House of Commons Committees - JUST (37-2) - Evidence

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, April 1, 2003

0830

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

Mr. Lloyd Thornhill (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Lloyd Thornhill

0835

0840

The Chair

Mr. Rob Hughes (Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), Vancouver)

0845

The Chair

Mrs. Laurie Geschke (Vice-President, REAL Women of B.C.)

The Chair

Mrs. Laurie Geschke

The Chair

Mrs. Laurie Geschke

0850

0855

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Rob Hughes

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Rob Hughes

0900

Mr. Lloyd Thornhill

Mrs. Laurie Geschke

The Chair

Ms. Virginia Kirkham (REAL Women of B.C.)

The Chair

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

Mrs. Laurie Geschke

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mrs. Laurie Geschke

0905

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mrs. Laurie Geschke

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

0910

Mr. Bob Peacock (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Rob Hughes

Mr. Chuck Cadman

0915

Mr. Rob Hughes

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Mr. Rob Hughes

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Lloyd Thornhill

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Lloyd Thornhill

The Chair

Mrs. Laurie Geschke

0920

Mr. Rob Hughes

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Lloyd Thornhill

0925

The Chair

Mrs. Laurie Geschke

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Rob Hughes

0930

The Chair

Mr. Bob Peacock

The Chair

Mrs. Laurie Geschke

The Chair

Mr. Victor Wong (Executive Director, Vancouver Association of Chinese Canadians)

0940

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Kevin Simpson (President, Dignity Canada Dignité)

0945

Dr. Donald Meen (Dignity Canada Dignité)

0950

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Brad Moore (Legal Counsel, Yukon Human Rights Commission)

0955

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

1000

Mr. Brad Moore

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Brad Moore

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Brad Moore

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Brad Moore

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Brad Moore

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Brad Moore

The Chair

1005

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Brad Moore

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Brad Moore

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Brad Moore

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Brad Moore

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Brad Moore

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Brad Moore

1010

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

The Chair

Dr. Donald Meen

1015

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

The Chair

Dr. Donald Meen

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Brad Moore

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Brad Moore

1020

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

1025

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. Brad Moore

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. Victor Wong

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Simpson

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

1030

Mr. Brad Moore

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Brad Moore

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Dr. Donald Meen

Mr. John McKay

Dr. Donald Meen

1035

Mr. John McKay

Dr. Donald Meen

The Chair

Mr. Brad Moore

The Chair

Mr. Brad Moore

The Chair

Mr. Victor Wong

The Chair

Dr. Darrel Reid (President, Focus on the Family Canada Association)

1050

The Chair

Dr. Darrel Reid

The Chair

Mr. Pavel Reid (Director, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver, Office of Life and Family)

1055

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Chuck Cadman)

Mr. Pavel Reid

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Chuck Cadman)

Ms. Katherine Maas (As Individual)

1100

1105

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Pavel Reid

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Pavel Reid

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Pavel Reid

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Pavel Reid

Mr. Vic Toews

1110

Mr. Pavel Reid

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Pavel Reid

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Pavel Reid

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Pavel Reid

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Pavel Reid

Mr. Richard Marceau

1115

Mr. Pavel Reid

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Pavel Reid

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

1120

The Chair

Dr. Darrel Reid

The Chair

Mr. Pavel Reid

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. Pavel Reid

1125

The Chair

Ms. Katherine Maas

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Dr. Darrel Reid

1130

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Pavel Reid

The Chair

Dr. Darrel Reid

1135

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Dr. Darrel Reid

The Chair

Mr. Douglas Allen (Professor, Department of Economics, Simon Fraser University, As Individual)

1145

1150

The Chair

Ms. Cindy Silver (Lawyer, As Individual)

1155

The Chair

Ms. Cindy Silver

The Chair

Ms. Martha Dow (As Individual)

1200

1205

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Douglas Allen

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Douglas Allen

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Douglas Allen

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Douglas Allen

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Douglas Allen

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Douglas Allen

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

1210

Ms. Cindy Silver

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Cindy Silver

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Cindy Silver

1215

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Douglas Allen

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Douglas Allen

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Douglas Allen

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Martha Dow

1220

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Douglas Allen

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Douglas Allen

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Douglas Allen

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Martha Dow

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Douglas Allen

Mr. Vic Toews

1225

Mr. Douglas Allen

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Douglas Allen

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Douglas Allen

1230

The Chair

1335

The Chair

Ms. Alison Brewin (Program Director, West Coast LEAF Association)

1340

1345

The Chair

Ms. Alison Brewin

The Chair

Ms. Alison Brewin

The Chair

Mr. James Chamberlain (As Individual)

1350

1355

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

Ms. Alison Brewin

1400

Mr. Vic Toews

Ms. Alison Brewin

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Alison Brewin

Mr. Richard Marceau

1405

Ms. Alison Brewin

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

1410

Ms. Alison Brewin

Ms. Hedy Fry

Ms. Alison Brewin

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Ms. Alison Brewin

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. James Chamberlain

1415

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

The Reverend Stephen Jung (Vancouver Christian Renewal Fellowship)

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Rev. Stephen Jung

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

1420

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Rev. Stephen Jung

Mr. Richard Marceau

Rev. Stephen Jung

Mr. Richard Marceau

Rev. Stephen Jung

Mr. Richard Marceau

Rev. Stephen Jung

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

1425

The Chair

Ms. Alison Brewin

The Chair

Ms. Robin Alys Roberts (As Individual)

1440

The Chair

1445

Mr. Dennis Jones (Queen's Empire Group)

1450

The Chair

Ms. Dawn Barbeau (As Individual)

1455

Ms. Elizabeth Barbeau (As Individual)

Ms. Dawn Barbeau

Ms. Elizabeth Barbeau

Ms. Dawn Barbeau

1500

Ms. Elizabeth Barbeau

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Ms. Robin Alys Roberts

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Ms. Robin Alys Roberts

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Ms. Robin Alys Roberts

Mr. Chuck Cadman

1505

Ms. Dawn Barbeau

Ms. Elizabeth Barbeau

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Ms. Elizabeth Barbeau

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Jones

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Robin Alys Roberts

The Chair

Ms. Elizabeth Barbeau

Mr. Richard Marceau

1510

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Jones

The Chair

Ms. Robin Alys Roberts

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

1515

The Chair

Ms. Elizabeth Barbeau

The Chair

Ms. Robin Alys Roberts

1520

The Chair

Ms. Dawn Barbeau

1525

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Jones

The Chair

1535

Mr. John Redekop (As Individual)

1540

The Chair

Ms. Sharon Bard (Member, Multi Union Pride Committee)

1545

1550

The Chair

The Reverend Ed Hird (Co-Leader, North Shore Clergy Fellowship, North and West Vancouver)

The Reverend Owen Scott (Co-Leader, North Shore Clergy Fellowship, North and West Vancouver)

1555

Rev. Ed Hird

The Chair

Rev. Ed Hird

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. John Redekop

1600

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. John Redekop

Rev. Ed Hird

Mr. Steve Houston (Member, Public Service Alliance of Canada, Multi Union Pride Committee)

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Rev. Ed Hird

Mr. Richard Marceau

Rev. Ed Hird

1605

Mr. Richard Marceau

Rev. Ed Hird

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. John Redekop

1610

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. John Redekop

1615

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. John Redekop

The Chair

Ms. Sharon Bard

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Sharon Bard

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Sharon Bard

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. John Redekop

1620

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. John Redekop

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

1625

Mr. John Redekop

The Chair

Rev. Ed Hird

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. John Redekop

1630

The Chair

Mr. Steve Houston

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Smyth (As Individual)

1645

The Chair

Ms. Karen Fraser (As Individual)

The Chair

Ms. Robyn Smith (The Raging Grannies)

1650

The Chair

Ms. Robyn Smith

The Chair

Mr. Allen Leschert (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Jim Hamilton (As Individual)

1655

The Chair

1700

Ms. Nancy Lim (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Craig Maynard (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Craig Maynard

The Chair

Mr. Brent Bazinet (As Individual)

The Chair

1705

Ms. Janet O'Leary (As Individual)

The Chair

The Reverend Tim Stevenson (As Individual)

The Chair

The Reverend Gary Paterson (As Individual)

1710

The Chair

Ms. Corrie Campbell (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Steve Lebel (As Individual)

1715

The Chair

Mr. Steve Lebel

The Chair

Mr. Ernie Hamm (As Individual)

1720

The Chair

Mr. Heiko Van Eijnsbergen (As Individual)

The Chair

Ms. Elaine Murray (As Individual)

1725

The Chair

Ms. Elaine Murray

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

NUMBER 029

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, April 1, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¾ (0830)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): I'd like to call to order the 29th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee is resuming its study on marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions.

The way the day will work is that we will have a panel of three witnesses, individuals, or organizations each hour. Each individual--which could be two people--or organization is allowed seven minutes to make a presentation. There will be questions put by the committee. We traditionally go in rounds of seven, seven, seven, three, and three minutes. We usually have two hours, but today we only have an hour because we want to see as many people as we can. So I will advise the members who have a seven-minute round when they have reached five minutes, to offer them the opportunity to give extra time to other members of the committee.

So with that, we have today appearing as individuals, Lloyd Thornhill and Bob Peacock. We have from the Religious Society of Friends, or Quakers, of Vancouver, Rob Hughes; and from REAL Women of British Columbia, Laurie Geschke and Sharon Frewing.

In the interests of time, we are going to proceed directly to testimony. Again, I remind witnesses that we are talking about seven minutes and that I will be pretty tight about it, because we have to get all of this panel's work done in one hour.

So with that, to Messrs. Thornhill and Peacock for seven minutes.

Mr. Lloyd Thornhill (As Individual): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning.

First of all, on a very little thing, I will waste some of my time saying that I take a little offence to the term “individuals”. We did come as a couple, so I would have preferred that even if we had a forward slash between our names, I would have felt a little closer to the other individual with me.

The Chair: My apologies. I didn't mean to denigrate your relationship as much as to say that these are just terms that are used--

Mr. Lloyd Thornhill: I realize that. It's a little thing, as I say.

I'll start by reading my statement. I have two pieces of correspondence. One was written by me, a statement, and the other was an e-mail I received from a very close Christian lady friend of ours whose husband, who was also a Christian gay man, died of AIDS.

I'd just like to start by saying that in just a few short months Bob and I will celebrate 35 years of a lifelong covenant. When we first met in 1968, Pierre Trudeau a short time earlier had stated that government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. At that time we never dreamed we would be appearing before this committee some 35 years later, asking government to stay out of our bedroom. But with the greatest of respect, that is what we are asking.

We have followed the hearings since the day they began, and I must say that reading the evidence of some witnesses and comments made by some committee members, I find it appears that the mandate of this committee is not to garner public input but to decide indeed if our relationships are worthy enough to qualify for marriage. To us it is more like a trial, and we are called to justify our very existence.

We have read evidence and comments that to allow us to marry would open the door to gay men having sex with animals and marrying the family dog or our sisters. This was read into evidence by a pastor of a Christian church. One witness suggested that in some countries it's not unusual for homosexuals to have unmentioned body parts removed. She was also unhappy that gay and lesbian people receive certain benefits from government. But as she clearly stated, it's not too late to correct that mistake. When asked by Svend Robinson what Jesus had said about homosexuality, one lady turned to a nun for assistance and then replied, there were no homosexuals during that time.

Some of these people appear quite normal, that is, until they open their mouths and the whole room is contaminated with their ignorance, hate, and bigotry.

We have read minutes where committee members have clearly stated their views on this issue: let's keep marriage between one man and one woman; it works very well that way. Yes, it works very well for heterosexual couples, but marriage at the moment does not work well for us. That's because we presently can't marry and have our relationships recognized by government.

During our many years together we have faced the same problems as other married couples. There have been births in our families but also deaths. Between the both of us we have lost two fathers, one mother, two brothers, and one son. Bob sang at my father's memorial and I delivered the eulogy at his father's memorial. We are both fathers and grandfathers.

We married knowing full well that we were gay, but in the sixties it seemed easier to do what all our friends were doing; that was to marry a young woman. But we didn't understand the heartache that decision would cause.

The first day I met Bob I fell madly in love with him. I want to assure this committee that I feel no different about him today. So whatever government decides in respect to same-sex marriage, our love will remain the same. Also, our determination will not falter. We will continue our fight for justice and continue to run the race until we reach the prize.

Since we gave our lives to the Lord in 1988, we have met so many broken people in our community. They weren't broken because of their sexuality but because they were Christian and a pastor or church elder had falsely told them that they were an abomination in the eyes of God. They were then recruited into a form of change ministry, otherwise known as ex-gays. I must tell you that I have yet to meet anyone who was once gay but is now heterosexual. However, I have met many who have pretended to be healed or changed, only to find out a short time later that they had fallen from grace. These ministries have taken a toll on gay and lesbian youth. Many have committed suicide, and many others have either poured acid on their genitalia or caused severe damage with a knife or razor. Yet these groups still flourish in society.

A very dear friend of ours was the director of such a group for 10 years. He used to appear on TV and state that any homosexual could change if they really wanted to. Anyone who didn't was just weak. Well, Frank was one who fell from grace and confessed to a church elder. The elder told the pastor and a week later Frank was forced to stand before the congregation and confess his sin. His wife and two daughters sat in the church and wept. That mistake cost him his ministry and his family.

He recounted the story to us of how he believed that God would kill him, so he went on a sex binge, where he had sex with 27 partners over one weekend. Frank developed AIDS and died a few years later.

¾ (0835)

Before he died, Hana Gartner interviewed him on national TV. She asked him one question I will always remember. She said, “Frank, is there anything you truly regret?” Frank was only a few weeks from death at that time. He responded weakly that yes, he only wished he hadn't told all those young people they could change their sexuality.

A few weeks later Bob sang at Frank's funeral. He was very respected and the church was jammed with people, many from his old church. He worked with mentally challenged people, and there were about six of his clients at the memorial. As I sat in the front pew, I watched the line of people walking past his picture. Near the end of the line these dear people appeared. As they walked by, they reached out to touch his picture. The tears were streaming down their faces, and as I watched, I thought, these poor people didn't even know Frank was gay. If they had, it would not have mattered. He was someone they loved and cared for. Now Frank is gone. I remember thinking, if everyone in the church showed the same kind of love as these dear people, what a wonderful world it would be.

We have come here today so you, the members of this committee, can see us and listen to a small part of our story. Since the hearing started, you have heard similar stories and you will hear many more. We are part of the fabric of this great country called Canada. We don't come to you with hat in hand begging for scraps. We come to ask--no, demand--that the government do what is right, what it is elected to do. That is, do what is right, not what is popular.

If equal rights were granted based on polls or popularity, there would be no equal rights. We are calling on government to show leadership on this important issue. Don't wait for the courts to direct you. Grant us our right to marry now.

¾ (0840)

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

Mr. Hughes.

Mr. Rob Hughes (Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), Vancouver): Yes.

I'm speaking today on behalf of the Canadian yearly meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), so I'm not speaking for the Religious Society of Friends worldwide. I'm only trying to reflect the position that our yearly meeting has taken.

As you can understand from reading my brief, which I'm not going to repeat, over the past couple of decades we have gone through quite a laborious process within our monthly meetings of examining the place of marriage within the monthly meeting and how our gay and lesbian members of meetings and their relationships relate to monthly meetings. Not every monthly meeting in Canada in Canadian yearly meeting has taken the position of accepting same-sex marriages. However, there has been no monthly meeting that has taken the position against same-sex marriages and finding that they should be excluded.

A great deal of time in the brief has been spent on trying to help you understand Quaker process in terms of decision-making, because I think that's essential in understanding what our position is. For Quakers, there is no distinction made between the process in arriving at a decision and the decision itself. Both are considered to be equally essential and important, and it's felt that if the process is attentive to listening to the leadings of God, then the outcome and the decision will properly reflect that.

Last night, in reflecting on what to say to this committee, I came across a document that a British friend had put out regarding a history of Quaker marriage practice. I was reminded from that that the first generation of Quakers in England, in the mid-1600s, did not have their marriages recognized by the state authorities. There was persecution from the Puritans, who took the position that marriage was a civil contract, which is different from the Quaker conception of marriage as a spiritual union, and they established marriage under justices of the peace, which Quakers could not in good conscience marry under. Then, under the established church, which had the support of the monarchy, Quakers could not participate in a marriage that was performed by a priest, feeling that a priest did not have the authority to marry Quakers and that we married before God and in the presence of our meetings.

It wasn't until the courts, after having received challenges to Quaker marriages, determined that our marriages were recognized. They were supported by the Quaker communities through a process of certificates that were legally recognized in the courts.

Today, it's common practice throughout the Religious Society of Friends worldwide to have such certificates, which are signed by each of the persons who are present in the meeting with the couple and on which the couple's vows are written. These often will take a proud place in Quaker family homes.

Often, in visiting other friends' homes, I will see the framed certificate showing their marriage, and it recalls not only a proud moment in that couple's life, but it's also a reminder of the constant support and nurture that meetings give to married couples.

¾ (0845)

We now have a situation in Canadian yearly meeting where we have some of our marriages not recognized in law. Yet I have gone into many homes of gay and lesbian Quaker couples who have such marriage certificates, and they find the same support and nurture from their meetings and would display their certificates in the same manner as other heterosexual married couples. But there is not state recognition.

As a yearly meeting, we do not dictate to our monthly meetings what position to take on this matter. However, we feel that the marriages performed by a monthly meeting of two people--one of whom is always a member of the monthly meeting--should have the ability to be recognized by the state and that any religious organization should not have dictated to it by the state whether their marriages are legal or not legal or who they should and should not marry, either for or against same-sex marriages. So that would be our position.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Now we'll go to Mrs. Geschke.

[Translation]

Mrs. Laurie Geschke (Vice-President, REAL Women of B.C.): Mr. Chairman, honourable members of the House of Commons, welcome to British Columbia.

Would it be possible for my other colleague, Virginia, to come and sit at the table with us, Mr. Scott?

[English]

The Chair: I don't have any objection.

[Translation]

Mrs. Laurie Geschke: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: But you still have only seven minutes.

[Translation]

Mrs. Laurie Geschke: Thank you.

In order to be sure to cover all of the points I wish to make, I will be reading my statement.

We are very pleased to be able to appear before you today because we know what commitment and personal sacrifice it takes to make marriage work. Between us, we have almost 100 years of experience living within the institution of marriage and over 160 years living in the foundational unit of society in Canada, the family. Collectively, we have given birth to and successfully raised ten children, some grown to adulthood with children of their own and some not yet into their adolescence, the youngest being less than ten years old.

Other witnesses have spoken before us of many reasons why we should not force things in order to include the reality of homosexuals in the definition of the contract of marriage, neither now or in the future.

As stated by the Supreme Court of Canada's Mr. Justice Gérard Vincent La Forest in Nesbit and Egan,

The heterosexual relationship 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.

¾ (0850)

[English]

Advocates of same-sex unions argue that their relationships are functionally equal to those of marriage. However, the values and practices that are the cornerstone of heterosexual relationships are generally absent from male unions because they are actually detrimental to the functioning and longevity of homosexual relationships. Few homosexual couples remain sexually monogamous throughout their relationships. In fact, a comprehensive study by homosexual authors in the early 1980s found that most male relationships commonly ended after the third year, but that all homosexual couples with relationships lasting more than five years had incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity into their relationships.

Obviously, multiple sexual partners are not consistent with the best interests of any child who resides in the home, and these continuously rupturing relationships will negatively affect children caught in the tangled web of the homosexual definition of family.

Another difference between homosexual and heterosexual couples can be seen in how they manage their finances. Upon marriage, a husband and wife place their money in a common bank account to maintain the home and family. However, the expectation in same-sex unions is that each partner will look after himself financially, so each partner puts in 50% of the expenses, regardless of his income. Male couples apparently do not believe they are in this together.

Truthfully, are there many homosexuals in Canada who would want to submit themselves to a typical heterosexual financial arrangement where what is mine is yours? What will happen when these typically short-lived relationships dissolve and all assets have to be split 50-50? These breakups will end up in court, clogging our already overburdened court systems and facilities, especially considering the difference in financial management.

Another major difference between homosexual relationships and marriage relationships is that drug and alcohol use are an integral part of the same-sex union lifestyle. Use is a regular part of both their social and sexual lives, mainly due to the fact that their use has a reputation for increasing sexual enjoyment.

This is all from research done by two homosexual authors of the study and the book The Male Couple, published in 1984.

Surely no one would believe this aspect of homosexual relationships would be good for children exposed to it either.

Homosexual activists want to make their marriages user-friendly, tailored to the needs and wants of self-interested adults. Their cultural message is clear: marriage must be reduced to a mere cluster of perks and benefits for adults who happen to be in consensual sexual liaisons.

[Translation]

Homosexual unions are different from traditional marriage. These differences strike at the very core of the concept and nature of marriage. If there is any accommodation to same-sex marriage, the concept of the legal institution of marriage will be reformed in fundamental ways.

First of all, there will be a loss of the notions of sexual fidelity and monogamy and, secondly, marriage will be opened to radical reform. The result will be that Canadian society will launch itself upon a road leading to social and moral confusion.

Is this where the committee wants to direct public policy for our nation? How will this affect corporate benefits programs, spousal benefits, retirement benefits and health care? Who will pay for the judges and court clerks? Who will pay for the extra legal aid lawyers and the hard costs associated with their offices, support staff, courtrooms and court houses?

Public laws are intended to protect and promote public interests, not private lifestyle preferences. Given the aforementioned propensity to behaviours destructive of a true marriage relationship, we respectfully wonder if our country can afford the financial repercussions which the proposed changes will cost to our society.

[English]

The last time I spoke to a House of Commons committee it was to the finance committee that looked at the issue of family taxation. At that time, the changes our organization proposed were sweeping in nature.

The chair of that committee expressed his concern that to make many of the changes we had suggested would perhaps change the level of financial revenue that came to the government to spend. Therefore the committee was reluctant to propose any change, as every change was seen as an attempt to keep more money in the hands and pockets of Canadian citizens and put less money in the coffers of the federal government. No substantive changes were made from that committee.

With all due respect, we wish to go on record as encouraging the committee, the federal government, to be as prudent with social change as it has been with tax-relieving fiscal change for the Canadian taxpayer. Our society deserves it. Our nation's continued existence demands it.

Thank you very much.

¾ (0855)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I'll go to Mr. Toews for between five and seven minutes.

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, witnesses, for your presentations here today.

Through the course of our hearings some witnesses have spoken about the need to change the traditional definition of marriage. We're hearing that again today. Others have expressed concern that the impact of this change is not known because the academic research and discussion are in their infancy, so people have expressed caution that we not move in that direction to change the law, especially since these changes seem so contrary to cultures and civilizations right across history. I'm not saying there haven't been instances of same-sex marriages being recognized, but the general trend, by and large, across history has been to recognize opposite-sex couples.

These witnesses have indicated to us that marriage is not simply an institution of individual self-expression but a unique bonding relationship in society between males and females. It's uniquely a male-female relationship and simply has nothing to do with sexuality per se. It's to do with bridging the gap between males and females in our society.

I'm just wondering if any of you would want to elaborate further on that. Do you disagree or agree? Give us some comments.

Perhaps we could start with the gentleman from the society of Quakers--quite a fascinating society.

Mr. Rob Hughes: The Religious Society of Friends has always placed more emphasis on the companionship aspect of marriage rather than primarily procreation or reproduction.

Historically, George Fox, who was the first Quaker leader, married Margaret Fell, who was widowed and some 20 or more years older than him. She already had adult children and was far past child-bearing years, yet it was a very productive, loving, and caring marriage. I think it served as an example to Friends.

Mr. Vic Toews: Just to clarify my question a little bit, I wasn't dwelling on the procreation aspect at all. I was trying to get some input into the idea that marriage is not simply an individual relationship but more an institution placed there by society in order to perform a very unique bonding relationship between males and females, separate and apart from procreation.

Maybe it's unfair to do that to you, but perhaps others have some comments on that.

The Chair: Mr. Hughes is next, and then Mr. Thornhill and Mrs. Geschke.

Mr. Rob Hughes: On the social aspect of the marriage relationship, we certainly place a great deal of emphasis on the fact that the couple are not only relating with each other, but they are also part of a larger community. That's what happens when a Quaker meeting takes a marriage under its care. It goes through a process of spiritual discernment to see whether it is right for this couple to marry, and it extends the support and recognition of the Quaker community to the couple. That's seen as a lifelong commitment from the meeting to the couple.

It's quite clear in our brief that many of our monthly meetings, through a process of spiritual discernment, have decided they will extend marriage to same-sex couples in that manner.

¿ (0900)

Mr. Lloyd Thornhill: I usually have an opinion on almost everything and this is one of them. There's a standing comment that I hear often from pastors. It's getting a little boring now. I hear God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Well, I have news for them. God also created Adam and Steve.

Both Bob and I have been married to women. But the marriage couldn't be carried on because we realized that we had a different sexuality. I'd like to make it clear that I'm not talking about sex. I'm talking about sexuality. That's our inner being--our sexuality. If we had no sex from today onward, we're still going to be homosexuals. Nothing will change that.

Our relationship has been long. It's been true. We do share the same bank account. We have from day one. We're not on drugs. We're sober this morning and we intend to stay sober.

I know it's new. It's been talked about a lot. Marriage for gay and lesbian people is new and is going to take a little getting used to. But it's going to happen. Whether the committee recommends it or not, it will happen. Our relationships will be loving, the same as heterosexual couples.

Mrs. Laurie Geschke: I'd like to ask my associate, Virginia Kirkham, to answer this question.

The Chair: Ms. Kirkham.

Ms. Virginia Kirkham (REAL Women of B.C.): I believe marriage was envisaged for women and children. I was young before the pill was invented. In those days you didn't want to get into a relationship without being married because you would probably have children. I don't think change is always better. The pill was invented, and many of us thought that would be a boon to society, but now we have millions of abortions, children growing up without fathers, and instead of three social diseases we have over 100.

I'm not sure change is always the best. We have to be careful what we do.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Marceau for five to seven minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): First of all, I wish to thank all of you for having come here this morning to state your views.

I will begin with Madam Geschke. Thank you. It was most pleasant to hear you speak French here in Vancouver this morning.

I was somewhat surprised, upon reading your brief, to learn that though I have been married for nine years I have a financial management system that is not heterosexual. I found that rather odd.

But I would like to come back to your statement according to which same-sex unions are different from marriage due to various factors that you list. With regard to financial management matters, as I just said, I was somewhat surprised because I know a lot of young couples my age--I am 32 years old--who do not perhaps have as much in the way of a common “kitty“ as others, but that does not mean that they should not be able to marry.

I would like you to explain to me what is meant by “skills compatibility difficulties“. When one gets married, is their a column for the skills of the man and another for the skills of the woman?

Mrs. Laurie Geschke: In the book entitled The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop, by David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison, published by Prentice-Hall in 1984, it is said that :

[English]

Same-sex unions differ from marriage in the following ways: the sexual infidelity, the limited duration, differences in financial management between male partners, skills compatibility, difficulties in male couples' lifestyles. With regard to the skill compatibility difficulties, that had more to do with men being good at certain things--they are just easily good at them. Women tend to be good at different things.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Like what, for example?

[English]

Mrs. Laurie Geschke: Nurturing of children tends to be a female thing. We have the hormones that are the nurturing hormones. Men have testosterone, which is not a nurturing hormone; it is a protecting hormone. When you marry someone of the opposite sex, all these systems in the human body work together in the two different human bodies, whereas with a couple that is not one male and one female, one of the males will have to pick up incompetencies. The author actually states--it's somewhere in my brief or in something that I read in the book--that if they don't correctly assimilate these competencies or if they don't become good at other things that the woman, say, is normally good at, because we're talking here about two male individuals who are forming a couple, if they don't get their competencies to balance each other--the male-female competencies--then the couple breaks up. That's why the couples usually last less than three years.

¿ (0905)

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: That appears to me to be a rather broad generalization. Last Christmas, my wife asked me for a tool box. I am not too good in the do-it yourself department, but she enjoys that. In any event, I simply wanted to tell you that your statement is to my mind quite a generalization.

You seem very obviously opposed to same-sex marriage. You must be aware that three courts have decided that prohibiting same-sex marriage is discriminatory under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One of these three courts stated that this could be “saved“ by section 1 of the Canadian Charter.

Mr. Thornhill stated earlier that he believes this will be resolved in the courts. If the Supreme Court were--and this seems to be the direction the courts are moving towards--to decide that same-sex marriage should be allowed, do you believe the government should use the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution to opt out of a Supreme Court decision authorizing same-sex marriage?

Mrs. Laurie Geschke: Yes, absolutely.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. McKay for seven minutes.

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

The Chair: Five to seven minutes.

Mr. John McKay: That's a flexible time.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, witnesses. When my wife describes my talents around the house, she usually describes me as a very good MP.

I want to direct my questions to the first witnesses with respect to their faith. Obviously, your faith means a great deal to you.

The Bible says some pretty awkward things. There's a lot of stuff in the Bible I really wish it didn't say but it does. You can tap dance and you can rationalize and you can do a lot of things, but some things it just keeps plunging home. One of the issues is on the practice of homosexuality. There are three references that I can recollect in the Bible on the practice of homosexuality. As a quick category they could be described as sin, and they are, interestingly, in the category, at least in Romans, along with fornication and adultery, some of the biggies, as far as sin is concerned.

Really what we are into here is that God has called this a sin. We are asking God to bless this kind of a practice and then pat ourselves on the back as to how tolerant we are in our society.

You heap skepticism upon some people who seem to move back and forth on the spectrum of sexual orientation. I would be interested in your views, because there is a certain school of thought--a gay school of thought--that thinks sexual orientation is a social construct, a description rather than a reality. Then there is an essentialist school that thinks of it as “This is the way you are and this is it”. People do misidentify. We have had witnesses, and in fact members of Parliament, who at one point were practising heterosexuals and now are practising homosexuals.

I'm curious as to why you would be (a) so scornful of those who would presumably go back to a heterosexual lifestyle and (b) how you reconcile your faith or understanding to those very awkward Biblical passages.

¿ (0910)

Mr. Bob Peacock (As Individual): First of all, for me God is everywhere, and God made me who I am. He knew who I was even before I was born, and I believe he set the path and my destination as to who my partner was going to be and everything else. I am who I am. I am what God made me. If that's homosexual, that's who I am. If I were to be heterosexual, that's who I would be. In that indication, and knowing what you're saying--and not to bore the panel because I'm sure you've all heard it before--about all of the battering scriptures in the Bible.... But I also believe as a Christian that the majority of the words in the Bible--and I have some problems with pastors with this. Yes, they breathe the life of God. God breathes those words into the Bible. But we also know that history dictated as to what was going to be in the Bible. And which Bible? There are so many Bibles out there now with different interpretations and different connotations, so that as a Christian it's almost hard to pick one up and know which one is real any more. That's what happening with society.

But God will tell us on the judgment day who was right and who was wrong. I happen to think that me being a homosexual is the way God made me. I believe when I was wrong is when I married, because I believe then, as the Bible says, I came out of the norm. I did something that was abnormal to who I was. For me, that was to marry a woman, because that is not what God made me. That's what I believe. I believe I contradicted God's law in that respect. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad I have children. I'm glad I have grandchildren. It's a privilege in that respect.

But scornful of ex-gay people? I'm not scornful of ex-gay people at all. I feel bad for ex-gay people because I really truly believe that they have not done what most church people do. Most church people are lazy. Most pastors are lazy these days because they don't research. They don't. They just listen to what is coming from the pulpit. They don't go out and do the research themselves. And a lot of them don't get on their knees and ask God what it is they are supposed to do. We do, as Christians. We still ask God to direct our lives. But I believe when we go to churches that the pastors these days are just picking up what's on the Internet now.

When we had arguments, or sat down to have discussions, with pastors, they didn't even pick up the Bible to see what was in it. It was just too easy to take it off the Internet. It's just so convenient for pastors and for the Christian community to do that these days, instead of really researching, going back to the start of civilization when God created, going back to Genesis, and really researching and looking and seeing what the scriptures say. They're not doing it any longer.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I'm going to have to move on. The change has been made for this side actually.

I'm going to go to Mr. Cadman for three minutes. And I would advise the panel that the three minutes includes the statement, the question, and the answers.

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

Mr. Hughes, I just go back to a comment that I believe you made. You stated that the state should not dictate to the churches who they should be permitted to marry.

Mr. Rob Hughes: I should probably qualify that.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Just let me finish, and I'm sure you will.

There are many major religions that recognize polygamy--that marry polygamist situations. I don't think that's too much of a stretch to consider. That's one thing people have expressed to this committee--a concern that if Parliament does decide to change the definition, we're opening the door there.

Would you say those churches should be able to marry and those types of unions should be legally recognized?

¿ (0915)

Mr. Rob Hughes: The yearly meeting hasn't taken a position on polygamy, but I would imagine that we wouldn't be able to support polygamous marriages within Canada. Perhaps we could in a different social context, but certainly it's not something that I think would be acceptable to the Canadian yearly meeting or Quakers in Canada.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: But if we're making this argument based on rights, that's where the question arises from. This argument or request is being made to Parliament based on rights. So where do the rights fit into this for polygamous unions?

Mr. Rob Hughes: We tend to view it among ourselves as not so much a question of rights, because we don't consider that anyone has a right to get married by a Quaker meeting. We will only marry where at least one of the members of the couple is a member of a Quaker meeting and after a process involving the sermon, where the meeting as a whole has approved of the marriage going ahead. So there have been instances where heterosexual marriages have not been approved by a Quaker meeting and have not gone ahead. That's just the way it is.

But the present situation does create an inequality, if you like. Within meetings, there are people who have been married, but their marriages are not recognized outside of the Religious Society of Friends.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Macklin for three minutes.

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

In the hearings already we have obviously seen extremes in views from each side, and today is no exception.

We have seen some committee members profess a position one way or the other, but when we're looking at the chore before us as a committee, I think one of the issues arising is that if we cannot coalesce as a committee around an all-inclusive marriage concept.... Considering the equality issue as it relates to couples who are in a committed conjugal relationship, and who are trying to gain some equality between marriage as heterosexual union and marriage as a homosexual balanced union, can we discuss for the moment, or can I get from each of you, your views of the next best position that each of you could take as a group, which could lead us possibly to finding consensus on this committee as to where we could go now as a society?

The Chair: Mr. Thornhill.

Mr. Lloyd Thornhill: In my opinion, there is no second best.... Marriage is what this committee is discussing and marriage is what we came here to discuss. Everything else would be second best; they are not equal.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Are you saying that all married couples would be...? My concern right now is that if we look at those committed conjugal relationships, heterosexual and homosexual, they clearly don't get all of the rights extended to them on an equal basis--save and except the word “marriage”.

My question is, how close to marriage might we be able to get on a consensus basis at this point, assuming for the moment that the committee is not able to reach that ultimate goal at the present time?

Mr. Lloyd Thornhill: If you're not able to reach that goal, I guess it's up to the rest of Parliament to decide what we're entitled to.

The Chair: Thank you.

To Ms. Geschke and then to Mr. Hughes, to answer the question from Mr. Macklin.

Mrs. Laurie Geschke: Mr. Macklin, I'd just like to say that the issues involved in this discussion should not be brushed aside with emotive appeals to the Canadian sense of fairness and tolerance. The drive to reconstruct this crucial institution appeals to those values of tolerance, inclusion, and diversity, but while these values may be appropriate for refereeing social or political functional organizations, they are completely inadequate for handling the complex and primal conjugal reality of marriage.

¿ (0920)

Mr. Rob Hughes: I'm just thinking in terms of my own personal experience in dealing with this issue in Vancouver Friends' meetings. We decided that a couple could come to the meeting and request that their committed relationship be taken under the care of meeting, and not choose to call it a marriage, if that was their wish. We could still recognize that relationship, and it was equally open to opposite-sex as well as same-sex couples. Our decision was that if a same-sex couple wanted to have it called a marriage, it should be dealt with in the same manner as any opposite-sex couple requesting the same thing. I don't think there is any kind of interim position that Friends or Quakers would find acceptable.

Outside of the Canadian yearly meeting, I know that a Friends meeting at Seattle University refused for a number of years to register any marriages for a number of years--opposite- or same-sex--because the meeting's position was that doing so would not be respectful of all members of the meeting.

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Marceau, for three minutes.

[Translation]

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

With all due respect, I have some difficulty when people start talking about what the Bible, the Coran or the Torah or whatever say about homosexual unions, because this to my mind is not the theology committee of the House of Commons but the Standing Committee of the House on Justice and Human rights. We are not here to impose or even to discuss the Catholic vision of marriage or the Protestant vision, but rather civil marriage and the civil ramifications of marriage.

In all that has been said to date in previous committees and in this one, one must remember that the question of religious freedom is ever present, omnipresent, in the sense that we must avoid imposing one's religion on anyone else. Someone's religion must not become the law for others. This is why we must be very careful and limit ourselves to civil marriage.

That being said, I would like to put the following question to Mr. Thornhill. It has often been said that if homosexuals are given the right to marry, this will have political and social consequences or repercussions and will destroy Canadian society. In your view, what might these horrible consequences be if tomorrow morning you and Mr. Peacock are allowed to marry? What would that change in my life or in that of anyone else? In what would your marriage do anything to destroy society?

[English]

Mr. Lloyd Thornhill: I asked myself this question this morning before I arrived, and the word “divorce” came to me. I feel divorce is far more destructive than gay and lesbian people being allowed to marry.

What I think the good would be of allowing us to marry is that it would reduce the so-called gay lifestyle that people...I don't know what a gay lifestyle is. Style is something you change on a daily basis, and I can't change my life. I think it would reduce the number of AIDS cases in this country by many.

Bob and I live across from a park that is a so-called cruising area for gay men. I'm a smoker, so I spend a lot of time out on the patio at 3 or 4 in the morning, and I see people park their cars and go to the bushes. It's sad to watch. But a lot of these men are married men who are sneaking off from their wives because they can't be who they really are. They're just out looking for love in all the wrong places, as they say.

I think if we were granted marriage, people could be the people God meant them to be and find a relationship. By doing that, it would reduce the number of the diseases I've heard mentioned here this morning--I think it was over 100 diseases or something. So I see the good things of marriage. I don't know of any bad things that would happen.

¿ (0925)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Geschke.

[Translation]

Mrs. Laurie Geschke: Mr. Marceau, I would also like to say that it is not simply a question of tolerance of other types of relationships. We must not confuse tolerance and preference. Relationships and behaviour fall into three categories : those that are prohibited, those that are tolerated and those that are preferred.

Marriage as being the union between a man and a woman is not simply tolerated, but it is the classical example of a preferred relationship essential to the good of society and which must be preserved and protected from those who wish to lay claim to it.

[English]

The Chair: Merci.

Madam Fry, for three minutes.

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

I wanted to focus on another component here. I want to focus on children.

We know that having been married before, you have children. We know there are same-sex couples who can adopt children or who can have children through reproductive technologies and other means.

I would like to ask what you think about the status of those children. Unless a same-sex couple is allowed to marry, those children have no status, really. And if the couple wishes to strengthen the status of their children and build a strong family--not only in the eyes of society but also in the law--they have no recourse currently. Those children, therefore, do not have the sanction of the law or of society to say to everyone around them that they belong to a family, and their parents are, in the eyes of the law, parents. I would like to hear your comments on that.

Obviously, you know children of same-sex relationships who are currently at school being taunted, who don't have that ability to stand up and say, “I am from a family; my parents are married”.

I want to know what you think about the rights of the child and the ability of the child to have that kind of very strong relationship in society. I'd like to hear your comments on it, because that is of great concern to me.

The Chair: To Mr. Hughes, then Mr. Peacock, and then Mrs. Geschke.

And that'll probably be it, Ms. Fry.

Mr. Rob Hughes: I think the question of children is an important one. Certainly, with early Quaker marriages, the court challenges that came about were actions in a state law that the children were not legitimate in the marriage and didn't have the right to inherit a parent's estate. Obviously, there are consequences to not having a marriage recognized.

But I think Quaker meetings have always tried to be a place where children of same-sex and opposite-sex relationships would not have to hide what their family arrangements were, to feel comfortable with them. I have been to gatherings over the last 30 years where there has been that kind of equality in terms of how the children would just accept that there are different patterns and modes of family life, and at least in the meeting they find that's a safe place. When they go outside of a Quaker first day school or into a larger gathering in their own schools, then it can be a very different situation and they may face much more hostility.

¿ (0930)

The Chair: Mr. Peacock.

Mr. Bob Peacock: Thank you.

I have two grandchildren and my daughter is 37 years old. Right from the very beginning, when her mom and I split up and she was extremely young, one of the things we vowed to each other was that we would never lie to our children, that we would immediately come out so they would not have to live some other life; they would not have to know that their dad was something other than what he was.

We took that on to educate the children because we knew it certainly wasn't going to happen in the school system; it wasn't going to happen in the church. I knew then that my daughter would be stigmatized in school because of course when they had mother-father days I would not be there; her mom would be there. Thankfully, now, her other dad will be there. So she explains who her dad is. But the kids in school can be cruel; the churches can be cruel. She stopped going to Sunday school because of her “fag” father, but she stood her ground only through the education we provided.

Had Lloyd and I been able to take her as a couple--we had his daughter for a while and raised her. I must have been some sort of an enigma at that time because I felt I was nurturing, and we did the same things that I think most married heterosexual couples do. There was nothing different. Maybe I have a maternal instinct. It came out and I loved doing it.

In order to take away the stigmatization that children go through...because of the fact that they can't go in and say “I have two dads and I'm okay”.... My grandchildren are heterosexual. My daughter is a heterosexual. She's not a lesbian. She hasn't turned out weird or funny or whatever because her dad is a homosexual. She's well adjusted. I'm extremely proud of her and of the grandchildren, and they know who their grandfathers are. They have grandfathers and they love it. They can go to school and say they have grandfathers. But again, it doesn't stop the children and it doesn't stop society because of who we cannot be. Society does not stop victimizing the children. It's the children who become the victims. By us legitimately being married, and we would probably adopt or we could adopt, that legitimizes us and it gives the children the aspect of being part of the fabric and being who they can be.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Geschke for the final comment.

Mrs. Laurie Geschke: Thank you.

I would like to re-mention the fact that all of us know that children can only be created by the union of a male and female component. I would also like to say that I would be more concerned with the children of single parents than the children of the small number of couples who are homosexual and happen to be raising children at this time in Canadian society.There are far more single moms raising children because their husbands have dumped them for another woman, or another man, than there are homosexual couples who are actually wanting to raise children.

The Chair: Thank you to the committee and to the panel.

I apologize for the fact that I must be tough on this timeline, but we only get a little over an hour. We have panels every hour all day, and any time we lose now will be lost to the people who want to make statements at the end of the day. So please bear with me. Thank you.

I will suspend for three minutes. I thank the panel and I invite the next panel to come forward.

¿ (0933)

¿ (0937)

The Chair: I call the meeting back to order. Welcome back. Bienvenue.

We have in our second round of witnesses the Vancouver Association of Chinese Canadians, Victor Yukman Wong; Dignity Canada Dignité, Kevin Simpson and Dr. Donald Meen; and Yukon Human Rights Commission, Brad Moore, legal counsel.

Each group is asked to make a seven-minute opening statement. I will be pretty tight on the seven minutes because we only have an hour.

I'm going to go first to Victor Yukman Wong.

Mr. Victor Wong (Executive Director, Vancouver Association of Chinese Canadians): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to Vancouver.

Thank you, honourable members, for convening this meeting.

I just want to begin by apologizing to the committee for not having a brief available in French. I have submitted one in English.

The Vancouver Association of Chinese Canadians is an anti-racism and human rights organization and a member chapter of the Chinese Canadian National Council and the National Anti-Racism Council of Canada. Our mission is to advocate for racial equality and the full participation of everyone in all aspects of Canadian society.

We begin by acknowledging the Coast Salish peoples and the aboriginal claim to the land where we are meeting today.

We urge all parliamentarians during this most critical period to continue to oppose the U.S.-and-U.K.-led war against Iraq and to take a strong stand for peace. Further, we urge the government to make available generous aid for Iraqi refugees and displaced persons and to keep our borders open to refugees and asylum seekers.

VACC was formed in 1992 and has made numerous submissions on immigration and refugee issues to the federal government, Parliament, and the Senate.

We want to address this brief, which we have reviewed on the Internet, with regard to the committee's work on developing some recommendations to the federal government on the issue of same-sex marriage.

We urge the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to make the following recommendation: that the federal government introduce legislation to remove the opposite-sex restriction on legal marriage, thereby extending the freedom to marry to same-sex couples.

The other alternatives suggested in your discussion paper do not serve to provide true equality on this issue. Some same-sex couples wish to marry for a number of reasons, and it is our view that society would greatly benefit from them being able to realize their choice to marry.

The issue is fairness and dignity and the recognition of the family unit and of their love and commitment. It's about the equal recognition of the partnership. It's about choice and ending discrimination and exclusion from an institution widely recognized and valued by heterosexual couples.

Governments have been pushed by the judiciary, which is one of the most conservative sectors of our society, to recognize that all Canadians are to be treated fairly and equally regardless of their sexual orientation. In recent years the federal government has extended rights and responsibilities to same-sex couples. Yet the exclusion to the institution of marriage remains. This distinction is an affront to human dignity and a violation of the right to equality, which is guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The option of registered partnerships, as discussed in your paper, does not serve to repair the legislative gap; that is, in the case of same-sex couples, the exclusion from the institution of marriage. In fact, an enhanced parallel civil union system could become just another form of social segregation.

Religious groups already have the right to choose whether or not to perform marriages for same-sex couples. They have this right under paragraph 2(a) of the charter. So the charter does provide for balance.

Some opponents of equal marriage maintain that marriage is strictly a heterosexual institution. I disagree. I go further to state that I find it repulsive that some will even deliberately advance their misinterpretation of passages in books of faith to attempt to continue to justify differential treatment of same-sex couples. Such notions, in my view, are misguided and ignore the fact that the books of faith are books of love.

I urge you parliamentarians not to be conned by witnesses who degrade same-sex relationships. No group of Canadians should be systematically excluded from any legal institution, but for too long this has been the case for same-sex couples wishing to marry.

¿ (0940)

Legal marriage should respect and embrace the diversity of Canadian people. It must be open to all Canadians, regardless of their sexual orientation.

We expect that we will see these reforms soon or shortly afterwards. This is inevitable. I am reminded of the past advances in repealing racial and gender exclusion. So it is a matter of time.

The question I have for honourable committee members here is what will your role be in ending discrimination in this matter? You have an important role in making these necessary reforms a reality.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

Now, Mr. Simpson.

Mr. Kevin Simpson (President, Dignity Canada Dignité): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Members of the committee, fellow presenters, and members of the public, I am privileged to be able to appear today with my life partner of 26 years, representing Dignity Canada Dignité.

Dignity is an organization of gay men and lesbians who come mainly from the Roman Catholic tradition. My spouse Don is a member of the Anglican Church.

I think it is important to be clear about what distinguishes us from other Roman Catholic representatives who will appear before you today. We acknowledge that we are members of a church that proudly discriminates in the administration of its ministry to women, the separated and divorced, and gay and lesbian people. The Roman Catholic Church is an institution that silences dissenters and maintains strict control through a hierarchical structure of decision-making.

But not all the faithful agree with the church's actions or policies, as I have pointed out in the brief. That is why it is important that we appear here to address the issue of equality for same-sex unions, because the institutional church is incapable of even allowing that those relationships should exist. It is incapable of thinking in terms of equality for gay and lesbian individuals and orchestrates campaigns of opposition each time the issue is raised.

The current campaign by the Office of Life and Family has the centre section of this week's diocesan paper entitled “Defence of Marriage”. Those attending mass last Sunday in some parishes had form letters distributed to them for signatures before they would leave the service so they could be sent to you. It will be interesting to see what such a well-financed campaign can elicit as a response.

Same-sex relationships are characterized in these campaigns as a threat to family and society. In contrast, Don and I, in our relationship, have found the love and commitment that has enabled us to grow and to contribute to society by building on a foundation of mutual support and faithful companionship. Our family experience is one of reaching out to others and sharing our home and our lives with others. Our ability as individuals to risk in stepping forward publicly has been possible through the assurance that each of us would be there for the other, regardless of the consequences.

Some of you will recognize this as a feature of your own marriages or partnerships. Ours is not a remarkable relationship that requires any special recognition or advantage, but at the same time, it does not deserve the denigration and condemnation that it has received from each of our faith traditions over time.

One of the benefits of recognizing same-sex relationships as equal to heterosexual relationships will be to make it clear that the state does not condone such behaviour. Society in general stands to benefit from same-sex marriages, which will encourage all the positive aspects that are characteristic of successful heterosexual marriages.

I would like Don to add his comments.

¿ (0945)

Dr. Donald Meen (Dignity Canada Dignité): I'm a lifelong Christian. My deepest religious convictions lead me to affirm gay and lesbian people and to see the love of same-sex couples as a gift from God, and indeed a sign to the world of God's very own loving and self-giving nature.

My religious view is that marriage is a deep mystery of intertwined persons in God, an ongoing encounter in which partners are drawn out of themselves in self-giving love, which is fruitful for the couple and for those who are around them. These core gospel values are as accessible to and characteristic of same-sex couples as they are accessible to and characteristic of other-sex couples. My religious conviction is that marriage should therefore be open to gay and lesbian couples.

There are those who will say to you that their religious freedom requires that our government not allow me to practice what is consistent with my conscience, but to conform my behaviour to satisfy their religious sensibilities. But I say to you, it is fundamental to democracy that the state protect the freedom of religious belief and practice of each citizen against the intrusion or incursion of any other.

As members of Canada's Parliament, whose religious freedom will you protect? Marriage is good for gay and lesbian couples because it affirms and supports them in their commitment to mutual care, self-giving, and responsibility. Marriage is good for gay and lesbian couples because more and more of them parent children, who flourish best in the care of parents who are themselves cared for and supported in committed relationships.

You have heard it said that marriage for same-sex couples will in some way imperil marriage as a fundamental building block of society. But I say to you, what is good for gay and lesbian couples is good for their families, their communities, and this nation. What builds these couples up, what encourages their flourishing and fruitfulness, in turn builds up families, communities, and Canadian society.

Our social construction of marriage has changed considerably over the centuries as societies have addressed new and changing contexts, conditions, and understandings. Societies have adapted marriage to meet their legitimate social needs and goals. It is time for Canada to adapt marriage once again, for good and just reasons, to give her gay and lesbian citizens access to this fundamental institution of our culture.

Thank you.

¿ (0950)

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

Mr. Moore.

Mr. Brad Moore (Legal Counsel, Yukon Human Rights Commission): I want to thank my fellow presenters. I think the voice of the Yukon Human Rights Commission will, in every respect, echo the respectful remarks of my friends here.

I would like to open by saying that the Yukon Human Rights Commission is grateful for the opportunity to speak here. If nothing else is clearly understood, I would ask with respect that the point I am about to make be understood. Just as today we acknowledge the fact that we're on the traditional lands of Coast Salish people here, in the Yukon territory 25% of the population is aboriginal. We've been asked to speak. I'm not sure if there are any other voices from the Yukon coming before the committee, but I would ask that indeed aboriginal people of the Yukon be asked to present their views. I can't claim to respect their vision here today, although I would try.

Legal same-sex marriage will become a reality. If Parliament fears that it cannot, in the sphere of relationships, illuminate through legislation the direction in which we are ineluctably heading, then the courts, in our view, will hold that the common law exclusion of same-sex partners from marriage is unconstitutional. The courts' determination to extend the consequences of marriage to same-sex partners will be, when all is said and done, simply a recognition of our common humanity.

Parliament's response to such a decision will ultimately be determined no doubt by public opinion, which recent evidence indicates to be increasingly supportive of same-sex marriage. Even if Parliament did initially invoke section 33 of the charter to enact a same-sex marriage override, it is, we submit, difficult to imagine it re-enacting an override of the right to equality every five years, as you must do under section 33 of the charter. Such a process would simply be too divisive.

Would Canadians really want to say every five years--in legislation, no less--that lesbians and gay men are not as worthy as heterosexuals of the state recognition afforded through marriage; not equally entitled to the right to choose whether to marry the person they love; essentially, not full citizens? Let us hope that this is not the case.

Instead, the commission posits that, as Canadians increasingly welcome lesbians and gay men into the political and social reality, legal same-sex marriage will become a fact. Fear of same-sex marriage we hope will fade in time as space emerges within the shared physical and metaphysical spaces of this country that we would like to call a community.

In our view, this is quite simply--all of it--about a couple of possibilities. We stand at a moment in time poised between a way that is fear-based and a way that is allowing. Fear, in our respectful view, is where we have been; and allowing is where we, as a commission, say we probably will go, if we look towards the best part of our common humanity.

Where are we now? We are poised before an opportunity to choose one way or the other. One looks like a place where Yukoners would like to live. Where we have been is in conflict and in court, and the issue has been whether same-sex couples can leverage section 15 equality rights towards recognition of same-sex marriage. Not many years ago, public opinion said no. This voice of social conservatism found expression on the Supreme Court of Canada in a majority decision. The justification was a constellation of apparent concerns.

¿ (0955)

Some combination of the following closely related assertions have all been raised in both Canada and other countries in cases involving same-sex partnership recognition claims: society has historically recognized marriage as limited to opposite-sex partners; religious organizations have historically recognized marriage as limited to opposite-sex partners; including same-sex partners in the institution of marriage would undermine the traditional family; and opposite-sex partners have the unique capacity to procreate, and also raise the most children, and therefore should be legally privileged through marriage.

This voice of social conservatism we say has lost its timbre recently in the decision of M. v. H.; frankly, the voice of fear sounded sad and old and tired. The rest of us have turned the page to look bravely at the present, where we are presented with alternative visions of a fair future.

Just take a moment to look at certain aspects of marriage that are presently uncontested. First, marriage is something more than a contract. Second, entering into marriage is an important exercise of an individual's freedom of choice. Indeed, Supreme Court justices have stated that the charter requires that individual choices not be restricted unnecessarily, and that the idea of human dignity finds expression in almost every right and freedom guaranteed in the charter.

In our view, Justice Bastarache's decision in M. v. H. provides a key to resolving what may initially appear to some to be a dilemma in recognizing same-sex partners and their families and opposite-sex partners and their families equally. While same-sex partners and opposite-sex partners do have some distinct concerns, both are equally worthy of the state recognition afforded through marriage.

I believe my words resonate with the heart of Yukon because they come from a place of allowing, a place of permission to partake equally in the abundant gifts of community. We believe that this place, the world of “live and let live”, is what those of us at the end of the road call home. In our view, the answer is simple: give up; or rather, surrender this impoverished view of marriage as something too precious to share. We say, in short, set marriage free and allow it to be both symbol and vessel of change.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Now we go to Mr. Toews for five to seven minutes.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you.

Mr. Moore, it's been stated here today that religious and other private organizations have the right to perform same-sex marriage and that the role between church and state in that sense is separate. That raises some very interesting questions for me, and perhaps for the committee as well.

I'm wondering whether, as a commission, you have considered some of the statements you've made here today in the broader societal context. If the definition of “marriage” were to be changed to include homosexual couples, should religious and other private organizations be entitled to apply what you clearly described as discriminatory conduct and still receive government support in respect of charitable tax status or funding to educational institutions?

We've seen a recent attack here in British Columbia on Trinity Western by the B.C. teachers college because of its particular ethnic statements. So we see that the connection between church and state is a very complex, muddied one and not easily torn apart.

I'm just wondering what the commission's position would be in respect of those institutions, which are entitled to limit their definition of “marriage” and their ethnic statements. Would they then be running afoul and losing government support as educational institutions or losing charitable tax status if in fact what they are doing is discriminatory?

À (1000)

Mr. Brad Moore: Thank you, Mr. Toews. I have a couple of comments.

We have indeed considered our position very carefully and considered the place of religious organizations and institutions as well as the place of each individual and his or her right to take up this institution of marriage that we say is an important social institution and building block of society.

When I heard your comments--and I can see there's an important financial aspect to them--you asked whether the relationship between church and state would be muddied, is that correct?

Mr. Vic Toews: No, I said it is.

Mr. Brad Moore: I thought you asked if the relationship between church and state would be “moneyed” somehow by this. And your remarks landed on me and--

Mr. Vic Toews: And it is, too.

Mr. Brad Moore: It is, too. It is a question of money.

And for us, this is a question of equality. The heart of church experience for me is that it's a place of charity, a place that doesn't ask whether there will be enough money for all of us tomorrow, but rather what we can we do as a community.

Mr. Vic Toews: Okay, I understand that. But has your commission examined the issue of what happens when organizations continue with what you would describe as a discriminatory practice, yet still receive government funding or indeed government support?

For example, in the Trinity Western context, we have the situation where the B.C. teachers college said that because of the particular statement of ethics of that college, the graduates should not be licensed to teach in British Columbia. Now, that's a significant issue for many people.

Has your commission examined that broader issue? I think it would be of importance. If you have examined that issue, if you've presented a paper or study on it, it would be interesting for me to examine it to see if I can somehow un-muddy that situation for myself.

It may be clear to my colleagues, but it's not clear to me how we deal with that issue.

Mr. Brad Moore: Thank you, Mr. Toews.

Yes, we have examined the issue, and in our view, while human rights legislation prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation with respect to access to services customarily available to the public--that's the language of our legislation, and it largely mirrors the language across the country--it is doubtful whether marriage in any particular religious congregation would ever be held to be a service customarily available to the public such that they would be discriminating against somebody based on a prohibited ground and on prohibiting the provision of a service customarily available to the public.

There are those two features to any successful claim of discrimination. There is a case you might examine--the Gould case. It's the only case that went from the Yukon Human Rights Commission up to the Supreme Court of Canada, and it examined the very question you're addressing

Mr. Vic Toews: The issue of whether or not the state should then withdraw any support or recognition of degrees or charitable status for these private institutions--would that, then, continue with discriminatory practice?

Mr. Brad Moore: In that case, it's the question of whether a private organization in its provision of service to the public is discriminating against part of the community by not making available the service to that section of the public.

Now, I'm not sure about the tax consequences related to the decision. I'm aware--

Mr. Vic Toews: Those are the issues I'm concerned about--the indirect endorsement by the government of discriminatory practices by continuing to recognize as fully equal in our broader secular society the degrees granted by an institution like Trinity Western, and the charitable tax status of those institutions. Those practical issues may seem mundane, but they are very important to many people.

Mr. Brad Moore: Thank you, Mr. Toews. I understand that the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and other think tanks in this area have faced those very questions about whether or not their work somehow disentitles them to tax benefits.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Moore.

Mr. Marceau is next, for five to seven minutes.

À (1005)

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: To follow up on what Mr. Toews was saying, has there ever been, to your knowledge, a decision or a case whereby the Catholic Church could have lost its status and fiscal privileges for having refused to ordain women priests or to marry divorcees?

Mr. Brad Moore: You are asking if the Catholic Church still has the right to...

Mr. Richard Marceau: No, what I am asking is if there have been cases or people where there has been an attempt made to make the Catholic Church lose its status, its fiscal privileges, or anything else for having refused to marry divorcees, which is discriminatory, or for having refused to ordain women as priests. I am aware of none. Do you know of any such cases?

[English]

Mr. Brad Moore: If I may say in English what I understand your question to be, it concerns the position of the Catholic Church that women may not become priests, and whether there are some parallels perhaps.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Is there any case law that would tell the Catholic Church they will lose their tax deductible status if they don't marry divorced people, or if they do not allow women to be priests? No?

Mr. Brad Moore: I don't believe so. Religious freedom is another important freedom protected by the charter. In our respectful submission, sexual orientation does not take religious freedom away from anyone else.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: To come back to what Mr. Toews was saying, if the Catholic Church, for example--it is the one I am the most familiar with--has not lost its privileges, why is it that it might lose them in deciding to refuse to marry same-sex partners because that would go against its dogma? That is the parallel.

In the past, and the past is what determines the future, there has been no such case, because religious freedom is among other freedoms protected by paragraph 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Therefore, the same parallel would apply to same-sex marriage, would it not?

[English]

Mr. Brad Moore: Research on this suggests that legally extending civil marriage to same-sex partners will not require religious congregations, contrary to their beliefs, to marry same-sex partners. If Parliament somehow decides that the decision to not marry same-sex people within their church will disentitle that institution to tax status, that's another question. I could not see it happening.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: But there is a fear.

Mr. Brad Moore: Yes, of course.

Mr. Richard Marceau: The Quebec Civil Code contains a clause, clause 367, which states very clearly that a minister cannot be forced to perform a ceremony that goes against the dogma of his religion.

You are in favour of marriage and of the recognition of same-sex partners. Would you be comfortable if this committee decided firstly to recognize same-sex marriage and, secondly, to add a similar clause, in order to appease the fears some people have expressed before the committee, setting out very clearly that no church could be forced to marry same-sex partners if that would be against its dogma?

[English]

Mr. Brad Moore: My understanding is that after the decision of M. v. H. the Supreme Court of Canada, by an eight-justice majority, ruled that the definition of “spouse” applicable to partner support in Ontario's Family Law Act was unconstitutional because it included unmarried opposite-sex partners but not same-sex partners.

After the decision on M. v. H, Parliament responded by passing the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act. It included a provision that stated:

For greater certainty, the amendments made by this Act do not affect the meaning of the word “marriage”, that is, the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Parliament did not take what the resolution, passed on June 8, 1999, described as all necessary steps within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to preserve this definition of marriage. And the resolution was not binding. However, if Parliament in its vision, in its best understanding, decided to clarify things by adding a comment that certainly no religion would be forced against its will to marry same-sex partners, it's certainly within the discretion of Parliament, if that's the position. That understanding is consistent with my understanding of the law on this issue.

The law is always emerging. I hope we'll look across the horizon of our better understanding, rather than with fear behind us at how we're going to somehow compromise the world we live in if we fail to take all and sundry concerns and tax implications into respect. That would not be inconsistent with our understanding of the law.

À (1010)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Macklin is next, for five to seven minutes.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you, witnesses, for appearing today.

In at least two of the three testimonies given this morning the words “valued institution”, “fundamental institution”, and words general to that effect have referred to the institution of marriage as it's currently known. In that regard, the institution at the present time is known as a union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.

The question we have to deal with, I suppose, is a very complex one, but in a sense we are trying to deal as much as possible with the rights-based issues that have been brought before us.

My question is, if we can develop all of the rights through this committee and through Parliament ultimately to the level that the rights are equal, but for the moment the name is different, is this then a rights-based issue, or an issue of trying to achieve a standard that has to date represented and reflected a union of a man and a woman?

In other words, if we can move in a rights-based direction and ultimately arrive at a decision that says we can give you, as a group within our society, the same rights and use the term “marriage” as now reflecting a heterosexual union, wouldn't it be somewhat of a pyrrhic victory to achieve that goal in name and yet change the institution, when in fact as an advocacy group you are really trying to achieve equal rights, not necessarily equality in name?

I'd like to hear your response to that, in terms of what are you truly seeking.

The Chair: Dr. Meen.

Dr. Donald Meen: As I said before, the core features of your marriage, assuming you are married, are the same core features of our committed relationship. Marriage is a social construction, and as a social construction it has considerable value. If we were out of the context of Canadian society and hadn't socially constructed this institution called marriage, we might have another name that would be applicable to everybody, accessible as a state to everybody, and it might serve the purpose.

But the truth is we operate in a socio-cultural context. We all share the same history and know that marriage as a social institution and a social construction has value other than any other institution we can name. It has a separate value. So in the end, there is no way of finding another term that satisfies other-sex couples versus same-sex couples and excludes same-sex couples from marriage as a named institution that would not be other than second-rate or not equivalent, given the social context and the meaning we as a society give to marriage.

À (1015)

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: But you also have to take into consideration the fact that within the heterosexual community this has built up a lot of good will over the years. If a parallel institution were going to establish itself, it would have to build up good will over a period of time as well.

I'm not sure there's necessarily an equal relationship between those two, in the sense of getting rights to be the same. If it's only the name, is that a key part you cannot avoid? Is the use of the name that the good will of the heterosexual community has built up the key? To me there's a sense of destruction here, potentially.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Macklin.

Dr. Donald Meen: It's a significant feature. This is a social institution with tremendous value, and there is no equivalent to it. I say it doesn't destroy marriage in any way; rather, it enhances marriage.

Here you have a group of citizens who desire marriage, who are not able to be married, whereas you have another group of citizens, by far the larger, who are entitled to marry, many of whom elect not to or elect not to stay married. Clearly, those of us who desire marriage will in fact enhance the institution of marriage, because it's not something we are going to fall into and out of easily, because we will have fought for access to that social institution.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

To Mr. Toews, for three minutes.

Mr. Vic Toews: Just dealing with some of the cases that were brought up, in the M. v. H. case, the Supreme Court clearly said the definition of marriage was not affected by its comments in respect of other relationships, whether it's common-law, opposite-sex, or indeed same-sex--very similar to Justice La Forest's majority decision in Egan, where he said the distinction between marriage and all other relationships, including same-sex couples, was justified.

In that Egan decision, Mr. Justice Sopinka, as I recall his decision, stated something very interesting. This was a separate decision that supported the majority result. He stated that it is not incumbent upon Parliament to move all at once to identical treatment of all groups in society in that particular context. I think he was referring to--and I'm summarizing--the divisive nature of this, the uncertain impact of these kinds of changes. So he is indicating that we should exercise a measure of caution because of the fundamental nature of the institution we are dealing with here.

I'm wondering, is my understanding of that correct, Mr. Moore, or others who have maybe examined those decisions?

Mr. Brad Moore: I'm happy to speak to it, but I'm aware that I've been speaking more than some at the table. So if someone else would like to—

Mr. Brad Moore: My understanding is that in the majority and the concurring opinion of Sopinka in Egan, the only surviving voice of that La Forest majority was Gonthier, who commented, who wrote a dissent in M. v. H., and who observed that while the Supreme Court of Canada said in their majority view, eight voices said several times--three times, I believe--that this in no way comments directly on marriage. So it concerns the consequences of marriage rather than the status of marriage. The Supreme Court of Canada said that in M. v. H. at least three times. Gonthier, in dissent, the sole person to bring forward the view from Egan, said that's disingenuous; this has everything to do with marriage.

So, for clarity, it's hard enough when the Supreme Court of Canada justices can't agree, but when they do and eight of them say something, I say let's give them the benefit of the doubt, understand that they weren't saying anything directly about marriage, but that clearly we are on the cusp of that next decision. There are currently claims that directly deal with marriage, and the only way to deal with them is to not say this is divisive in nature, but rather, it's an opportunity. It's an opportunity to extend ourselves rather than to withdraw in fear about what might happen, to look toward other communities.

The Netherlands have done this. They are the only community that actually has acknowledged marriage for same-sex unions. It has come before various states in the United States. They have actually taken it before the highest courts in those communities in Vermont, Hawaii, and Alaska, and then withdrawn and granted some sort of parallel civil union status.

Well, it's not just a name. It's not just semantics. Marriage is marriage.

That actually clearly came before the Supreme Court of Canada recently in a case where a heterosexual couple petitioned the court for division of property, They were common law, this heterosexual couple. They had not been married. The Supreme Court of Canada said it is the case that in common-law unions one individual is entitled to continuing support of the other, depending on their circumstances, but marriage is significant insofar as it registered that couple's intentions to share all things. So in that case, they didn't divide property.

I say marriage is significant, it is distinct from common-law status, and that came before the court in the case of a heterosexual couple. For Parliament or for anyone else to suggest that we can construct some separate but equal vision for same-sex unions, I say, to echo Gonthier--although I won't echo him in any other respect--it's disingenuous and it's a waste of time, and you are going to have a coterie of lawyers like myself trying to figure out what this new institution looks like, spending millions of dollars trying to construct a bureaucracy to administer it and give it up, surrender it.

If marriage truly is such a precious institution, such a defining feature of our composition, of our community, then share it. That is also a defining feature of the best spiritual practice I'm aware of.

À (1020)

The Chair: Mr. Moore, I don't mean to interrupt, and I really don't like to interrupt a panelist--and for sure I'm a little tougher with the committee--but we do have to get through.

Ms. Fry, for three minutes.

Ms. Hedy Fry: I just want to speak to the issue of tradition and the fact that because traditionally marriage has been between a man and a woman and that marriage has all these ramifications we have come to expect of it over hundreds of years--because obviously this religious component of marriage only came about in the Middle Ages--I think we're talking about something that was a cultural institution well before it became a religious one.

I know the Catholic Church presented to us a very good brief, actually--an excellent brief--in which they talked about the four dimensions of marriage: the anthropological, the personal, the social, and the religious.

In the anthropological dimension, they talked about the fact that there is a desire, a social condition of the human being, to want to be in a relationship, that in fact that communion is the sign of a profoundly human need. That's the anthropological reason.

The second one is the personal reason, in which they said people who have committed themselves in a conjugal relationship want to proclaim to the world and to the society that they do commit themselves to each other. That's the personal one.

The third one, of course, is the social dimension, which has to do with the stabilizing of a unit within society, the giving of legal protection of the law.

And the fourth is the sacrament.

I think we have all heard and we all agree that in fact what churches do and how they do it is protected under the charter. For instance, we legally recognize divorce. The Catholic Church does not recognize divorce. We have never done anything to blame or to punish the Catholic Church for that.

So my argument to you is this. We've always had historical and traditional institutions that we have continued to hold dear. I can recall that for millennia, I think we all know, women were considered to be less than human. They were chattels. They were not allowed to vote. They were not allowed to be members of institutions. We've changed that.

In keeping with the society you've talked about that we're fostering in Canada, which is an inclusive society, can you tell me any rationalization you have that would prohibit and that would exclude same-sex couples from marriage? By rational, I mean under the law, something that would harm society in any way and that would detract from the anthropological, personal, and social reasons for marriage.

À (1025)

The Chair: Your question is to whom?

Ms. Hedy Fry: To perhaps Brad Moore.

Mr. Brad Moore: I don't feel that I am doing enough sharing here. Can I pass this on to one of my friends, Mr. Wong?

Ms. Hedy Fry: Sure.

Mr. Victor Wong: I think that what we have before us is another issue of social exclusion. Just to answer your question, I think you have to approach this issue through a diversity lens.

Quite frankly, the ideas around some kind of parallel system just don't work. Marriage is marriage. There is no rational reason for denying access to that institution to same-sex couples who choose to marry—who choose to want to marry to proclaim to the world their relationship and to argue that society would benefit from it. It's an issue of full participation, dignity, and recognition. A parallel system would not provide for that.

I would just ask you whether you would have a registry for mixed-race couples. I think we would find that quite offensive. That's why I find the status quo offensive. The charter does provide some fundamental protection to religious groups, so they are protected. Right? But there is a group that's excluded right now, and I would ask you to recommend that they be included.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Simpson, and then I'm going to Mr. Marceau for the last question.

Mr. Kevin Simpson: I would just like to make a comment about that. The only potential negative results of this change that I can foresee would be that somehow heterosexual couples feel that their relationship is lessened by in fact extending the right to gay and lesbian people. I think that would be a very sad consequence, to tell you the truth, because it would be a reflection of the homophobia we have had to deal with for years on issues of rights and equal access to various services for gay and lesbian people.

In commenting on Mr. Toews' question about the necessity of not moving all at once to avoid shocking or somehow disrupting society by what is going on, I think we have moved incrementally already. Don and I are now required to file joint tax returns as a common-law couple. We have lived together openly as a couple for many years. We have made those incremental moves. We have said to the society at large that these people are entitled to certain of the benefits and obligations and responsibilities that go with living together as a couple, and we are saying that the next progression of that is logically marriage.

The Chair: Can you very briefly give a question to Mr. McKay too, if you don't mind?

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: First of all, I apologize for having missed some of the answers to certain questions. Unfortunately, life goes on in Ottawa and we sometimes have to deal with things going on over there as well.

My question is once again for Mr. Moore, and I apologize to the other witnesses. If I had a lot of time, I would ask other questions.

Mr. Moore, you are a lawyer. In your view, would a national registry, some sort of a federal civil union, be constitutional given that according to the distribution of power as determined by sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution, civil rights and property rights come under provincial jurisdiction except, specifically, marriage and divorce?

If the federal government or Parliament were to create a national registry for couples, would that fall within the limits of its jurisdiction?

À (1030)

[English]

Mr. Brad Moore: As a lawyer, it is indeed. Although this is a complicated area of constitutional law, both the provinces and territories as well as the federal government have particular jurisdiction in respect of marriage. But in my respectful view, it is clearly within the exclusive authority of Parliament to determine the nature or composition of marriage, or what it looks like. It's one thing for the provinces—

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I agree, but I am not talking about marriage. I am talking about a national registry, with Parliament deciding not to grant homosexuals the right to marry, but rather creating something new that would be called a national registry. It would not be marriage, it would be a national registry. In your view, would that still come under federal jurisdiction?

[English]

Mr. Brad Moore: My apologies. I haven't examined that particular question. I examined the four options in the discussion paper, looked at civil union status, researched the realities of that status elsewhere, imagined what the pitfalls would be here, but didn't examine whether it would be in the authority of Parliament to make that error or in the authority of the provinces. They can fight over that view, perhaps. But if it is within the authority of Parliament, I would actually have to say that it would be enough of a question that it would also be litigated, and litigated, and litigated. So if Parliament wishes to preserve what I see as exclusive interests or exclusive self-determination on this question, then go for the marriage. Otherwise, you are getting into another quagmire.

The Chair: Mr. McKay, very quickly. You are over your time.

Mr. John McKay: Thank you, Chair.

The basic argument of all three presenters is that the equality rights trumps everything. I respectfully submit that the last time your predecessors, if you will, 30 years ago argued this was in the area of divorce law, and you said, why not just open up divorce law?

The consequences of that have been huge. And those were largely rights-based arguments, that we should simply open up divorce law and therefore everything will be all right with the world. But the results of divorce law largely have been unanticipated, and none of you have spoken to this very significant change to the definition of marriage and what changes will be anticipated.

We didn't anticipate that divorces would take off like a rocket. We didn't anticipate that there would be a lot more single-family parents. We didn't anticipate that there would be the feminization of poverty. We didn't anticipate the demographics that people just simply stopped having children. We didn't anticipate all kinds of things.

And yet if you base your argument simply on this is a right, which is arguable in and of itself, and that this will be an inconsequential change and that somehow or other people who won't agree to this change are fearful, I respectfully submit to all of you that we have a recent history where these changes we've made to the divorce law have not worked out to the benefit of Canada.

The Chair: Dr. Meen.

Dr. Donald Meen: I regret that you didn't listen more carefully to me because I didn't use a rights-based argument at all. What I said was--

Mr. John McKay: That's a fair comment.

Dr. Donald Meen: What I said was that marriage is good for gay and lesbian couples for those reasons I articulated, and in turn it is good for our Canadian society.

The support of gay and lesbian couples in their marriages will lead to nothing but, in my estimation, at least, on balance, a benefit to society, to the community at large and to society, because if those couples are more stable, are being supported in their mutual care for one another, are being supported in their care for their children, and are being fruitful in terms of their participation in the community at large, all of these things are good for Canada.

À (1035)

Mr. John McKay: I respectfully submit that's a huge leap in logic.

Dr. Donald Meen: It's entirely logical for me. You tell me in what way supporting gay and lesbian couples in any way impairs the life of heterosexual couples, in what way the marriage of, let's say, Kevin and I, would limit your love of your spouse, your commitment to your wife, assuming that you are married, in any way. Where is the logic in that? How does our marriage in any way interfere with your marriage, or destroy your marriage, or discourage others from marrying who are heterosexuals? There is the illogic as far as I am concerned, Mr. McKay.

The Chair: Is there anyone who can promise me 30 seconds?

Mr. Brad Moore: I can promise you 30 seconds.

The Chair: Go, Mr. Moore.

Mr. Brad Moore: I think the parallel is interesting, but I would like to talk about living relationships rather than dying ones. The whole issue concerning divorce law is significant. We are talking about the creation and the destruction of these relationships.

But although I had equality-based analysis because that is my role here as legal counsel for the commission, our position is also consistent with my understanding of the best spiritual practice in the world, and my best understanding comes from aboriginal people here who have told me that relationship is something precious in and of itself, and that two-spirited people, gay people in communities on this continent, were celebrated as a bridge between the sexes, and their unions with one another, their reality of being gay, was celebrated.

I would say only this: relationship is the teacher, and we need not look any further than the people who wanted to change divorce law, because the institution has been emptied of a lot of its value. Let the relationship grow. Let the reality of intimate relationships teach us how to relate to one another more generally in society in a healthy way.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

And I recognize that the Yukon is in the same time zone.

Go, Mr. Wong, very quickly, please.

Mr. Victor Wong: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, I would reiterate that it's an issue of social exclusion. Being more inclusive is only going to add to the value of society. You mentioned the Divorce Act. There are other factors such as the changing demographics that affect the situation as opposed to just changing the legislation.

So the issue we have brought before you is to ask you to include a group that has been excluded for such a long time. We ask that you consider doing that.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I want to thank the panel and I want to thank the members of the committee. We're not doing badly.

I'm going to suspend for three minutes so the next panel can come to the table, please.

À (1037)

À (1042)

The Chair: I call the 29th meeting of the justice and human rights committee back to order.

I appreciate the vote of confidence from Mr. Toews.

For the next hour we will be hearing from the Focus on the Family Canada Association, the Office of Life and Family, and as an individual, Katherine Maas.

Excuse my stammer; I was so taken aback by Mr. Toews' vote of confidence, I couldn't speak.

Each of the panellists, whether as a group or as an individual, gets seven minutes. I will hold you to that because, as you've probably noticed, we're having difficulty with time. Then you will have an opportunity to dialogue with the committee.

I'm going first to the Focus on the Family Canada Association, with Darrel Reid, president, and Derek Rogusky, director of research, for seven minutes, please.

Dr. Darrel Reid (President, Focus on the Family Canada Association): Thank you very much for the opportunity for Mr. Rogusky and me to present our comments regarding the definition of marriage in Canada.

As a committee, you've been given a very important task. The very definition and function of a fundamental and foundational institution is at stake. We trust that our comments will be helpful as you develop your recommendations.

Focus on the Family is a charitable organization built on Christian principles and dedicated to helping parents and children, strengthening marriages, and promoting the value of family. Thousands of Canadians each week turn to us for advice, encouragement, and guidance on all sorts of family- and marriage-related issues. We've been incorporated for 18 years, and we now have a staff of 70 here in Langley and across the country.

The position of Focus on the Family Canada on marriage is well known. We agree with and have advocated throughout our corporate existence the words of the parliamentary motion of June 8, 1999, “that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”, and we encourage Parliament to “take all necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada.”

I'd like to make three fundamental points we hope may add to this discussion. The first one is that we believe marriage is fundamentally a public policy issue and not a human rights issue. The fundamental question of the discussion paper is, does marriage have a continuing role in our modern society, and if so, should this be reflected in our laws? Focus on the Family Canada has stated many times that we believe this is a public policy issue that belongs to all Canadians. It is one of the key contentions of our presentation that discussion and debate on the role and nature of marriage belong primarily to the realm of public policy, not basic human rights. That's why we are so pleased to be here to discuss marriage with you.

We note that in countries around the world and with human rights-based organizations such as the United Nations, even those countries that have legalized the marriage of same-sex couples--that is, the Netherlands and Belgium--do not treat such arrangements exactly the same as they do heterosexual marriage. The decision to legalize same-sex marriage in these countries was not the result of people being denied basic human rights because that simply was not the case. Instead, the decision was a public policy one made by elected representatives, not the courts. To our mind, it is no coincidence that all of these couples addressing the fundamental question of the nature of marriage have chosen to do so primarily through elected representatives because that issue touches each one of us so deeply.

The second point I would make, and I will rush through that because I know it has been made here again and again, is that stable heterosexual marriage is a positive good and its importance needs to be re-emphasized. Other relationship types have been presented as being its equivalents; I think of common-law marriage and now increasingly same-sex unions. But when it is viewed through the lens of what contributes most greatly to the mental, social, educational, and health well-being of Canadians, when we ask what provides the most benefits for our children, there is no argument. Committed, stable, monogamous, heterosexual marriage is an institution above all the others.

It yields tremendous benefits to adults, and I'm not going to go through a long list, other than to say that statistically speaking, married heterosexual couples experience better physical health, longer life expectancy, greater happiness, and so more financial security. This is not Focus on the Family's opinion; this is social science data very clearly stated even through organizations such as Stats Canada.

It extends tremendous benefits to children, even more so perhaps. Research has demonstrated very clearly that children living with their legally married biological mother and father are more likely to experience fewer newborn health complications, better cognitive and verbal development, higher education achievement, and so on.

The benefits of stable, healthy marriages are that society is more likely to experience less crime, less dependency on the health and welfare systems, and greater productivity. As a result, governments around the world, in particular Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, are taking deliberate steps to support and strengthen heterosexual marriages. These initiatives are not being undertaken for religious or moral reasons but because these governments understand the economic and social benefits a marriage culture provides.

Third, I would like to say that the law is a powerful tool. When it comes to using the law to change social institutions, my advice and the advice of Focus on the Family Canada would be, tread lightly. To do no harm is a good rule of thumb when it comes to using the law to address fundamental social institutions.

We have seen, and they've been discussed here in the committee, the results of major social experiments in the last 30 years. The first one is the no-fault divorce experience. In 1968 the House of Commons passed changes to Canada's divorce laws that ushered in a new era of no-fault divorce. The net results for Canadians, I would submit, from a public policy standpoint as well as from a personal standpoint of husbands, wives and children--particularly children, I might add--has not been sanguinary. I can only agree with Professors Doug Allen and John Richards, editors of the book It Takes Two: The Family in Law and Finance, who conclusively demonstrate the harm a divorce culture has visited upon Canadian men, women, and children. I have spoken to many, many divorced people who have experienced that pain in their lives, and I can say that while I have met many who have experienced divorce, I have yet to meet one who wishes that for their children.

The common-law experiment as well has been, in our view, not the best for Canadian husbands, men, women or children. When viewed from the perspective of what most benefits Canadian men, women, and children, the overall trend towards common-law relationships and away from marriage is a negative one for Canadians.

No other relationship offers the same benefits as opposite-sex, monogamous marriage does. Not only does cohabitation fail to offer the same benefits, it also lowers the likelihood of a healthy and stable subsequent marriage.

Common-law marriage relationships are clearly not the equivalent of marriage. We can give some examples that our friends at Stats Canada and other social service organizations list. For example, we have found that men and women in common-law relationships are four times more likely to report spousal abuse than those in legally married relationships. When it comes to fatal domestic violence, the rate of spousal homicide for women in common-law marriages was more than eight times higher than married couples.

Here's our point regarding the special nature of heterosexual marriage and the law. Changes in the laws concerning marriage and marriage-like relationships have had an impact on our collective behaviour and attitudes towards marriage--

À (1050)

The Chair: Can you bring it to a close?

Dr. Darrel Reid: I will bring it to a close.

We make two recommendations. The first is that given the unique benefits that monogamous heterosexual marriage provides to husband and wife, children, and society as a whole, we recommend that the government and Parliament take steps within their jurisdiction to preserve the definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Secondly, in answer to the first question of your report, we believe that given how society benefits when its communities are characterized by strong, stable marriages, we recommend that the government and Parliament explore ways to promote and value monogamous, opposite-sex marriage--the value it has for society--and to encourage the formation of strong and stable marriages.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Reid for seven minutes.

Mr. Pavel Reid (Director, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver, Office of Life and Family): Thank you.

On behalf of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver, I thank you for the opportunity to address you this morning.

As I begin, I want to point out and to emphasize that in our presentation we are not taking any issue at this time with the various reasons for which people are calling for changes to Canada's marriage laws. Indeed we recognize that there may be the need for some legal provisions for relationships other than marriage, but not as marriage.

Rather, we are concerned that a failure to define marriage accurately in law will inevitably harm Canada's families and Canada's children. The legal definition of marriage is not merely a legal or semantic issue. As Mr. Justice Gonthier wrote, “Marriage and family life are not inventions of the legislature; but rather, the legislature is merely recognizing their social importance.” Marriage has been what it is since time immemorial, long before there was any law. We cannot just make up definitions of marriage or pass laws to redefine marriage without serious consequences.

As Mr. Justice Pitfield stated more recently:

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

We recognize marriage in our laws because it is the core social and legal arrangement by which society endures through procreation and family formation. Ironically, the courts in Ontario and Quebec discounted procreation and family formation when they made their rulings that brought us all here today. Yet without the procreative aspect of the marriage relationship, there is not only no reason to recognize it in law, there is also no way to define any relationship as a marriage.

To show that this is the case, let us first examine the consequences of claiming that the relationship between two adults need not have a procreative possibility to be recognized as marriage. This is essentially what you have to argue would you advocate for same-sex marriage--option number 2 in the justice minister's discussion paper--for in the union of two men or two women, it is impossible to procreate a child.

If marriage were no longer the union of man and woman, then we could not seriously require any sexual activity within a so-called marriage relationship. If the sexual activity between two persons has no consequence and remains a private act between them, how and why would it become a matter for legal regulation?

Looked at another way, what about the two elderly spinsters who have loved and supported each other and shared a home for decades? Could we deny them marital status? Is their love any less significant than the love of two persons who have sex? And just what would those two women have to do to claim benefits, and how would they or anyone else prove in open court what the nature of their relationship is?

To be blunt, if there is no opposite-sex requirement to marriage, there is no sexual requirement. Bill Clinton was right when he said that he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. They did nothing that could have procreated a child. They did not actually have sex.

If the sexual union between a man and a woman is no longer required as at least a possibility within a relationship, then any two persons should be able to call their relationship a marriage. Perhaps these lines of reasoning are what led the justice minister to include a third option in his discussion paper--the option of registered partnerships. Under this option, marriage would essentially be privatized, and you could register with the state a relationship of whatever kind with any one other person. While this may seem a simple and equitable solution to the legal problems created by the Ontario and Quebec court rulings, registered partnerships will create greater problems than they will solve.

First of all, there will be no way legally to recognize the unique role of marriage or the unique status of married persons. In marrying and establishing families, married persons contribute to the benefit of society. This is simply because they have created families, and children raised in families are better advantaged and grow up to be relatively more productive citizens.

Given their greater contribution to the benefit of society, society owes married people greater benefits simply as a matter of justice. This is especially important to married women who make relatively greater sacrifices, both personal and in their careers, when they marry and create families. Without the legal status of marriage, no one could legally grant married persons anything that they do not grant to others.

Second, granting status and benefits to married persons is necessary for the good of children and families. The very reason for a marriage law, the very reason why marriage is unique, is, as I've stated earlier, the procreative role of marriage, but not only that. When a married couple procreates, they have already created by their marriage vows a stable, healthy family home for their child, and children are better off raised in stable, healthy families.

À (1055)

Of course, many children are not raised in stable, healthy homes, sometimes even when their parents do marry. Fortunately, human beings are resilient and most who face difficulties in their childhood overcome them. But no one should promote the difficulties that children will face, least of all Parliament. In fact, Parliament has a serious obligation to improve the lives of Canadians through its laws and policies. The Supreme Court of Canada said as much in the Nesbit/Egan case when they wrote that marriage “is the social unit that uniquely has the capacity to procreate children and generally cares for their upbringing, and as such warrants support by Parliament to meet its needs.”

The first need of the family is the legal recognition of true marriage, and only true marriage, as marriage under the law.

Some will object that the law recognizes childless marriages as true marriages, and so it should. Logically, if the reason we recognize marriage in law is the role it plays as the foundation of a family, then procreation should follow marriage and not precede it. What follows cannot be a necessary condition for what precedes. Making the baby does not make you married, nor can the failure to do so unmarry you.

Others will argue that if marriage is so important to children, then same-sex couples who co-parent should surely be encouraged to marry.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Chuck Cadman): You have 30 seconds.

Mr. Pavel Reid: As a matter of justice and human rights, the law must not be blind to the needs of those who are not married but who have taken on serious obligations to parents, children or friends. Same-sex couples would surely fall into this category.

Whatever the nature of the relationship, however, whether it be same-sex, a family relationship, a relationship based on some other kind of dependence, it is not unreasonable to ask for some kind of state regulation, recognition or legal protection. It would be unreasonable, however, to ask to call a relationship that is not marriage a marriage.

In making provision for relationships of dependence other than marriage, it is important not to undermine marriage. We cannot build up the rights and dignity of some Canadians by undermining the rights and dignity of others. And we surely cannot claim to be acting in the best interests of the most vulnerable among us, our children, if we decide to conduct a massive social experiment with the structure of Canadian marriages and families simply because we do not have the creativity to make laws that fit the nature of the relationships they serve.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Chuck Cadman): I'll have to ask you to wrap it up now. Thank you.

Ms. Maas.

Ms. Katherine Maas (As Individual): Good morning. I'm very appreciative of the opportunity to be here today to speak with the committee.

My name is Katherine Maas. I'm supposed to be here today with my partner, Roberta Clair. Unfortunately, our cat is having emergency surgery as I speak, and she is the one who's on call.

I'm here today because while I have been living in a committed relationship with Roberta since 1995, I have not always been in a same-sex relationship, and I believe I can offer a perspective on the issue of same-sex marriage that might be illuminating to you.

Until I met Roberta I considered myself to be a heterosexual. From the time I was aware of sexual attractions I was drawn to members of the opposite sex. I dated men in high school and college. I was married in my twenties to a man with whom I had two children, and that marriage lasted for more than 10 years. I later spent another 10 years in a committed heterosexual relationship with another man, who helped me parent my children and with whom I remain in a close, friendly relationship.

I always considered myself heterosexual, although I had no problem with others whose orientation was different from mine. I'm a collector of buttons, and at one time I took a lot of pride in a button I found, which said “Straight, but not narrow”.

When I found myself becoming emotionally involved with another woman, I experienced a brief period of surprise that this would be occurring in my life before settling into a relationship that in every significant way has been similar to the other relationships of my life. I love Roberta as dearly as I have ever loved any man I lived with before. I care just as much for her welfare. I made a conscious commitment to be with her, which emotionally is as deep for me as any commitment I have ever made. It will probably be more durable since I believe I have learned much more as I matured about how to be successfully in a relationship than I knew when I was in my twenties and thirties. Our finances are intertwined, just as I experienced in my heterosexual relationships. Emotionally, I feel just as completely embedded in Roberta as I ever felt with any man I bonded with. I am consciously committed to her welfare; to nurturing our relationship, which sustains me; to caring for her in sickness and health; to working on our relationship in the hard times as well as the good times; to taking her into consideration in all major decisions; and to actively partnering with her to create the kind of life that allows us to live, love, laugh, learn, and leave a legacy for our families. In short, I experience this relationship in its essence as no different from any committed heterosexual relationship I have experienced.

I consider myself married to Roberta in every way, except that the state fails to recognize our union. This makes no sense to me. If we are willing to make the commitment to each other, then it seems only just that society should recognize, value, and honour our intention. It strikes me as particularly ironic that if one of us were to go out and have a sex change, which neither of us has the slightest interest in doing, we could be legally married.

We have had to take legal steps to get the kinds of rights and recognition that heterosexual couples take for granted, the right to make decisions for each other in the case of illness, for example. Even then we do not have all the rights married couples enjoy. Despite the fact that we provide for each other financially, just as a heterosexual couple, we have had to fight to gain recognition for the right to claim each other as dependants for tax purposes.

We don't ask for special privileges. We ask for the same privileges that are enjoyed by heterosexual Canadians. We want the responsibility of marriage. We want the opportunity to express our commitment to each other publicly as a legal obligation. It takes a lot of courage to make that kind of commitment, and we take it very seriously.

Á (1100)

Our marriage would threaten no institution, no church, no individual. It would simply grant public sanction to a bond that already exists psychologically, spiritually, and emotionally. There are no children of a lesser God; there should not be unions of a lesser God. Those who want to make the commitment of marriage should be permitted to do so regardless of sexual orientation. Thank you.

If I may be permitted to read what Roberta was going to say today, I'll speak with her voice:

My name is Roberta Clair. As Katherine stated, I discovered in my early 20s, over 30 years ago, that I was drawn to women much more than to men. When I first fell in love with a woman who loved me back, it felt like coming home. A huge piece of the puzzle of my life had fallen into place.

I realized in the few years following that there were women who regularly chose to love a woman, and I made friends with some of them. I was much more at ease with women, though I have men friends also. I had some love affairs, but they didn't last, so I thought that maybe I wasn't to have a long-term, committed relationship. Then I met Katherine, and knew that I wanted to share the rest of my life with her.

We had a commitment ceremony in 1996, and continue to be deeply loving of each other. That is the only thing that matters for a marriage to be valid—that the beloveds truly love each other and take responsibility to nurture their relationship. That's what family values are about.

In families where there are children--gay or straight--what matters is that the children be loved and cared for, and have positive adult role models for parents and their friends. I encourage you to let lesbians and gay men get married if they choose to.

Thank you very much.

Á (1105)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Five to seven minutes, Mr. Toews.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you very much.

Mr. Pavel Reid raised some issues for me. If marriage and the definition of marriage is simply a rights-based issue or an equality issue, my concern is what do we do then about the broader issue of polygamous marriages? There is, of course, a very prominent world religion that recognizes polygamous marriages. In a multicultural society, if this is simply a rights-based issue or an equality issue, why would we stop the so-called discrimination by not only including same-sex couples but also polygamous marriages, which have a moral basis in other societies?

Indeed, I'm sure the Catholic Church has run into this issue in making converts in some countries where polygamous marriages are recognized. What has the Catholic Church done in that particular context?

Mr. Pavel Reid: The Catholic Church does not recognize polygamous marriages as valid marriages, largely due to theological reasons, but in addition to that, ethical reasons, because marriage is supposed to be an equal partnership. In the view of the Catholic Church, it is not as likely to be an equal partnership if the marriage is polygamist as opposed to a binary relationship.

But I do think your point is well made, and I did even consider speaking about it this morning. If we were to say in Canadian courts that to define marriage as the union of man and woman is discriminatory, then certainly we couldn't tell many of the people who live in Canada who come from cultural backgrounds in which polygamy is highly valued and part of their tradition that we are now going to discriminate against their deeply held, usually religious, convictions.

I don't see how that could possibly be the case.

Mr. Vic Toews: Instead of being 50-50 partners, we'd be 33 1/3% partners or 25% partners.

Mr. Pavel Reid: I don't think it would be possible to then put a value judgment on anyone else's relationship and tell them they're not entitled to the same legal recognition we're granting to others.

If we decide that marriage is no longer going to be the union of man and woman and is no longer going to be an equal partnership based on procreation and family formation--if that's no longer the definition--then, as the Ontario court said, there is no fact of the matter underlying the law. If it's just a legal construction, how can we hold that legal construction up to a charter test? I don't see how that would be logical.

Mr. Vic Toews: In those countries where they've made converts to Catholicism among polygamist people, and it happens, what does the Catholic Church tell these people? It is usually men who are married to three or four women, so what happens to these women?

Mr. Pavel Reid: Well, I'm not intimately familiar with the role of the church in those situations, mostly in Africa. But what I can tell you is that the church would basically say to the man in that case, if he was the one coming for advice, that he couldn't simply dismiss other persons, his other wives with whom he has a relationship of dependence, but that they might need to live as brother and sister from that point onwards.

Mr. Vic Toews: Not in a married relationship.

Mr. Pavel Reid: That is right, because we have a very clear teaching within the sacrament of marriage that it is a binary relationship between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others as long as both partners are still alive. That's a deeply embedded dogma in our faith that obviously we are not going to do away with.

At the same time, once you have established a relationship of dependence--and in those societies, those second and third wives can't simply move on to other relationships--that husband would maintain an ethical obligation to them as dependants. They can't simply be dismissed.

Mr. Vic Toews: So which one does he choose? It's probably unfair to ask you this.

Á (1110)

Mr. Pavel Reid: I would presume the way to answer that is his first wife.

The perspective of the Catholic Church is that every marriage is a valid marriage, regardless of whether it has been recognized by the church or not. Because marriage has always existed--before there was a church, before there was a Bible, before God spoke to any of his prophets. Marriage has existed since the beginning of the human race. It's the normal way by which the human race persists through time.

So marriage between any persons is a valid marriage, and the first marriage that man enters into is his valid marriage.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Monsieur Marceau, for five to seven minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you.

Mr. Pavel Reid, you are an official representative of the Catholic Church. I presume that you attach a tremendous amount of importance to religious freedom.

Mr. Pavel Reid: Yes.

Mr. Richard Marceau: You must certainly be aware...

[English]

The Chair: Just for the record, I think you'll have to identify Mr. Reid separately.

Also, the transcript can't pick up nodding. You'll have to answer orally.

Mr. Pavel Reid: I didn't want to interrupt. Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Reid, you must certainly be aware that other religious denominations such as the Metropolitan United Church in Toronto, the Unitarian Church, the United Church as well as certain branches of judaism, for example the reformers, are in favour of same-sex marriage.

Why then should it be the Catholic vision of marriage as being the union of a man and a woman that is imposed upon other religious denominations that do accept the idea of same-sex marriage recognition?

[English]

Mr. Pavel Reid: Actually, we are saying the religious definition should not be imposed--definitely. We have not asked that Canada repeal the Divorce Act, for example. The Catholic view is once married, always married. We have not asked for that.

So we are not asking that our particular theological views be imposed on anyone. Religious freedom, especially since the Second Vatican Council, has become an important dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church, and we're certainly not going to go against our own theology.

What we are saying is that there are reasons based in sound philosophy that are understandable by human reason alone--not only by faith--that we use to establish all our laws. All law is ethics based, philosophy based--all law that is imposed by governments, by states, and used for the regulation of the common good of people of many different religions.

So our arguments are based primarily on anthropological and philosophical reasoning with respect to this issue.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: If I understand your definition, Mr. Reid, your position is not based upon your theological view of the definition of marriage. Therefore, if it is not theological, since we are talking about civil marriage, in other words marriage recognized by the State, it can only be a form of marriage created by law. We are faced with the problem of the chicken and the egg, but we are not theologians and I am happy to have heard you state that it is not a matter of religion and that it is indeed a legal issue. If such is the case, then we must understand that Parliament has the power to change or to obtain changes to the legal definition of marriage, because what exists, in order to exist officially, in order to be recognized by the State, must come under the law. Therefore, it is up to the State to define marriage.

[English]

Mr. Pavel Reid: Yes. It is certainly within the competence of Parliament to come up with legal definitions. The problem is that sometimes the legal definitions don't match the reality.

In Canada, until 1922 women were not recognized as persons under the law. We certainly would say that Parliament erred in that situation and that the law did not match reality.

So while Parliament does have the freedom to make mistakes, we're saying that Parliament shouldn't.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Very well. I am pleased that you have mentioned this because it is important. There is a reality seated to your left here : there is a certain Katherine Maas who lives in a relationship with a woman whose name is Roberta Clair. That is reality. Therefore, if the law must reflect reality, it must also reflect the fact that people such as Katherine Maas and Roberta Clair live together in a conjugal relationship.

Á (1115)

[English]

Mr. Pavel Reid: Oh, yes. We've said in our remarks that in cases where there is a relationship of dependence, the law should recognize that.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: No, no, I am not talking about a relationship of dependence, but about a conjugal relationship. I am not talking about the relationship I have with my son or about that which exists between two sisters. I am talking about a conjugal relationship. Whether one likes it or not, the reality is that there is a percentage of people who are homosexual and that a good many of them live together in relationships.

Therefore, if the law must reflect reality, it must reflect not only my reality, that of a heterosexual relationship between married people with children, but also that of Katherine Maas and Roberta Clair. Therefore, if the law must reflect this, how must it do so in the context of a conjugal relationship and not of a relationship of dependence?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Marceau.

[English]

Mr. Pavel Reid: If by conjugal you mean a sexual relationship specifically, we would say that the law has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. If it's merely the sexual nature of the relationship that should call for dependence, then perhaps the law should be blind to that.

If the relationship is not going to lead to the procreating of children, there is no reason for the law to recognize the conjugality or the sexual aspect of it, because it is the possibility of the procreating of children that should entail legal regulation or state interference in what should otherwise remain a private matter between two private citizens.

That said, we do say that Parliament does need to come up with some kind of way to recognize in law relationships of dependence between persons, and that Parliament shouldn't say that this necessarily has to be a conjugal or sexual relationship in order to qualify. Then you are creating an absurd situation in which you are saying that your love is only worthy of recognition if it is a specifically conjugal relationship. I can think of no reason saying that specific aspect needs to be present within the relationship.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Fry, for five to seven minutes.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Thank you very much.

I have heard extremely good arguments from Darrel Reid and Pavel Reid as to why marriage is a fundamental social institution that in fact allows for children to grow up. You said here that children are better citizens when they are raised in a marriage, that it is a stable relationship and that it will harm children if relationships are not stable.

I have asked this question over and over, and I have yet to get an answer to it. What about the children who are born within same-sex relationships? Do they not need to benefit from a stable relationship? Do they not need to be seen legally to have some sort of status within society on a par with other children who come from a heterosexual marriage? That's the first question.

The second question is about procreation. You have said, Mr. Pavel Reid, that a relationship that does not have procreation as its raison d'être should not be called a marriage. You also said that if people got married and couldn't have children, that would be forgiven them. But if a man and a woman wish to be married and the woman knows that she is unable to have children because of an operation or some other reason, or the male partner knows that he's not able, should those people not be allowed to be married? If you are over a certain age and it is impossible to have children because you're in your 60s and you wish to get married, should those people also not be allowed to get married?

The whole rationalization issue about conjugality is, I think, getting into the bedrooms of the nation. The law has already been set with regard to the modernization of same-sex benefits because it is based on a conjugal relationship. It's already there in the law. What we're speaking about is extending to these relationships a stability under the law.

I have yet to hear from you. I would like both of the Reids to answer as to why children from a same-sex family should be denied this stability and legal recognition under the law. Secondly, if procreation is supposed to make a marriage, what about people who cannot procreate from the very beginning before they get married? Finally, the third question I wish to ask has to do with the concept of rationalization of why people should not get married.

Polygamy, incest, and age have always been brought up as a reason this would be a slippery slope. We have a rationalization for having a limit on age in marriage, and it has to do with the exploitation of the young. We have a rationalization for incest. It has to do with consanguinity and diseases and other things that might be passed on genetically between people who marry within a certain consanguinity. For polygamy we have made a decision in this country that where the law will create a harm to others, we will not allow that law to be supported for either religious or cultural reasons. In other words, polygamy does exploit women. So we have had really good reasons for not allowing those. I don't see those reasons changing.

But I have yet to hear a good reason from a rational point of view as to why we cannot support same-sex relationships.

Á (1120)

The Chair: We'll hear from Darrel Reid first.

Dr. Darrel Reid: Allow me just to respond, Ms. Fry, to the last comment about polygamy not necessarily being a social good. It is interesting. If you argue that the basis of recognition by the state is the primary role of our personal dignity, then why stop with two people--whether opposite sex or same sex? I would point out, for example, that exactly this argument is being made in St. Catherine's today by two lesbians and a sperm donor, basically, who say their relationship is fundamentally not as valued by the state because they choose three rather than two.

A further argument can be made. If the government is getting into the business of conferring equality on relationships, then what about single persons? As the government has said, marriage is one type of relationship. If same-sex relationships are the same as marriages, where does that leave single people? I think the law is an extremely blunt instrument with which to confer particular kinds of rights and dignity upon people in different living arrangements.

Regarding children of same-sex couples, I would point out that this is a relatively new phenomenon. I would also say that when public policy and the law is involved, there's an aphorism that says hard cases make bad law. There are difficulties. What about single parents? A whole range of individuals across the country are struggling to do the work of two parents. Typically those are single mothers because of the change in our divorce laws. I think arrangements are made. No benefit of the state is denied to children of single-parent families. I do not believe anything would be different in the relationship with same-sex couples.

The Chair: We go to Pavel Reid to respond to Ms. Fry's question, and then Ms. Maas.

Mr. Pavel Reid: Thank you.

I'll start with your question about conjugality. In fact, we already have a law in place. I'm assuming you're referring to the common-law provisions for couples.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Excuse me, may I answer please, just to clarify? I'm referring to the modernization of benefits and to the equality under the law for same-sex couples in every way other than marriage. This was brought in in 1999, I think.

Mr. Pavel Reid: This is our point with regard to that. Why not extend those benefits to all Canadians in binary relationships, all relationships with other persons? Why make conjugality the only criterion by which you can qualify? What about two brothers who are raising some children they have adopted? They clearly are not in a conjugal relationship and they wouldn't qualify under the law, but it doesn't really make any sense that conjugality would be the only criterion by which you could qualify.

You also asked about procreation and raised what I think is a very good question. What about male-female couples who do not or choose not to procreate? Why recognize their relationship as a marriage? I think the best way to approach that would be by saying that the law cannot be expected to legislate on individual cases. The law is legislating for relationship types, as opposed to particular and actual circumstances. There will always be some male-female couples who cannot or choose not to procreate, but the type of relationship they have has at least the possibility of procreation within it.

Obviously, the law is not going to inquire into the reasons why people are not having children. It would be violating people's privacy rights on a very fundamental issue to say, we've issued you a marriage licence; where is the child? It would be better for the law to say, well, they have their own reasons and we can't interfere.

Á (1125)

The Chair: Ms. Maas.

Ms. Katherine Maas: As I have been listening to all of the comments and to the questions, it strikes me that the fundamental problem here is that marriage is such a multi-purpose institution. I was just trying to think of all the purposes it could possibly be said to fulfill. The ones that jump most immediately to mind to me are companionship, sex, and raising children.

To me, many of those purposes of marriage are transitory. Even in a committed heterosexual relationship that lasts for many years, eventually in most cases people stop having sexual relations. They continue to have a relationship that involves companionship. People stop raising children eventually, but they don't stop being companions to one another. There is a certain intimacy in a companionship that was initiated around a sexual relationship that in my mind doesn't necessarily exist in all other kinds of relationships.

I don't have an “Answer” for this, but it does seem to me that we need to consider what the essence of marriage is, the thing that never goes away, and be prepared to honour it in the decisions we make, whether in regard to polygamous marriages, heterosexual marriages, or same-sex relationships.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I'm going to go to Mr. Cadman. I want the members of the committee to know we are getting close to the end.

Mr. Cadman.

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

Just for the record, I disagree with the last statement. As a father of a thirty-year-old, I still raise my daughter; I still offer my advice and my wisdom and my experience. She may not take it all the time, but I still consider her my child and I am still raising her, and I intend to do this for as long as I can.

Not to belabour the point of other forms of relationships, the polygamous issue--the potentials some people have expressed that we can see coming down the road--I'd like to go back to Mr. Darrel Reid to continue on this.

If this committee chooses to make the recommendation, and Parliament chooses to go that route, to remove the exclusivity from the definition, is there a potential for us to see some other folks coming down the road--not tomorrow, not next month, but sometime in the next couple of decades--to open it up even wider?

Dr. Darrel Reid: I believe there undoubtedly is. Either marriage is something in definable terms or it is nothing. It is either something or it is everything.

If marriage is a basket into which we want to push everybody who needs affirmation and dignity from the state and from the law, then everybody by definition is going to want in. We have maintained, and we believe, that marriage is about biology, not about ideology. Ms. Fry has said that really marriage, as we know it, has come from the mid-19th century.

We disagree with this. We believe societies, from the beginning of recorded history, have been built on the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. Some societies have experimented with that. Polygamy is one experiment. Marriage has formed a bulwark, basically, for the stable raising of children and the propagation of society.

If we confer marriage benefits on any group who wants them, I believe there's going to be no limit. Why are we saying there is any specific reason that marriage not be a union of three people? Why are we saying marriage cannot be between people of vastly different ages, say 14 and 64? Why are we saying marriage must be limited to exclude people of the same family from marrying? One can see the same rights-based arguments being forwarded in exactly the same way in each one of those cases.

Now, yes, we say this is out of the question. It would never happen. But we said that about divorce. We said no-fault divorce was ultimately going to be the best for parents and children: parents can live honestly and kids are flexible; they'll get over it. Thirty years down the road we've seen the devastation this has wreaked on us as a society. Our perspective is to tread very, very carefully. Marriage is special. A heterosexual, lifelong, covenant marriage is an ideal to be pursued in our society. To the extent that we don't have it, we should encourage it. The state should play an active role in encouraging people to bond and live together and raise their families for life.

Á (1130)

The Chair: We go to Mr. McKay, and I'll let Ms. Fry set the record straight later, at the end of this round.

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

I got into a bit of a conversation with Dr. Meen in the last panel. His argument was essentially: We want in. We want to strengthen marriage, we want to enhance marriage, and we want to develop marriage.

We also have Ms. Maas's very interesting testimony about having been in two heterosexual relationships and now being in a homosexual relationship.

So my question to either of the Reids really is, what's the great harm? Will the accession of homosexual couples into the state of marriage in fact enhance it, develop it, strengthen it, and make it a more valued social institution?

Mr. Pavel Reid: Would it particularly harm? The harm does not lie in bringing more people into the institution of marriage. We're not talking about people's relationships here. We're talking about the law and changing the law. What will the harm be when we change the law from being the definition of an institution that is essentially linked to procreating children and creating families to an institution that is not essentially linked to that any more? That's the specific harm we're concerned about.

Marriage serves as the foundation for the family, and if you no longer define marriage as such, then marriage can no longer serve that purpose in law. That is the critical social function of marriage and the critical function of marriage, which is properly recognized by law.

The family, of course, is the fundamental social unit. If anything can affect the family, it is properly within the jurisdiction of Parliament to legislate and regulate because it affects society. It also is affecting children, and it is well established within Canadian society that the law will interfere, or regulate, family relationships to protect the rights of children. That really is what we see as the kernel of the harm that could come--the unlinking of marriage from family.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

The question was also put to Darrel Reid.

Dr. Darrel Reid: I would just like to make one point. What we have seen over the last 30 years is marriage as an ideal. We are developing a number of competitors to marriage--whether common-law marriage or same-sex relationships or indeed single-parent families. I think that what has happened is this has in some way confused us a society about what is in the best interests of the majority of the men, women, and children in our society and about what we can do to strengthen lifelong relationships.

I do believe that if this law were passed and amended tomorrow, one might be hard-pressed to push a particular button and say this has happened. But I believe that what we are seeing is a trend towards the weakening and destabilizing of lifelong marriage. That's admittedly not just a question of same-sex rights. That is a question of what is best for our society.

We believe that lifelong marriage is the best alternative, the best opportunity, for people to raise children and to provide social benefits to our society.

It's a question of the trend and where we are heading as a society. Are we in 20 years going to be coming back to this question of whether a person can stand up in the culture and say that heterosexual marriage is an ideal and confers benefits, or will that be out of bounds?

Á (1135)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I'm going to go to Ms. Fry. I think she wants to speak to the comment about what she said about when marriage....

Ms. Hedy Fry: Thank you, Chair.

I did not say that marriage began in the middle of the 19th century. There must have been some miscommunication there. I did say that it began some time in the Middle Ages, or in fact more specifically that it was around the 12th century that marriage began to become a religious institution.

The Chair: We're out of time. That's a given. Mr. Marceau wants to put a short question--which I can control, Mr. Marceau. But I don't like to interrupt the panel, so please be brief in the answer.

Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Darrel Reid, I have three quick and short questions.

When you say that all necessary measures must be taken to protect the present definition of marriage, is it your belief that the notwithstanding clause should be used if need be to this end?

Secondly, you say that the decision must be based upon “public policy, not basic human rights“. Why place these two things in opposition?

And, thirdly, if this trend of what you call common law relationships is not good for society, why force homosexual partners to adopt this form of relationship, because no other type of relationship would be available to them if they do not have the right to marry?

[English]

The Chair: We will only be able to take one, Darrel Reid, and we will be able to take only one answer. I have come to the conclusion there is no such thing as a short question.

Dr. Darrel Reid: There may not be a short answer either.

To the extent that our society has a vested interest in promulgating and encouraging heterosexual marriage, a lifelong covenant marriage in our relationship, and to the extent that it is a public policy issue, we welcome the opportunity of parliamentarians to debate this issue and we believe that this is the place it should be done.

We have heard many times here already this morning from other witnesses that it's coming anyway and that if you don't do it we are going to have the courts impose it on you. We do not believe that is legitimate. We believe it is a legitimate right of parliamentarians to use the law to defend those institutions that are most precious to our country.

So in specific answer to your question, in the case of same-sex marriages being brought forward, yes, I do believe that Parliament should invoke a notwithstanding clause in defence of marriages.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I thank the panel, and I'm going to suspend for three minutes while the next panel comes forward.

Á (1138)

Á (1142)

The Chair: I call back to order the 29th meeting of the justice committee and the same-sex unions study. We have three witnesses appearing as individuals.

Before we start--and don't worry, none of this business that I conduct will be taken against your time--I'm going to have to establish for the committee that once we run out of time, we won't be able to go beyond the time allotted. That means there may be members on both sides sitting with an unanswered question that we're simply not going to be able to entertain. Consequently, I would ask members to consider that when they make their initial intervention, because ultimately we will not be able to get through. It's not that we can't take an extra ten minutes in any panel, but if we take ten minutes in every panel, it will have a big impact at the end of a long day.

I'm going to go first to Professor Douglas Allen, Department of Economics at Simon Fraser University.

Mr. Allen, for seven minutes.

Mr. Douglas Allen (Professor, Department of Economics, Simon Fraser University, As Individual): Thank you very much for having me here today. I'm the Burnaby Mountain endowed professor of economics at Simon Fraser.

My field of expertise is organization theory and the study of institutions. I've analyzed issues in marriage and divorce since 1986. I've published ten academic papers in the area and I've edited one book, with John Richards, It Takes Two. To my knowledge, I'm the only person in Canada who's done an empirical study of the Divorce Act and its effect on divorce rates and things like that.

In seven minutes I want to make four points, the first one a very general one and then three on related issues on what's on the table today.

The first general point is really a conclusion from the economics of institutions and organizations, and it's basically as follows. The wealth and success of nations really critically hinges on the society getting their institutions right. Getting the rules right is how we generate wealth. If you have an institution that lasts for thousands of years, it must have tremendous economic efficiencies behind it. Marriage is one of those institutions that's lasted, has been around forever, so it has to have something going for it.

So I'd repeat one of the comments that was heard before. My general concern is that you should tread extremely carefully. When you tamper with an efficient institution, an institution that's working well, what's likely to happen is that you're going to have large, probably unanticipated, and probably negative consequences. What you're doing is extremely serious. It's going to have impacts that are going to be very subtle and probably unexpected. To repeat what was said in the last session, I think we need to be very cautious.

Of my three related points, the first one is to just repeat again a little of what was mentioned in the last section. The best argument for that is our own experience with the Divorce Act. In 1968 we became the first country in the world to institute a no-fault divorce law, and the impact was immediate. Within two years there was a sixfold increase in the divorce rate. We now have an eightfold increase in the divorce rate over 1967.

The impact was also subtle; there were all kinds of subtle changes. There were changes in marriage behaviour. Virtually everybody changed the age at which they married as a result of the no-fault law. Some married later, some married earlier, but almost everybody changed. Who got married changed. It turned out that people who placed lower value on marriage tended to marry, and people who placed higher value on marriage tended not to marry because of the change in law. There was an increase in common-law unions.

There were changes in labour-force participation behaviour, especially among women, as women went to ensure themselves.... Prior to the no-fault Divorce Act, the divorce laws protected women making specific investments in a marriage, especially as related to children. After the Divorce Act, women entered the workforce in a large part to ensure themselves against being abandoned in the relationship. We have the phenomenon of the supermom burnout, that sort of thing.

There was the creation of what I call a divorce culture, the general lowering of the value of the institution in our society. Last night most Canadians tuned into Married by America, something that would have been inconceivable in 1965.

The other thing was that the impact was mostly negative. For large numbers of women it created the feminization of poverty as husbands, a lot of them, were allowed to leave the marriage and take a lot of the financial assets with them. For large groups of husbands it created depression issues, with a rise in suicide rates as they became remote from their children.

Again, as was mentioned in the last panel--I'm not going to elaborate on it too much--large numbers of children in Canada, about 50,000 a year, are put at risk from being in a single-parent family. If you take any social pathology--it's become a stylized fact in the social science literature--such as birth out of wedlock, failure to complete high school, criminal activity, etc., the probability of engaging in that activity is about double if you come from a single-parent family.

We have our own experience. You fiddle a little bit with the provision on marriage, and there are all kinds of impacts.

Á (1145)

The other thing you need to realize is that if you go back and look at the parliamentary debates, if you go back and look at the academic debates, and if you go back and look at the advocates and all the arguments--which I have done, and it's published in my book--every single consequence, from the obvious ones to the not-so-obvious ones, every single consequence was unanticipated.

Now, why is that? I've argued that the reason for that is because most people hold a faulty view of marriage. What troubles me in the debate over same-sex issues is that I see the same mistake happening. We tend to think of marriage in terms of a loving relationship, and although love is often associated with marriage, it's not sufficient for marriage. Just because you love someone or something doesn't mean you're married, and it's certainly not necessary. Lots of people get married in arranged marriages, where they may not even know one another but still might have a successful marriage.

Again, I don't want to go over this point within my seven minutes, but I would agree with some of the comments of the last panel, that marriage is really designed around the institution of having and raising children.

Why do I think same-sex marriages would be a bad idea? Marriage is basically a standard contract. It works well because most heterosexual couples have a standard institutional need around procreation. When you apply a one-size-fits-all institution to three very different unions, you're going to have an increase in instability. Again, this is something that's also been missing here. I think in the social science literature it's clear that lesbian couples are much different from gay couples and they're both a lot different from heterosexual couples in terms of the exit provisions they would want, in terms of penalties for various faults, and things like that.

To the extent you allow same-sex marriages and to the extent it benefits same-sex marriages, it's going to hurt heterosexual couples. Given the difference in numbers, it's going to have huge costs for society. To the extent same-sex couples are allowed to marry and it does not change--last point--that institution is going to fail them.

My conclusion is that really, you need a parallel system, one that's designed around the special needs of a gay or lesbian couple, and a marriage that's designed around the special needs of a heterosexual couple. I have a 28-page brief here I was not allowed to submit, if anybody's interested; it elaborates on the arguments.

Thanks.

Á (1150)

The Chair: Ms. Silver, you have seven minutes.

Ms. Cindy Silver (Lawyer, As Individual): I'd like to thank the members of the justice and human rights committee for the opportunity to appear before you this morning to speak on such an important issue as the future of marriage in Canada.

My name is Cindy Silver, and I appear before you having served as assistant legal counsel alongside senior lawyers for the Coalition for Marriage and Family in the B.C. and Ontario marriage cases.

I'd like to acknowledge the work of Geoffrey D. Cowper, Q.C., of Vancouver, and David Brown of Toronto, who represented the Coalition for Marriage and Family, and Iain Benson and Peter Jervis, lawyers for the Interfaith Coalition for Marriage, a group that also intervened in these cases.

My presentation will focus specifically on the competing constitutional rights that are engaged by the marriage debate. The marriage debate is unique, in that it involves a collision of charter rights by engaging not only the section 15 equality rights of gays and lesbians but also the section 2(a) and (b) fundamental freedoms of individuals who for reasons of conscience or faith sincerely believe that marriage is, by nature, exclusively heterosexual.

Section 2(a) and (b) of the charter state, in part, that everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression.

During the marriage trials, it became evident that EGALE and their partner groups for challenging marriage are not simply seeking equal benefits before and under the law, but are really seeking to ensure and expedite broad social approval for same-sex unions and, by implication, for homosexual conduct. It is really this that is at the heart of the marriage challenge. It is an attempt to use the disciplinary power of language to exact change in people's beliefs and attitudes regarding the moral nature of homosexual conduct.

One of the linguistics experts for EGALE explained how redefining marriage would enlist social institutions in reconstructing people's beliefs in reference to the nature of homosexuality. This is possibly the most disturbing aspect of the same-sex movement, because it is likely that Canadians who for reasons of conscience or faith sincerely believe that marriage is, by nature, heterosexual will likely feel pressure or compulsion from social institutions, such as government agencies, the mass media, the publishing industry, public education and post-secondary institutions, to either limit their participation in the public square or conform their beliefs to the newly minted meaning of marriage.

In the language developed by the courts to describe section 2 of the charter, these Canadians would no longer feel free to hold and express their sincerely held beliefs without fear of hindrance or reprisal. Such a result would seem antithetical to the charter, which was initially intended to foster a “truly free society which can accommodate a wide variety of beliefs, diversity of tastes and pursuits, customs and codes of conduct”.

In the marriage cases, an interfaith coalition comprising Catholics, Protestants, Hindus, Sikhs, Muslim, and Jewish faith traditions joined together, each submitting affidavit evidence about the impact the redefinition of marriage would have on their communities. These groups explained they already experience social marginalization because of their religious beliefs and they are concerned there would be increasing intolerance, stigmatization, and exclusion from full participation in society because of their dissenting beliefs regarding acceptability of same-sex marriage.

As Daniel Cere, an expert in Catholic tradition, explained:

The language of “heterosexism” and “homophobia” is a language that attacks those who view heterosexuality as normative and attempts to turn the respectful disagreement with homosexual conduct into an “ism” akin to racism. This sort of loosely constructed stereotype, in addition to being highly controversial, stigmatizes religious traditions, threatens those who oppose it and fractures civil discourse.

Religious groups are not the only ones who expressed concern that their section 2 freedoms may be threatened if marriage is redefined. The Canadian Alliance for Social Justice, one of the groups that formed the B.C. Coalition for Marriage and Family, holds no religious affiliation. This group represents a membership of approximately 1,000 persons, primarily of Asian descent, who are concerned that their conscience-based beliefs regarding the nature of male and female, which are strongly rooted in Asian culture and tradition, would be threatened by a redefinition of marriage. They also expressed concern that redefining marriage would adversely affect the strong cultural role that Asian parents play in the moral training and instruction of their children.

Á (1155)

When one considers the many racial, ethnic, and cultural groups represented in Canada, some of which have rich traditions and rituals surrounding heterosexual marriage, it is not unreasonable to suggest that there are likely other groups who share concerns similar to those of the Canadian Alliance. This becomes relevant to Parliament's deliberations, since section 27 of the charter states that “the charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians”.

Section 27 reminds us that equality rights, including those of gays and lesbians, should not be read in an insular way, but, in the broader context of their existence within the charter, given the full intent of the charter to create a truly pluralistic society.

True pluralism holds that diverse opinions and beliefs are a permanent feature and natural expression of human life, which must be respected and protected, rather than eradicated, if society is to remain healthy and dynamic.

At this point I'd like to point out that the groups that were involved in the coalitions and intervened in support of heterosexual marriage did include in their affidavits that while they did not believe that homosexual conduct was equivalent to heterosexual conduct or marriage in terms of its nature and social utility, they respected the right of those who hold views different from their own.

Those who are advocating for same-sex marriage claim that the only option for Parliament that would provide justice to gays and lesbians is to redefine marriage to mean “the union of any two persons”, thereby abolishing the primordial heterosexual meaning of marriage. With respect, this claim is legally and logically flawed. Changing the meaning of marriage in a manner that would subordinate the section 2 freedoms of a large contingent of Canadians beneath the equality rights of any group could not result in justice.

Given that the marriage debate involves the collision of section 15 and section 2 rights, the proper objective of Parliament should be to act with caution and in a manner that balances the interests of all Canadians who will be affected by their decision, without subordinating the rights of one group beneath the other.

The recommendations I propose are as follows--and in this I speak on my own as a lawyer and not on behalf of any group. I would recommend that Parliament balance the section 2 freedoms and section 15 equality rights engaged in the marriage debate by the following two-pronged approach--

The Chair: How long is this? You are way over time.

Ms. Cindy Silver: Two sentences.

Parliament should introduce legislation that affirms the longstanding definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and Parliament should introduce a legislative scheme that would specifically address the rights of same-sex couples who want to have their union formalized legally and recognized socially. This process should be undertaken in cooperation with the provinces in order to create a legal regime whereby same-sex couples who choose to formalize their unions would be ensured uniform legal recognition across all provinces and territories.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Dow.

Ms. Martha Dow (As Individual): I'm going to take ten seconds just to clear my head. You're never surprised when you hear a lot of this stuff, but it still gives me great pause, I must say.

I brought my kids with me. They are in the audience--Hannah, Will, and Avery. It seems to me that people have been talking an awful lot about having children within lesbian-led families. Well, here I am, and here they are. They look like they're missing out on an awful lot, don't they?

So it's not without some ambivalence that I'm here today. As my four-year-old asked me where I was off to today, I was saddened at where I was off to. The idea that I'm here to defend who I am and the fact that I deserve equal treatment before the law is troubling, to say the least.

I am confident and haven't been disappointed that you're going to hear lots of legal argument. You're going to hear lots of research invoked on either side of this issue. I could have done that as well. I teach in post-secondary. I research in this area. I wanted today to come, though, as a parent, as a partner, and give you a bit of an insight--hence the poster. I don't know what I'll do with it after today.

I want to give you a bit of a sense of our family, because it seems to me that when I do these talks in other places, people oddly....

I guess it's strange, because I say here that I'm your lesbian for the next hour, that kind of thing--ask away. In some ways, that seems zoo-like, and people ask, is this a good idea? But I think it's oddly necessary to put some face on this.

The most common challenges you've heard, about marriage without procreation, having children, marriage is about a long-lasting relationship.... My partner and I have been together for 19 years. We were together for nine years living in Ontario when we jointly, as couples do, made a decision to move to B.C., as I was offered a position. About six years ago we started having very long conversations about having children, perhaps unlike many heterosexual couples. We spent a lot of time discussing what that meant, what that looked like, what were the consequences of that.

After two years of every night going to bed either with two minutes of it or several hours of it, we decided it would be wrong for us not to, given how strongly we felt about our ability as parents and how important our family was, and how important family has been to me growing up.

So we did that, and we were blessed about four years ago with the birth of our daughter Hannah. We celebrated her birth. She was born in December 1998. We celebrated the following August with a family blessing conducted by a minister, my parents' minister in the United Church, in their backyard with family and friends, where we really just celebrated how lucky we were.

Not quite two years later, we were blessed with twins, Will and Avery, and at that point my parents felt very strongly that they be baptized in their church, very formally. The minister felt that was important, so they were, not because we felt that it was so important, but certainly because it was symbolic, it was political, a wonderful merging of religion and politics, and the minister thought it was an important signal. So we did that, and that's how we celebrated.

It's odd; I'm not paying any attention to my notes, but I think I'm giving the thrust of it. For me, this is symbolic. This is about sending a message for those young children who are going to school never seeing themselves or their families reflected in curriculum because we have this debate going about what our rights are and what they are not. It's symbolically important that we have the right to marry, not to have some sort of conjugal legislative parallel. That's not what's needed. It's needed to say these relationships, grounded very traditionally....

I come to you as a very traditional lesbian, who's been together for 19 years and has children. My partner is quitting work in a couple of weeks so she can stay home with our children. We need to be recognized for our equality with other couples who make those choices.

I don't necessarily disagree with people who say they're not so sure about marriage anyway. Should we have that much state involvement? Should we be looking for inclusion in that institution that's so strongly rooted in patriarchy and some of the history that has been destructive? I get those arguments. I'm here to say that as long as we have marriage, it seems absolutely essential that we not discriminate against couples who are the same in every other way except that we are attracted to and form partnerships with people of the same sex.

It seems to me that you have a luxury in some cases that you don't always have. It seems Parliament has to act with justice at its core on this issue. You also seem to have some popular opinion on your side, which is kind of a nice luxury, it seems to me. There is a great deal of evidence that when people are educated on this issue and think critically about this issue, they are supportive of gays and lesbians having access to marriage.

Â (1200)

It seems incredibly disheartening that I'm hearing people talking in language that talks about threat and defence in a time when there's a war going on in this world, where rightly words like “defence” can be used, and people are using them with serious faces to describe the need to defend marriage against some foe. I'm the foe. There's nothing to defend against.

I'm concerned about that, which leads me to feel that it is absolutely critical about the symbolism. If the message is that Parliament says there's absolutely no rational reason not to make this change....

It's not about polygamy. We can have those debates later, I suppose. What we're talking about now is two people where the only difference is that our ways of having children and our choices might be more explicit and might be more strategic, but there are two people who are coming together with exactly the same dynamics and love and commitment as any other couple. That's it, end of point, in my view.

Thank you.

Â (1205)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Toews, for five to seven minutes.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you very much.

I agree that the issue is not simply one of symbolism here. Government has to be preoccupied with the impact that changes in the law have on our society generally--and I, for one, certainly don't pretend to understand all the implications of changing laws at the best of times, never mind when we are dealing with such a fundamental institution as marriage.

My concern with the whole rights-based approach, the equality approach, is that it appears to me a fairly one-dimensional approach that simply doesn't comprehend the multi-dimensional nature of marriage as a societal institution, rather than simply a relationship between two individuals.

I appreciate that relationships between two individuals, or three or more, are important, but we are dealing with an institution that has been a bulwark of our society for so many generations and centuries that for parliamentarians to cavalierly come along and say let's just view this as a simple equality issue and determine it on that basis.... Some of the things I have heard Dr. Allen state today reinforce my concern that this simply isn't a narrow legal issue.

When I sometimes hear groups--and I appreciate that I didn't hear that today--come to us and say “change the definition of marriage or we'll simply get the courts to do it”, I find that very offensive, because this isn't a legal issue, in my opinion, but a fundamental societal issue that has to be seen in a broader context.

Dr. Allen, I wasn't here right at the beginning of your testimony. Did you mention the name of your book? I know you said you had written a book, but I think we need to see those kinds of arguments as well. We've heard all the legal arguments, we've heard all the tugging on the heart strings, we've heard all the religious arguments, but it's those kinds of practical arguments that really concern me, about economics, the impact of the divorce laws on our society. Maybe you could tell us the name of your book and we can go out and read that.

Mr. Douglas Allen: The book is called It Takes Two: The Family in Law and Finance. It's actually edited by myself and my colleague John Richards. It was published by the C.D. Howe Institute--I believe in 1997 or 1998; I can't recall. I contributed to the volume and of course edited it.

Mr. Vic Toews: Who else contributes in that?

Mr. Douglas Allen: Peg Brinig, who is the foremost law and economics marriage scholar in the U.S., contributed; Frank Buckley, another lawyer in the U.S., an expatriate Canadian; John Richards; and Don Moir. I can't recall; there might have been a couple of others.

Mr. Vic Toews: Are the arguments raised similar to yours, in terms of being--

Mr. Douglas Allen: The first half of the book was looking at the effect of no-fault divorce law. There's a chapter on its history, this argument about why did nobody anticipate any of the effects.

There's a chapter on what were the impacts on wives. It turns out that it's a very complicated impact on wives. Some wives are made better off; some wives are made worse off. The major finding there is that when wives are made worse off, it's usually a financial detriment.

There's a section on fathers. The same issue: it's a very complicated thing. Some are made better off, some are made worse off, and when they're worse off, it's usually an emotional detachment from their children, that sort of issue.

There's a huge chapter on the effect on children, and there the evidence is just overwhelming.

Mr. Vic Toews: Have you presented any evidence in a court hearing along the lines that you're presenting to us today?

Mr. Douglas Allen: A court hearing for...

Mr. Vic Toews: Ms. Silver indicated--

Mr. Douglas Allen: I was an expert witness in the Ontario case last year.

Mr. Vic Toews: Which Ontario case was that?

Mr. Douglas Allen: It was the same-sex one.

Mr. Vic Toews: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you and thank you to the witnesses.

Ms. Dow, I must say that I was very moved by your presentation. Thank you for having made it. It is good to put a face on what is being said.

My question, however, is mainly for Ms. Silver. I would like to discuss something with you. You much emphasized the problem with section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with regard to the freedom of religion.

Wit all due respect, I believe that you have reversed the situation as far as the protection of religious freedom is concerned. At present, there are religious denominations, like the United Church of Canada, the Unitarian Church, certain branches of Reform Judaism and the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto, that cannot legally marry same-sex spouses despite the fact that their religious dogma allows them to. Their freedom of religion is therefore not being respected.

If it were however the reverse, in other words if same-sex marriage were allowed, the churches or religions that agree with it could continue to do so whereas the churches or denominations not willing to do so--and I am thinking here of the Baptist Church or the Catholic Church--could not be forced into it.

Therefore, at present, it is those churches that wish to sanction these marriages who are unable to do so, whereas if the situation were the reverse, in other words if same-sex marriage were authorized, then no church could be forced to marry same-sex spouses if this form of marriage is against its dogma.

The best example one might give is that of the Catholic Church. I refer to it because it is the church I was born into. No one has tried to force the Catholic Church to marry divorcees and no one has forced the Catholic Church to accept women in the priesthood.

Would you not therefore agree that your argument with regard to section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is completely reversed? I did not follow your reasoning whatsoever.

Â (1210)

[English]

Ms. Cindy Silver: Would you like to pose a question?

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Could you explain to me in what allowing same-sex marriage would threaten the religious freedom of Baptists, Catholics, Orthodox Jews or members of other faiths that do not wish to marry same-sex partners?

[English]

Ms. Cindy Silver: I'd start by answering that marriage has a definition right now that is accepted in Canada, the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Right now in Canada, marriage means that. The minute you change the definition of marriage, I believe that a lot of Canadians would feel that you have changed the essence of marriage. Therefore, what would be entered into would be something different from what they hold in their conscience and beliefs.

I mention conscience and beliefs together because I don't believe this is necessarily a religious issue. I think there are people who, for reasons of conscience, see marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

What you would be doing is exactly what I described. It would be changing the language of marriage, or shifting the balance of power over dialogue in marriage so that marriage became something different. You would be creating an entirely different union, which people would be compelled to agree with when their conscience or faith do not agree.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I do not understand.

[English]

How would he be compelled? Je vais la poser en français.

Ms. Cindy Silver: I think I explained that at the beginning, but maybe I didn't explain it very well. But when you change language, when you redefine a word, it holds a disciplinary power over the word, which affects our social institutions. Our social institutions will be required to conform their dialogue regarding marriage to fit the law. And that would have an impact on people who don't believe that is really what marriage is. They would have to interact with the institutions of society, and either be silent in their belief or limit their participation.

We're talking about full participation of citizens in society, and what we are attempting to develop as a pluralistic society. I think our goal is to achieve a society where we can all interact, even though we don't agree on specific issues. Changing the definition of marriage would require people to affirm what they do not believe, and there really is no law or human rights policy that should do that in a democratic society.

Â (1215)

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I, for my part, would say that it is rather the reverse.

I just have a question for Mr. Allen. It is very simple. I do not have the page number, because the pages have not been numbered, but you state : “It is difficult to predict all of the costs of marriage between homosexuals. I would however count on seeing the following impacts“, and you list seven of them. It is just a matter of interest. Number two is the following : “They would then require less regulation in the area of adultery. Pressure would be exerted to make adultery more acceptable.“

Could you quote me the name of any existing regulations with regard to adultery?

[English]

Mr. Douglas Allen: Okay, so I was speculating on this last page. That's clear, right?

Just like in the divorce situation, where so many effects were unanticipated, if you had asked somebody in 1968, they might not have been able to come up with issues arising from changes in the age of marriage and other things. So here I'm speculating on what might be some problems in having same-sex couples.

Again, one of the things that's clear from social science literature is that with heterosexual couples, there's always a concern over fidelity, because an outcome of infidelity is that you might have to raise somebody else's children. Okay? That's going to be less of a concern in an infidelity in a same-sex couple. It's not that it's no concern, but that it's certainly less of a concern.

As a result, to the extent there are penalities over property division after divorce that deal with adultery, then there would be a demand for changes in that kind of regulation. But if everybody's covered under the same marriage contract, then that change in regulation will affect heterosexual couples. That, in essence, is the big cost. You have 99% of the population going to be covered under a regulation that might be driven by 1% of the population. To the extent that change in regulation doesn't happen, then it doesn't satisfy the needs of the same-sex couple either. That's my point—the one-size-fits-all approach is not going to keep anybody happy. It's not going to be good for the same-sex couple, and it's not going to be good for the heterosexual couple.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Macklin.

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

Thank you, witnesses, for appearing today.

Dr. Allen, I presume you've had an opportunity to look over the original discussion paper prepared by the Department of Justice.

Mr. Douglas Allen: Yes.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Looking at your arguments, and listening to them today, and in trying to deal with what I would call the social issue of the day, I'm concerned about what you have stated about how far we could advance this rights issue before we would strike upon your concerns. In other words, if you say from your perspective that the concept of marriage being all-inclusive shouldn't be considered, how far could we advance the rights of those who would wish to be in same-sex unions before you would think we might be...? Or can we advance it right up to that level of marriage?

Mr. Douglas Allen: I don't think you can, because if you think about it, what does the federal government do with regard to marriage? They decide who gets married with certain conditions on entry, but the bulk of what you do is regulate exit--that is, divorce.

Maybe I could use the case Martha here has raised. Suppose Martha and her partner become married, and suppose for whatever reason they decide they want to get a divorce. How does the court handle the custody of their children? They are probably going to have to come up with a different.... There are laws and traditions in terms of mothers doctrine and various things like this that don't apply any more. They will immediately be faced with the problem of how do we decide to allocate custody when there's a lesbian couple or a gay couple? It immediately comes up. I don't see how you can go very far at all before issues, just day-to-day issues like that, start to arise.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: But in a sense, isn't Martha a living example of the fact that it exists today, and the question is, how do we deal with it and cope with it within our society today?

Ms. Martha Dow: I don't mind the example, but I guess I'd just say that I just worry about this idea that all these things are bad, such as mothers doctrine. I presume you're worried that, oh my goodness, we have two loving mothers and we're so often used to giving sole custody or more parental custody to one mother; God forbid we have two parents who want to be equally involved. I guess, God forbid we have to make societal change that might make for more involved parenting.

The other quick thing I'd say is it's an interesting point you make where the focus of infidelity and the pressures around heterosexual couples are that they don't want to parent other people's children. Oddly, ours would be about trust, companionship, and a commitment we've made to one another, so I guess there is some difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples.

Â (1220)

The Chair: Mr. Macklin, continue.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Your position is that we shouldn't move anywhere from where we are today in relation to recognition of same-sex unions in any form because you believe that any movement would tend to affect the function of marriage today.

Mr. Douglas Allen: Put it this way. I think that the regulations a lesbian couple would demand and require are different from the regulations a gay couple would require and demand, and they are different from what a heterosexual couple would demand or require, and it seems silly to have the same law apply to all of them. You can have a marriage-like law, as it's just different. They will have different components to it, different grounds for divorce, or different.... I can't even imagine what there would be. That's the problem.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: You are suggesting that we shouldn't go there, to this similar...

Mr. Douglas Allen: No, I think there should be parallel systems, because, again, I think you are going to end up imposing changes in the marriage regulations that are going to affect large numbers of people, heterosexual couples, because the changes would be based on or driven by the needs and demands of same-sex couples.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: So parallel you would support?

Mr. Douglas Allen: I would support parallel, yes.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Yet, Ms. Dow, you say this is all about symbolism, not necessarily about rights.

Ms. Martha Dow: Oddly, my patience runs thin because I've spent so much of my life talking, researching, and teaching around these issues that for me there is symbolism. I have heard...there are quality arguments on both sides. There are procedural arguments on both sides.

To me, ultimately, there is an element of symbolism, where people are looking for.... I hear about these differences in the speculation. I just don't see it. I live it, I raise my children in it, and I don't see the differences people are concerned about.

There are differences, one of which is this partnership that was talked about in the last session. There seems to be research evidence that in lesbian-led couples there is a more equitable distribution of the labour in the home and the parenting responsibilities. Again, God forbid that we move in that direction.

So for me, in response to your question--I apologize for my tone sometimes--the arguments are there on both sides. I think parallel isn't the way to go because of the symbolism.

The Chair: This is a great spot to go to Mr. Toews.

Mr. Vic Toews: This is an interesting debate. The courts have often said as well, even in the context of our charter litigation, that identical treatment does not necessarily translate into equal treatment; that is, in order to achieve equality, it doesn't necessarily mean you have to treat people identically.

What I hear Dr. Allen saying is that in fact we have at least three different types of relationships in the context that we're talking about here. We're talking about male homosexual, female homosexual, and straight heterosexual.

Have you done any research in terms of your statistical research of that, comparing, let's say, the distinctions between the female homosexual relationship and the male homosexual relationship? Are you aware of any information in that respect?

Mr. Douglas Allen: First off, the empirical work on homosexual couples is very thin. There is very little data. It's only been in the last even ten years that StatsCan or the current population survey in the U.S. have even begun to collect information on it. So there's just not a lot. What there is is a lot of times anecdotal and various things like that.

But having said that, the two different couples do behave differently in various dimensions, for example, in terms of sexual behaviour and things like that. In terms of frequency of sex, lesbians behave differently from gay couples and differently from heterosexual couples.

Mr. Vic Toews: So this brings to mind some of the comments we have heard from witnesses such as Dr. Daniel Cere, who told us to exercise caution because the state of the academic debate and literature in respect to these issues is at its infancy, really, and has really only come from one side of the debate. The heterosexual side really hasn't begun to respond in any material way.

Â (1225)

Mr. Douglas Allen: Yes, exactly. Martha brought up an interesting point, the notion that the lesbian couple is more symmetric or equitable, I think she used the phrase.

One of the issues that comes up in a heterosexual couple is the fact that it's asymmetric and that one spouse makes an investment and the other doesn't necessarily, the most obvious being of course children. The wife makes a huge investment in children and the husband doesn't, and a lot of the law is designed to protect that investment in children.

Again, in both a gay relationship and a lesbian relationship they are more symmetrical. So their demands for protection for specific types of investment are going to be different from demands that a heterosexual couple would have.

Over time, if you had a parallel system and they both went through courts and they iterated to some common-law notion of marriage, those three different types of marriage would end up looking very different, I think.

Mr. Vic Toews: So in conclusion--

The Chair: I have to go to John McKay.

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

Dr. Allen, concerning this one-size-fits-all concept, I take your point that one size may well not fit all, that there are in fact differences even within the homosexual community--gay relationships and lesbian relationships--in terms of how they're interacting.

What I am concerned about is whether you know of, or can comment on, the length of survivorship of these particular relationships. We did have Statistics Canada in at the first instance when we started this, and as I recollect the numbers over a five-year segment were that common-law couples break up at a rate of about 40% over five years, and then marriage is about 16%, and married is about 8%. That's the breakup rate.

Can you point the committee in any direction with respect to parallel relationships? Because the rights argument jams it all into one box and there's a deep and abiding suspicion that these relationships may well be marriage-like, or similar to, but have significant characteristics and significant cultural impacts that militate against them being described as marriages.

Mr. Douglas Allen: No, off the top of my head I can't. I don't know of any studies looking at the survival rates of various gay couples. Again, it would have to be so tenuous because the data have only been available for a few years. In any study of survival rates of marriage, you're usually looking at data over the life cycle, which is up to 50 years, and that kind of data is not around. I have seen anecdotal papers looking at the difference between gay and lesbian couples. I think the general result is that gay relationships are much less stable than lesbian ones. As I said at the beginning, this kind of research on homosexual couples is very thin.

Mr. John McKay: It speaks to the point, as one witness put it, to tread very lightly in this area until there are, if you will, valid comparisons between various groupings of peoples and not to be simply caught up in the rights-based argument.

The Chair: Mr. Marceau, a last question very briefly. We have less than a minute.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Allen, I would like to begin by making a comment. When you state that the wife invests a lot in her children and that the husband does not, I must tell you that as the father of five year old twins, I find that remark rather ordinary.

My question is the following. On the first page of your brief, you state that “reducing the value of the institution of marriage will have a negative long- term impact on the majority of the population“.

In your view, would allowing same-sex couples to marry reduce the value of the institution of marriage?

[English]

Mr. Douglas Allen: The first point on this is really important, when we talk about the investment in marriage. What leads to problems is what we call an economic-specific investment, an investment that you cannot take and use elsewhere.

I'm a father of three. I invest a lot in my kids as well, but my investments aren't like my wife's investments. For example, when a wife takes time out of work and invests in learning how to cook for me and my children, and in providing the little presents they want for birthday parties, and things like that, those kinds of investments are useless in another relationship. If we split up and she goes to another relationship and says “You know, I really know how well my ex-husband likes his eggs in the morning”, that's useless. So that's what I meant by the asymmetry in investments.

In a heterosexual marriage, the wife historically has tended to make many more of those types of investment than the husband has. For example, just being out of the workforce and devoting time to the household is time devoted specifically to that household, which is really not of much value afterwards. In economics, when we look at the quality of spouses, husbands tend to remarry spouses of similar quality to those they married the first time around. But when you look at remarriages of women who get divorced at 40, they tend to have to marry down. A lot of times, it's because they've made all these investments that are of no use in the remarriage market, whereas the husband invested in his career and can go out and remarry at the same sort of level.

In terms of lowering the social value, I would basically agree with Ms. Silver's argument here. We have a concept of marriage, and you're going to change it. This is is going to lower or dilute it, or make it less unique in a lot of people's eyes. In that sense, if anything goes, we have the slippery slope argument that we heard last time around. I would argue, yes. My guess would be that it would fall.

Â (1230)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I want to thank the panel before everybody races off. I want to also thank the folks who have been here this morning. It's been obvious that I have taken it in with great interest. I appreciate your cooperation for the way we have been able to proceed.

And to the committee, as always, thank you for your patience with the chair.

Just for everybody's understanding, we are going to be back here at 1:30. I cannot open the meeting without a quorum, and the members all know how much that is. I know you are all racing to check out and eat, and so on. I intend to be here at 1:30, and I hope we will be able to proceed at that time with the people we have invited to be here with us.

So thank you again.

The meeting is adjourned.

Â (1232)

· (1332)

The Chair: I call to order the continuation of the 29th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are undertaking a study on marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions.

Today is our first day in a series of hearings in various locations across the country. Over the next hour, we will be hearing from two organizations and one individual, to use the language of this exercise.

The Vancouver Christian Renewal Fellowship is represented by Stephen Jung. The West Coast LEAF Association is represented by Alison Brewin, program director. And there's an individual, James Chamberlain.

Each presenter has seven minutes. Since we only have an hour and have a tendency to run out of time, which you would have seen if you were here this morning, please keep your comments to seven minutes.

I'm going to go first to Stephen Jung of the Vancouver Christian Renewal Fellowship, for seven minutes.

· (1335)

The Chair: We are going next to Alison Brewin from the West Coast Legal Education and Action Fund for seven minutes.

Ms. Alison Brewin (Program Director, West Coast LEAF Association): Thank you.

West Coast LEAF Association is the British Columbia branch of the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund. We are a charitable, non-profit society registered independently of our national organization. We were founded in 1987 to secure equal rights for British Colombian and Canadian women as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To this end we engage in litigation, equality research, law reform, and public legal education. Through such endeavours the organization has developed particular expertise with regard to the interaction between equality among persons and laws that have a particular impact on women.

This submission represents West Coast LEAF's views.

The issue before this committee, as you well know, is whether or not the federal government should recognize same-sex marriages. West Coast LEAF submits that the law answers this question succinctly. The answer in law is the affirmative. The federal government and provincial governments must provide same-sex couples with the same opportunity and right to marry as is enjoyed by heterosexual couples. Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms mandates it. As long as there are legal and social benefits attached to marriage, there is an obligation in law to ensure that those benefits are available to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples. Notwithstanding arguments about section 15, the government must recognize same-sex marriages because it affirms and upholds the Canadian values of democracy, cultural diversity, and justice.

In addition, this issue raises other questions that West Coast LEAF hopes the government will commit itself to exploring in the future. Some of these issues are the impact of the recent case of Nova Scotia and Walsh and distinctions between marriage and common-law relationships; the series of cases regarding the “spouse in the house” rules and the government's assumptions about relationships and dependencies; the areas of vulnerability that traditional heterosexual marriage has created for women and children in the past; and the importance of defining the freedom of religious, minority, and marginalized people to self-define their political and social values. We will touch on these issues briefly below.

First is the legal obligation to include same-sex couples. In response to the suggestions raised in the discussion paper, West Coast LEAF submits that the law in Canada requires same-sex couples be given the legal right to marry.

The case of M. and H. stated that provincial family law legislation cannot discriminate against same-sex couples by excluding them.

The case of Eldridge in British Columbia stated that the charter creates an obligation on the government to take special measures to ensure that a disadvantaged group is able to equally access the benefits the majority enjoy.

In Vriend, in Alberta, it was stated that government inaction is subject to scrutiny under section 15 of the charter.

In Law and Canada it states that section 15 requires lawmakers to determine whether a reasonable person would find that the legislation that imposes the differential treatment has the effect of demeaning the dignity of same-sex couples, having regard to their traits, history, and circumstances.

Finally, in Walsh and Bona it was stated quite clearly that there are very clear rights and protections for heterosexual couples when they exercise their ability to choose legal marriage that same-sex couples do not have. Provincial rules about the division of property on the dissolution of marriage do not have to be extended to common-law couples, according to this case, because they are free to marry any time.

Chief Justice Beverly MacLachlin recently stated in Gosselin and the Attorney General of Quebec, not that West Coast LEAF is happy with the results of that particular case:

Section 15's purpose of protecting equal membership and full participation in Canadian society runs like a leitmotif through our s. 15 jurisprudence.

She concludes by quoting Granovsky and Canada:

Exclusion and marginalization are generally not created by the individual with disabilities but are created by the economic and social environment and, unfortunately, by the state itself.

Belonging and being accepted as worthy members of Canadian society is a central reason for recognizing same-sex marriages in the law.

· (1340)

State recognition of same-sex union is important to ensure economic benefits are available to everyone and--equally important--because it is essential to the dignity and sense of personhood of those couples and their children. The exclusion created by the unjustified prohibition against same-sex marriage goes beyond the individuals who want to marry and extends to any children they are raising and extended family members they care for.

The government is required by the values articulated in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms to recognize in law the existence of family units created by the relationship of two intimate partners of the same sex. In our respectful submission, there is no legally defensible reason to continue their exclusion from the economic, legal, and social benefits of marriage, nor is there any valid political or social reason for such discriminatory exclusion.

West Coast LEAF submits that differential treatment of same-sex couples under federal laws governing marriage is discriminatory because it treats some families as being undeserving of the respect, consideration, and social and economic benefits other families in Canada enjoy--solely on the basis that these families are headed by partners of the same sex.

We also submit that the creation of a new registry that would be deemed equivalent to marriage for the purposes of laws and programs also would not meet the obligations under the charter in that it would be sufficient only if it were applicable to heterosexual and same-sex couples. Further, the federal government getting out of the business of marriage doesn't address their obligation either, in that the federal government can't delegate their authority to non-democratic organizations like churches and religious institutions.

Finally, the other question raised by this issue is the role of traditional heterosexual marriage as a source of women's vulnerability for the past many centuries, particularly the roles played in enforcing women's economic inequality, allowing women's victimization by domestic violence, and devaluing the important work of caregiving. It has been used to control racial minorities and to control wealth and the transfer of property.

I'm just going to jump right into our recommendations.

To preserve marriage as a social and legal institution in Canada we recommend Parliament address not only the rights of same-sex couples to marry, but also the more general inequities created by the traditional heterosexual marriage as a role model for family relationships.

West Coast LEAF recommends that the federal government commit to the implementation of a fully funded universal day care system and actively support funding of other services and programs that support the raising of children in our diverse communities; that the federal government fund, and, where appropriate, insist that the provinces fund, adequate family law and legal aid services; that all governments in Canada implement the recommendations of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women; that all provincial and territorial governments that have not yet done so recognize the right of same-sex parents to adopt--

· (1345)

The Chair: How many do you have left?

Ms. Alison Brewin: Two.

The Chair: Quickly.

Ms. Alison Brewin: That the federal and provincial governments cooperate to ensure women victimized by domestic violence receive the services and support they need; and finally, that federal and provincial governments recognize the dignity of same-sex couples by providing them with the legal right to marry and register those marriages the same way heterosexual couples marry and register their marriages.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Chamberlain, for seven minutes.

Mr. James Chamberlain (As Individual): Thank you. I make my comments as a kindergarten teacher, and I teach in Surrey, B.C.

I believe that Canada's youngest learners need to know about this concept of same-sex marriage and family within the context of the classroom. I know that for some adults same-sex marriage is a controversial issue, but children are much more understanding than their adult counterparts. Depending on their age and their personal circumstances, children are less apt to harbour hateful attitudes and positions towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, and I'll use the acronym LGBT for those four groups of people.

No child is born racist, sexist, or homophobic. If there's anything you can come away with today from my comments, it is that no child is born homophobic. These are learned behaviours, and same-sex marriage is not controversial for five- and six-year-olds. In my experience, they don't view same-gender relationships or homosexuality with disdain unless someone has taught them that, someone they know or love. Young children emulate their adult role models and the people who are around them. They knowingly or unknowingly mimic the adults in their lives and in time come to share some of the same values.

I was interested to hear the comments of Reverend Jung today because he commented that homosexuality was not normal, it was against human nature, it was not moral, it results in the destruction of family structure, and heterosexual marriage protects the sanity of our society.

My comments in the middle of the page of my brief are directly in opposition to that. It says LGBT people in their relationships are wrongly characterized by some as sick, immoral, disgusting, sinful, unhealthy, etc. These misguided adults who for whatever reasons strongly believe and vocally argue that LGBT people deserve second-class status are wrong.

Some people hold heterosexual marriage up on a pedestal as sacred and superior. Meanwhile, people in common-law, single-parent, non-traditional, or same-sex relationships are treated in exclusionary ways because they don't fit the narrow model of family some people think families should be.

I'm not going to read the section in my brief that makes reference to the Supreme Court of Canada's recent ruling against the Surrey school board regarding the banning of books about same-sex families, but I am going to draw your attention to two things, one at the bottom of page 1, and that is the last sentence. This is quoting the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada:

Religious views that deny equal recognition and respect to the members of a minority group cannot be used to exclude the concerns of the minority group.

Another statement she made in reference to the use of books in schools about same-sex families is on the question of age-appropriateness, whether five- and six-year-olds should be learning about same-sex families. The Supreme Court stated “Tolerance is always age-appropriate.”

I think the same message applies to the issue of same-sex marriage and granting couples same-sex marriage rights in Canada. Tolerance is always age-appropriate, tolerance is always appropriate, and I think this body and the larger body of our MPs in the House of Commons need to be tolerant and to move forth. If you don't, the courts will, and it's only a matter of time. You have a choice to be leaders or followers, and you'll make your own choice as time goes along.

Much of the opposition to same-sex marriage in contemporary Canadian society is made in the name of religion, and I would state that this does a disservice to many religious groups. Not every religious denomination is opposed to same-sex marriage or same-sex relationships, and some have recognized same-sex relationships for twenty to thirty years in their institution.

Whether you discuss marriage or simply the fact that some families have two moms or two dads, five- and six-year-old learners need to know that there are a variety of models existing in society and that all are equal in value.

· (1350)

In my kindergarten classroom I've heard the words “gay” and “fag” used, and I'm a teacher who questions children's concepts of right and wrong via teachable moments and direct and very forthright discussion. I tackle racism, sexism, and homophobia all in the same manner.

I've heard five-year-olds say with respect to the word “gay” when we talk about what that means--these are quotes from five- and six-year-olds in the brief--“It's so gross I can't say” and “Yuck. It means when two boys kiss each other.” And the third quote is, “It is when two men sleep together.”

I've only heard one student say it means when two men or two women love one another and live together. Most young children who have any comment on the word “gay” in the classroom use it in a negative or pejorative way, and they do that because they've heard it from older people in their families or from siblings or friends on the playground.

I ask that you as individuals challenge the negative stereotypes and hurtful rhetoric you hear that's used to denigrate LGBT people daily through this forum and through other forums, that you think critically and question the logic behind religious and cultural objections to same-sex marriage, that you envision a future where we have a society where people get positive information about same-sex families in school and society at large, and that you remember that no child is born homophobic. Homophobia, racism, and sexism are learned behaviours.

I have one final comment on registered domestic partnerships and civil unions. I believe they don't accord the same rights as those enjoyed by heterosexual people. They're cheap imitations and insulting to many in the LGBT community. Please think about how heterosexual people would react if the tables were turned and they were offered registered domestic partnerships or civil unions.

Thank you.

· (1355)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Toews, you have up to seven minutes.

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

We heard some testimony this morning from Dr. Allen, an economist, who talked about the harm that occurs to societies when we tamper with institutions, that we simply don't understand how they interact fully with the society at large.

He advised us in very strong terms, and his paper indicates:

I would suggest that the court respect one of the oldest institutions known to man,

--referring to the traditional concept of marriage--

since changing it could mean incredible suffering on a large scale.

He has cautioned us to be very careful before we move in this direction, before we tamper with such a fundamental institution.

Our own charter recognizes that certain interests are entitled to special protection or status, even though that means there is no identical treatment. For example, in the context of section 15 of the charter, we see references to affirmative action programs to protect women's interests, or to advance women's interests.

In the same way, I've heard testimony here today, as well as in other contexts, that the state has a special interest in maintaining the traditional institution of marriage. It has a very special context and significance.

Indeed, the Supreme Court of Canada, Justice La Forest speaking on behalf of the majority--three specifically agreed with his reasons, and Sopinka concurred in the majority result--specifically acknowledged the interest of the state in maintaining and keeping distinct the traditional definition or institution of marriage.

Given that we know so little about the possible consequences of tinkering with this fundamental institution, wouldn't it be appropriate that, rather than just charging along on an equal-means-identical treatment, we pause and consider where we're going on this particular issue and wait a period of time, as Justice Sopinka indicated in his judgment in the Egan decision, that we not proceed, nor is there any requirement for governments to proceed under the charter so as to achieve equality all at the same time, because we simply don't understand what the full ramifications are of this?

So perhaps to you, Ms. Brewin, is there a special interest that government can advance in protecting this institution?

Secondly, are we certain enough about what we're doing with this particular institution, given the history we've had with divorce and the impact of divorce and the “feminization of poverty”, as one witness put it here? Don't we have to worry about those kinds of things?

Ms. Alison Brewin: You have raised a number of important points.

The first thing I would say is that in this whole question we have to examine what we are protecting and who is actually changing the thing you are trying to protect. I would put to you that Parliament including same-sex couples isn't what is changing the institution of marriage; the institution is changing all on its own in recognition of the differences in our society, in recognition of the fact that children emerge outside the institution of marriage, and so on. So I would say that.

Secondly, you talk about treating people the same, as opposed to.... You're right. The Supreme Court has been very clear that people don't have to be treated exactly in the same way in order to achieve equality, in that it is acceptable to protect things. But what that speaks to is the protection of the rights of disadvantaged people, people who fall within the grounds, and analogous grounds, of section 15 of the charter.

In this case, West Coast LEAF and LEAF have been strong advocates for a substantive equality approach to all the laws and equality laws in our society. That approach says, in this case, if you want marriage to be something that is about two independent people coming together to form a family, then including same-sex couples is part of that substantive equality.

¸ (1400)

Mr. Vic Toews: Given the failings that marriage is going through--and we've heard some of these statistics now, that marriage is falling apart, given the high divorce rates, for example--and the importance of marriage in our society, doesn't that in fact speak to the whole issue that Parliament should be strengthening the traditional definition of marriage and the institution of marriage in order to preserve that institution, rather than making it so broad and general that it means everything to all people?

Ms. Alison Brewin: West Coast LEAF isn't suggesting you do that. I would suggest that the answer to the problem, if Parliament tries to somehow....

The answer to the problem you've raised of the breakdown of marriage, the feminization of poverty, is things like adequate legal representation, so that when marriage breaks down, people can actually know and assert their legal rights.

The answer would be to ensure that women can actually participate fully in economic development and activity. Pay equity would resolve that problem. There are a number of ways to resolve that problem. Forcing people to stay in marriages through the law will not ultimately do anything for women or the institution of marriage.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Toews.

Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

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

It is always odd to hear mention of the effects of divorce when we are talking here about marriage. For those who want to discuss divorce, there is Bill C-22, which is at present being studied by the House of Commons and which the committee will examine later on. I am perfectly prepared to talk about the effects of divorce with all sorts of people, but I believe that for the time- being we should concentrate on marriage and the consequences that might flow from the possibility for same-sex partners to marry.

I would like to put a few questions to Ms. Brewin. Someone stated here this morning that allowing same-sex partners to marry would devalue marriage in the eyes of society as a whole. Others have come to tell us that if homosexuals had the right to marry, that would completely remove the very essence of marriage, whatever the essence of marriage might be.

What answer do you give to people who say these things?

Ms. Alison Brewin: I must apologize, my French is not very good.

[English]

My response is an analogy. There was a time in our society when if a black person bought a house in a white neighbourhood, the white people in that neighbourhood complained and felt frustrated and upset that it devalued their neighbourhood and their properties. Frankly, I think we all understand that to be an unacceptable excuse for excluding black people from white neighbourhoods.

So I would say the people who are concerned about devaluing marriage should instead look to what makes them think same-sex couples are now less valuable.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: What answer do you give those who say that marriage has always been what it is?

My view, and I would like to hear your comments on this, is that marriage has changed over the course of time. Even if up until now marriage has mostly been between a man and a woman, at one time, marriage was a tool of diplomacy. Up until very recently, when a woman got married, she became once again in the eyes of the law a minor, as far as what she was allowed to do with her property. Before marriage, she was free to use her property as she deemed fit, but as soon as she got married, she fell under the control of her husband, who was the head of the household. That is no longer the case today.

Would you therefore agree with me in saying that marriage has not always been the same thing, that it has changed over time? Some people see this change as fundamental and state at the same time that it is just a small portion of the population that is homosexual, that it is but a progressive change in the nature of the definition of marriage and that the world will not stop turning even if homosexuals are given the right to marry, and that heterosexuals will go on getting married and having children.

¸ (1405)

[English]

Ms. Alison Brewin: Yes, I would definitely agree with you. I think it's very clear that marriage has changed substantially over the years. There was certainly a time in the U.S. when black slaves were not allowed to marry, and even if they did go through some kind of religious ceremony, their owners were free to separate them at will. There was a time in Canada when aboriginal women on reserves lost any status as Indians if they married non-natives.

Marriage has played different roles in society over the years. Without question, 100 years ago--not less than that--women had very few rights at all in marriage. In fact, the only time they were free and independent human beings was, frankly, if they were widowed.

The Chair: Thank you.

Now we go to Ms. Fry.

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

I would like Ms. Brewin to comment on some of the things we heard this morning from some of the groups. We have heard that having no-fault divorce is the reason we have so many divorces and that marriage has been devalued.

I would like to hear from you whether you think there are more complex reasons than that. I would think there are. I would think that in fact what divorce has done, instead of creating the feminization of poverty, has been to give women the ability to leave a marriage with some form of protection to their economic status. It has made women's lives marginally better than they were prior to divorce.

I would like you to comment on whether you think that removing no-fault divorce will necessarily stop people from getting a divorce. It seems to me you might stop people from getting married, if they feel they are entering into a legal contract from which there is no exit clause. The concept of divorce, for me, is a red herring.

With regard to equality of access under the law, what does the charter say about equality of access with regard to discrimination? Does discrimination truly mean you are denying or depriving persons or groups of the right to have equal economic and social opportunity, as same-sex couples would have if allowed to marry? Currently, because they are not allowed to marry, they are in a second-class status. They will always remain persons in a common-law union and therefore will not have the protection under the law. I'd like to hear your comment on that.

Finally, there is one thing I'd like to ask. I know LEAF has a long history of looking at equality issues. It seems to me it was only in 1927 that women in this country.... When the question of women as persons was brought to the Privy Council of Canada or the Supreme Court of Canada, they denied women the right to be persons. It was the Privy Council of England that allowed them the right to be persons in 1929.

The argument then, as at any stage of a fight for equality where access is denied, was if women had the ability to vote and to work, if they had equal status, what would happen to children? It would create an absolute mess and you would have to create special provisions for them.

And I heard today that equality would create a problem because we would have to create special provisions for same-sex couples, given that women and men--when we talked about their equality, women are definitely different, physiologically, anatomically, and psychologically. It meant you had to accommodate equality for women.

Now, I would like to ask you about accommodation of equality for same-sex couples.

¸ (1410)

Ms. Alison Brewin: I think the persons case you mention was actually about whether women could be in the Senate--white women who had property. The question of anyone else came later.

You started off asking about the role of divorce. I also agree that there will be opportunity to talk about divorce in the context of Bill C-22.

The impact of domestic violence is experienced largely by women at the hands of their husbands. The truth is, if women don't have an opportunity to leave those kinds of relationships, if it becomes far more complex for women to get away from a marriage, it is a problem for women. It will not meet the needs of women.

In terms of what discrimination means, there is a duty to accommodate. The Meiorin case spoke to this in a workplace situation. It was about firefighting and the right of a particular woman to do that job. The test to be a firefighter had no relevant connection to the actual doing of the job; it was based on male physiology. The court said there's a duty to accommodate women if there is no rational connection between the test and the job.

It's not just about access. It's about being able to participate fully in society. It's not just access to benefits; there's a recognition. In this situation, I'm not sure how much accommodation would be necessary. I would think the accommodation in this case is allowing same-sex couples to marry. It doesn't seem to go much beyond that, frankly.

Ms. Hedy Fry: We heard this morning from an economist that there was going to have to be a major accommodation.

Ms. Alison Brewin: In what?

Ms. Hedy Fry: In that two women and two men bring different characteristics to a marriage than those brought by a man and a woman.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Fry.

Ms. Alison Brewin: Well, that's interesting. From a completely anecdotal, personal sort of response to that, my experience of heterosexual, gay, and lesbian couples is that when two independent people come together they are going to bring different things to the marriage.

There are men who are incredibly compassionate, incredible child care providers, nurturers. There are women who are really good at business. That seems to be an unrealistic analysis of what people bring to marriage.

The Chair: Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

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

I would like to address my questions to Mr. Chamberlain, whose point of view is rather different from what we have heard to date. We often hear talk about the acceptance by the children, the effects on the children and all of the rest.

If I understand correctly, your message to us today is that if we allow same-sex partners to marry, the signal given to society as a whole with regard to the acceptance of difference, which is more than simple tolerance, will bring about great changes not only in the lives of the children you work with but in all of Canadian society. That could change much more than the simple situation of homosexual couples; it might change all of society by making it more open and generous.

Am I right in drawing this from your message?

[English]

Mr. James Chamberlain: Yes, I would agree with you.

To comment on that, children from same-sex families in the public school system, and their parents, often feel they must hide the fact that they are part of a same-sex family because of fear of bullying or intimidation or derision or being treated differently or negatively in some way. Often in same-sex families one parent will bring the child to school while the other parent will remain anonymous. The teacher may think there's only one parent, that it's a single-parent family, and they won't even identify it as a same-sex family.

In my experience--and I have taught in many different schools--after I left one school, three families told me their children had two aunts or two uncles who were in same-sex relationships. They were fearful to tell me that, and I'm very supportive of same-sex families. But they were afraid of how it might be construed within the school community if people knew their children had same-sex couples as part of their extended family.

I think it's very important that same-sex families be recognized through the institution of marriage and also within the school system. I do agree with you that it would be sending a message of acceptance to all Canadians. I think it's important that young learners and adults have the message that it doesn't matter whether you have two moms, two dads, a mom and a dad, live with your mom or with your grandparents. It doesn't matter what form of family you come from, as long as the adults in your family are loving, caring people who are nurturing and are raising you as best they can. That's the most important thing about families. The common message, irrespective of who the parent figures are within a family, is that they love you and care for you. It doesn't matter whether it's two women, two men, or a man and a woman.

¸ (1415)

The Chair: Mr. Macklin.

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

Reverend Jung, in the course of listening to your testimony I was reflecting on whether you, as a Christian looking at the homosexual community, could find it in your heart to see homosexual unions at least raise themselves within our society in terms of respect, or do you believe that's not possible, as you view it?

The Reverend Stephen Jung (Vancouver Christian Renewal Fellowship): I believe it is possible. But the harm will be done to the children. As psychologists and sociologists will testify, for any children deprived of a father or mother figure, it will create a sort of schizophrenic influence in their life.

That's why I have no objection for them to live together. But if you make it legal, the harm that would be done...that is what I'm concerned about.

We think we are civilized, but the rest of the world doesn't think so, especially the Muslim world. They consider us as evil as Satan.

One other thing. All the things we are being taught.... As the teacher testified, everything is being taught. Even right now we are being taught political correctness. We are being taught whatever. But in my conscience and in my heart, if I love someone...I accept homosexuals. The thing is, we have to consider the damage.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: From your perspective, is the damage in allowing an all-inclusive marriage, or do you see that we might be able to accommodate rights, at least in a parallel system, that would accommodate homosexual couples?

Rev. Stephen Jung: I expressed that they have the right. But immediately it is legalized, that means that I, as a pastor, have to perform that union in marriage. If I don't, I'll be sued.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: I'd like to suggest, at least in looking at the charter, that you do have some protection clearly stated under section 2, and I think you.... I don't think this is a question, at least at the moment, about preserving the right of religions to make that decision. I think what we are really talking about is where the state should come into play in terms of looking at the social consequences of dealing with such an issue on the broad scale, not necessarily interfering with your right to choose who you would marry within your church.

¸ (1420)

The Chair: Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Reverend Jung, are you aware of any judgment or situation--I will use the Catholic Church as an example, because it is the one I am the most familiar with--where the Church was sued because it refused to ordain women as priests or refused to marry divorcees?

[English]

Rev. Stephen Jung: Yes, if same-sex marriage is legalized and a same-sex couple requests me to perform marriage and I refuse, they have the right to sue me.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Let me tell you that today the Catholic Church refuses to ordain women as priests and that it has the right to do so. The Catholic Church continues to refuse to marry divorcees and, to my knowledge, no one has ever sued the Church and no one has succeeded through legal means in forcing the Church to marry divorcees.

Therefore, on what legal basis can you state that if, based upon your dogma, you refuse to marry same-sex partners, you will sued, whereas as I have just explained to you, there have not yet been any such situations?

[English]

Rev. Stephen Jung: It's because it hasn't come into effect as law. But when it becomes law, they can exercise their legal rights. We haven't faced that kind of situation yet, so I cannot answer that.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: No, but the cases of women priests and divorcees are well known. This is in the law at present. The Catholic Church does not allow this.

[English]

Rev. Stephen Jung: It's because the law did not require the church to ordain women. If the state makes a law that the church has to ordain women and a church does not observe the law, it can be sued. But we don't have that law.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I would tell you that the Charter prohibits discrimination between men and women.

I will now move on to my final question because it is a short one. The Quebec Civil Code states black on white in section 367 that a minister, whatever his religion, cannot be forced to carry out a ceremony that goes against the dogma of his faith.

If ever the committee were to suggest the possibility for same-sex partners to marry, would you be in favour of the passage of a clause such as the one I have described in order that, precisely, out of respect for your faith and for other dogmas that hold the same beliefs as you, your religious freedom be clarified and protected, although it is to my mind already protected, but in order for it to be more so?

[English]

Rev. Stephen Jung: It is clear, but according to my own conscience, belief, and faith, I cannot do it.

The Chair: Thank you.

I'll go to Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: For what it's worth, I agree with Reverend Jung. He has a reasonable apprehension.

Ms. Brewin, you're quite dogmatic in your submission that provincial and federal governments must provide same-sex couples with the same opportunity and right to marry as enjoyed by heterosexual couples. If Parliament doesn't do it, the courts will do it for you.

Essentially the argument is that the gays are discriminated against because they are denied the fundamental right to marry. My recollection of fundamental rights has something to do with the social traditions and legal history of a country.

Aren't we really talking more about the criteria for marriage? As an analogy, in order to exercise your fundamental right to vote you have to be over 18 and a citizen of the country. In this particular instance, in order to exercise your “right to marry” you have to meet certain age requirements. You have to meet certain consanguinity requirements. You can only have one valid marriage at a time, and you have to be opposite sex. So we're really not talking about rights; we're talking about the requirements to exercise a right.

We've spent a lot of time here having various legal groups come before this committee and tell us essentially this is a done deal and a rights-based analysis. But I respectfully suggest to you we are not talking about rights; we're talking about the requirements to exercise a right.

We're getting into a lot of false analogies. One is the Loving case, which is trumpeted as a bad example. I suggest that if you do the analysis you'll find the court said there were no impediments to interracial marriage. They met the age requirements, the consanguinity requirements, the opposite sex requirements, etc. That's kind of a false analogy that's been put before us here.

So I put to you that your argument is essentially a requirements argument rather than a rights argument.

¸ (1425)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McKay.

Ms. Brewin.

Ms. Alison Brewin: I never at any point said the right to marry was a fundamental human right. I would have to consult with our lawyers before I used that language. I think it is a right under our charter, without question in my mind, obviously.

Your question is a good one and I think it goes to the whole issue Dr. Fry raised about the access to rights. You are right that what we're talking about here is access to the benefits of marriage.

On the things you list as the criteria, if we look at each one of them and ask if there is a rational connection between the criteria and the goal, and the right and the benefits you access because of those criteria, then the Loving case for one, among others, says that if there is a rational connection, things like section 1 of our charter and other controls over our equality rights kick in.

To me the things you list...there is a rational reason for rules about brothers marrying sisters, but I don't see any rational reason to exclude same-sex couples.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Our time is up. I want to thank the panel for their comments and for informing us. I want to thank members of the committee for racing to say hello. I'm going to suspend for three minutes to allow the next panel to come forward.

¸ (1429)

¸ (1435)

The Chair: I'd like to call back to order the 29th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights as we are undertaking our study into same-sex union.

For the next hour we have as witnesses, as an individual, Robin Alys Roberts; from the Queen's Empire Group, Dennis Jones; and as individuals, Dawn Barbeau and Elizabeth Barbeau.

Some of you at least have been here long enough to know the rules now, but you have seven minutes. I will indicate when you hit six minutes by showing you one minute left. When you're finished, I will give you time's up. If I start doing it frantically, that means your time is really up.

I'm going to go first to Robin Alys Roberts.

Ms. Robin Alys Roberts (As Individual): Thank you for this opportunity. I value your willingness to listen with open hearts and open minds to my views on why equal marriage for same-sex couples is the only viable option to choose in this cross-country hearing.

I was wishing that my partner could be here today, and because she can't I have brought a photograph of her, along with photos of my family, which I would like to pass out. Perhaps you could take a look at it while I'm talking.

My family consists of my partner Diana, with whom I got together almost 20 years ago when she was 40, I was 36, and among our children, Josh was 4, Clio was 5, Angus was 13, and Alex was 16.

Nineteen and a half years ago I almost lost the love of my life to suicide. Fortunately for me and for our children, Diana managed to stop from steerin