has been, for the most part, very respectful. I don't imagine there are issues we could take to the country that would be much more difficult, in the context of how strongly people hold their views, than this one. And Sudbury and Ontario today have done themselves proud. Thank you very much. Stay tuned.

The meeting is adjourned.