WHAT'S HAPPENING AT THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, Part 2

Meetings 11 - 21

The Legislative Committee on Bill C-38 is now hearing from witnesses. For the latest information on what's happening at the Committee, including upcoming meetings, click here.



TRANSCRIPTS AND HIGHLIGHTS OF PAST MEETINGS

Hansard: Legislative Committee on Bill C-38, Meeting 11

Meeting 11: June 2, 2005, 18:03 - 20:08

Witnesses
- Karen Cohen (Associate Executive Director and Registrar, Canadian Psychological Association)
- Khurrum Awan (Member, Canadian Islamic Congress)
- Ted Seres (National Coordinator, Specialized Ministries, Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada)
- David M. Brown (As an Individual, Barrister and Solicitor)

Excerpt from Testimony by Ms. Cohen [Equal Marriage Supporter]
As has also been publicly cited by our colleagues of the American Psychological Association, psychological research shows that gay men and lesbians value committed relationships. Same-sex couples score comparably to heterosexual couples on measures of relationship quality. Lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children. The development of sexual identity, personality, and social relationships develop similarly in children of homosexual and heterosexual parents.

Although the sexual orientation of their parents does not result in psychological impairment in children, the stigma and isolation these families may experience as the result of public and systemic prejudice and discrimination may in fact cause distress.

Beliefs that gay and lesbian adults are not fit parents or that the psychosocial development of the children of gay and lesbian parents is compromised have no basis in science. Our position is based on a review representing approximately 50 empirical studies and at least another 50 articles and book chapters and does not rest on the results of any one study. These articles appear in such journals as: Developmental Psychology; Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry; American Psychologist; Marriage & Family Review; the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry; and the journals of family relations, sex roles, and social work.

Excerpt from Testimony by Mr. Awan [Equal Marriage Opponent]
Among other changes we would like to see made to Bill C-38, we would like to see it amended in order to provide an explicit differentiation in the age limit for traditional marriage and same-sex civil unions. In our view, the current age limit of 16, which applies to civil unions, is inadequate, since due to biological and social realities, it usually takes longer for individuals to define and grow comfortable in their sexuality away from the heterosexual norm.
[...]
Our final submission today relates to the view that preserving the traditional definition of marriage may require the use of section 33, also known as the override or notwithstanding power provided in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Excerpt from Testimony by Mr. Seres [Equal Marriage Opponent]
Let me comment briefly on monogamy in marriage. Marriage reflects the monogamous model of a relationship of cohabitation. Marital fidelity is what is most common in traditional marriage and in fact is foundational to the maintenance of the relationship. To a large extent, fidelity is not present in homosexual relationships.

Excerpt from Testimony by Mr. Brown [Equal Marriage Opponent]
The second big legal implication is that by passing this bill and by buying into the concept of equality that underpins the bill, you're going to shackle your legislative hands over the next two decades. The courts have made it clear that procreation is no longer an essential component of marriage, and they have indicated that procreation cannot be a legitimate basis for distinction.

---

Hansard: Legislative Committee on Bill C-38, Meeting 12

Meeting 12: June 6, 2005, 15:32 - 17:37

Witnesses
- Daniel Cere (As an individual, Professor, McGill University, Institute for the Study of Marriage Law and Culture)
- Chris Kempling (As an individual)
- Alan Brudner (As an individual)
- Jonas Ma (President, Chinese Canadian National Council)

Excerpt from Testimony by Mr. Cere [Equal Marriage Opponent]
The implications for marriage. The courts and the governments are proposing to strip down the public meaning of marriage and reduce it to a couple-centred bond geared to the intimacy needs of adults. Three core elements disappear: bridging sex difference, procreation, and the role of marriage in connecting children to their natural parents.

Excerpt from Testimony by Mr. Kempling [Equal Marriage Opponent]
I happen to be a professional in the public school system who also happens to be a sincere and devout Christian, and I've grown increasingly concerned since 1996, when it all got started, about the intention, it seems, to normalize homosexual behaviour in the public school system. The marriage bill is, I guess, the latest step in that process.

Excerpt from Testimony by Mr. Brudner [Equal Marriage Opponent]
Nevertheless, the state has an interest in channelling sexual activity that can produce children into stable relationships where the children will be properly cared for. Since the state has no duty to recognize conjugal unions at all, it has no duty to go beyond what its interest requires. Conjugal unions between same-sex couples, while just as valuable as those of heterosexual couples, don't engage the state's channelling interest, because unlike heterosexual couples, they can't beget children independently of state involvement and supervision.

Excerpt from Testimony by Mr. Ma [Equal Marriage Supporter]
In respecting our mandate, the Chinese Canadian National Council has worked towards the protection of equality rights for all Canadians, including different minority groups such as the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered communities. There are also gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered Chinese Canadians. Over the past decade, the council has worked with them, their families, and other supportive groups to promote understanding and to fight against homophobia within our community and in the general public.

As you may know, the Chinese Canadian community was subject to 62 years of legislative discrimination under the Chinese head tax and the Chinese Exclusion Act. It was not until 1947 that the discriminatory legislation was repealed. It took us a long time and a lot of courage and determination to win our equality rights. Our community understands how important equality rights are and how easily they can be attacked. We were reminded again of this as recently as two years ago, during the SARS outbreaks in Toronto, when our community was targeted.

For these reasons, we are committed to defending the protection under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The charter provides guarantees for all minority groups to safeguard their rights. If these rights are weakened or challenged for any group, other minority groups can be equally vulnerable to the erosion of their rights. The charter is also a cornerstone of what our nation stands for. Many members of our community came to Canada over the last two decades because they wanted to live in a country where their rights and their children's rights were protected. Some may be afraid that giving equality rights to sexual minorities on the matter of marriage will weaken the values they believe in. The bill and the advice from the Supreme Court has provided reassurance that this fear is not grounded in fact. In fact, we should be more afraid of the consequence of overriding the equality rights of individuals who are different from us.

---

Hansard: Legislative Committee on Bill C-38, Meeting 13

Meeting 13: June 6, 2005, 18:12 - 20:08

Witnesses
- Joseph Ben-Ami (As an Individual)
- Elizabeth Bowen (Past President, Canadian Unitarian Council)
- Brian Kopke, The Reverend (First Unitarian Congregation of Ottawa, Canadian Unitarian Council)
- Fred Henry (Bishop, Roman Catholic Diocese of Calgary)

Excerpt from Testimony by Mr. Ben-Ami [Equal Marriage Opponent]
Mr. Chairman, it must be said that marriage is not simply a descriptive relationship between two human beings. It is, if I may be permitted to borrow a term used by my Catholic friends, a sacrament, the blessing bestowed by God upon that relationship. It is a uniquely religious institution, a symbol of divinity. To the extent that this is so, it's impossible to argue that entering into the institution of marriage itself is a fundamental human right, nor indeed does the objective evidence support the argument that it is.

Excerpt from Testimony by Ms. Bowen [Equal Marriage Supporter]
Many opposed to equal marriage have implied that all religions are on their side. On the contrary, faiths across the country are dismayed when the religious view is appropriated by strident voices that stand in opposition to this human right. In April of this year, these faiths formed the Religious Coalition for Equal Marriage Rights and issued a powerful statement upholding the rights of same-sex couples to marry. In part, this statement reads:

Bill C-38 respects diversity and tolerance and grants religious freedom to clergy and religious groups to make their own choice whether to perform ceremonies equally for all loving adult couples. Given that there are religious groups who sincerely believe it is right to offer marriage to same-sex couples, the government must not support the imposition of conservative religious views that restrict marriage to only opposite-sex couples.


We support the right of clergy and religious groups to celebrate legally binding same-sex religious marriages, if they so choose. We are proud to witness to the growing number of religious communities and clergy in Canada working to ensure that lesbians and gay men are fully included and supported in their choices to form loving, lasting partnerships, build families, and contribute to Canadian society.

So who are the members of this coalition? They include the United Church of Canada; the Canadian Unitarian Council; the Canadian Friends Service Committee; Canadian Rabbis for Equal Marriage; the Muslim Canadian Congress; Church of the Holy Trinity (Anglican) in Toronto; the Apostolic Society of Franciscan Communities--Canada; and Saint Padre Pio Congregational Catholic Community in Toronto; and also the Metropolitan Community Churches in Canada; Ahavat Olam Synagogue in Vancouver; the World Sikh Organization; and individual members of Buddhist, Catholic, first nations, Hindu, and Mennonite religious communities.

Excerpt from Testimony by Mr. Kopke [Equal Marriage Supporter]

As a minority, the right of Unitarians to practise their religion has not always been protected here in Canada. As a church, we have offered gay and lesbian couples holy unions, sanctified by the church, but with no recognition, by the province or under the charter, as a wedding. It is sad to operate outside the law, not illegally, but outside the law's embrace.
[...]
It is our belief that any God would call us to bring all people into the circle of acceptance and love. Holy unions and supporting the passage of Bill C-38 are part of that call.
[...]
There was hysteria when women were given the vote. There was hysteria when blacks were given the vote. There was hysteria when Chinese men were allowed to marry white women. Alas, all hysteria has died down, and we live together as one. And it works.

Bill C-38 continues the trend and makes Canada a bit closer to the dream of a multicultural nation.

Excerpt from Testimony by Mr. Henry [Equal Marriage Opponent]
Claims of a right to same-sex marriage are not the slam dunk Mr. Cotler thinks they are. The so-called marriage act, as understood in ordinary language, refers to the unique act of sexual intimacy involving intercourse between a man and a woman. In spite of Clinton-esque interpretations of sexual acts, the ordinary usage remains entrenched in language. The so-called marriage act is not possible in same-sex relations. The acts in these relations are vastly different in origin, in real experience, and in goals.

---

Hansard: Legislative Committee on Bill C-38, Meeting 14

Meeting 14: June 7, 2005, 15:31 - 17:29

Witnesses
- Diz Dichmont (As an Individual)
- Doug Farrow (As an Individual)
- Cecil Patey (As an Individual)
- Ted Morton (As an Individual)

Excerpt from Testimony by Mrs. Dichmont [Equal Marriage Opponent]
I'm not quite sure why I was invited. I suppose it was because I was one of the commissioners who resigned when I was told that I either had to take same-sex marriages or resign, which is what I did, not with any prejudice at all. I have many homosexual friends, but I did not feel comfortable conducting something that would not have my heart in it, without any prejudice at all.

So I'm not quite sure why there is such a demand to have a technical marriage, and I'd be happy to have that explained. I can see it as an equality right, and I think there should be something in the way of an opportunity of a ceremony. But as the norm has been for millennia in all cultures that marriage is a two-gender bond, I don't see that it's a human right. I see it as an equality right, and that can certainly be offered.

Excerpt from Testimony by Mr. Farrow [Equal Marriage Opponent]
For my part, I deny both the deficiency and the dogma, the dogma of this new Canada, and I reject the ungodly haste with which this dogma is being forced upon us in the form of a piece of legislation that hasn't a leg to stand on, though it has ten horns on its head. Before you wrap up these hearings on 14 June, I recommend both to you and to Mr. Cotler that you pause and reflect on the message of Shavuot. This bill does not need amending. It is an amendment, a preposterous amendment that ought to be killed.

Excerpt from Testimony by Mr. Patey [Equal Marriage Opponent]
It is too clever by half for Mr. Cotler to think he can expropriate the common language for civil weddings and compel us to accept what he wants us to call homosexual marriage. Rather, I would say, let the law reflect the tradition, our tradition, that marriage licences or wedding banns be offered only to opposite-sex couples. Hey, when the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, call me back here to reconsider the matter.
[...]
For a generation, in the name of an undiscriminating tolerance, we the citizenry put up with this disorientation. All this legal tinkering with such a key word devalues the currency of marriage for us all, so we have forgotten, my friends, that marriage is really the name of the honour we ascribe to heterosexual union. Let's get back to, “Honour thy father and mother”, for instance. This is not as good as mom and pop.

Excerpt from Testimony by Mr. Morton [Equal Marriage Opponent]
We already have examples of zealous human rights commissions forcing faith-based schools to conform to same-sex norms—with, of course, the full support of the courts. So much for religious freedom. Freedom of speech on this topic has already been sacrificed on the altar of anti-hate speech legislation passed last year by this Parliament.

Aided and abetted by the courts, the human rights movement, of which the gay rights activists have become the most zealous column, are dismantling the very institutions that have made this country a free and democratic society.

---

Hansard: Legislative Committee on Bill C-38, Meeting 15

Meeting 15: June 8, 2005, 15:30 - 17:38

Witnesses
- Évangéline Caldwell (Spokesperson, Coalition québécoise pour la reconnaissance des conjoints et conjointes de même sexe)
- Mr. Claude Côté (Member, Coalition québécoise pour la reconnaissance des conjoints et conjointes de même sexe)
- Peter D. Lauwers (As an Individual, Lawyer, Miller Thomson LLP.)
- Michael Brown (Member, Public Advocacy Office, Agudath Israel of Toronto, Vaad Harabbonim of Toronto)

Excerpt from Testimony by Ms. Caldwell [Equal Marriage Supporter]
We have come today to talk to you about the Canadian reality in 2005. We know now that it is with considerable ease that civil marriages for same-sex couples have become part of the social fabric here in Canada. Furthermore, we know that freedom of religion is respected, because no religion that refuses to marry same-sex couples has been forced to do so. In fact, we are moving forward today on the basis of a consensus, which is that every religion has a right to decide whether or not it will perform marriages for same-sex couples. That is also the position of the Coalition québécoise.

This is something we know to be a fact, because it is a Canadian reality we have been experiencing for two years already. I am not talking here about potentialities, but rather, of facts. We have defeated discrimination that placed gays and lesbians in a position of inferiority, while respecting religious freedoms. However, the sky has not fallen in. In actual fact, other than greater equality for all citizens that are part of Canadian society, there have been very few changes.

Talking about the joys of equality is essential, but we also have to talk about our wounds. We have to tell you about our hope and our despair. And we especially need to talk about our love.

My colleague, Mr. Côté, has found the words to express those sentiments. I would like to turn it over to him now, and thank you for your kind attention.

Excerpt from Testimony by Mr. Côté [Equal Marriage Supporter]
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen parliamentarians, gays and lesbians are the only group in Canada which does not enjoy the same rights as other Canadian citizens. Furthermore, there is no other community in Canada, in 2005, that is so overtly the subject of social and systemic discrimination with the consent of such a large segment of the population.

Even today, young people who exhibit behaviour or a personality associated with homosexual stereotypes, or who early on have the courage to come out are subjected to insults and sarcasm, physical and psychological harassment, in both the classroom and the school yard, and yet educators do not step in to defend them or to put a stop to this kind of unfairness. Others are literally thrown out of their family home because they opened up to their parents and revealed their identity to those who are supposed to love them more than anyone in the world. Some of these young people try to survive as best they can, often dropping out of school and, in so doing, abandoning any chance of a better future. Others accept the devastating verdict that people in their entourage have handed them, and turn that homophobia and these expressions of hate back at themselves, ending their own lives. The fact is this is one of the major taboos of our society.
[...]
Finally, gays and lesbians are still the victims of often random psychological and physical violence, in some cases leading to disability and death, simply because they are different. We could hardly believe our ears and our eyes when some Canadian parliamentarians rose in the House last year to say that these were crimes just like any other and that there was no need to try and tackle the systemic and societal roots of this behaviour.

Gays and lesbians, and particularly people of my generation and of the one before it, grew up thinking that they didn't deserve to love and be loved. When some of us did manage to get around that lie and find someone to love, Canadians, and among them far too many parliamentarians, told us that we should not have the right to have that love recognized, celebrated and sanctioned by our own state, our own government. The simple fact of our falling in love with a person of the same sex is enough, in their view, to disqualify us and exclude us from one of the oldest and most fundamental institutions of our society—civil marriage. They wrongly assert that a marriage relationship involving gays and lesbians who wish to marry is not as true, as pure, as loving, as committed and as meaningful as a marriage relationship between people of the opposite sex.

Excerpt from Testimony by Mr. Lauwers [Equal Marriage Opponent]
Is it appropriate to expose adolescents, who may be experiencing a rush of hormones and a degree of sexual confusion, to practices and lifestyle choices that might tempt them? Is it unreasonable to allow the moral weight of the school to be used in this way to undermine the faith and values that parents teach at home?

For parents, the real issue is this. Is it the role of the school to support the family or is it the role of the school to undermine the family? These are not small issues. The prospect is raised in a new way by Bill C-38 because it seeks to redefine a fundamental institution in Canadian society that represents the foundation of family life for many Canadians.

Excerpt from Testimony by Mr. Brown [Equal Marriage Opponent]
In this instance, your government's conundrum is born of an unelected activist court seemingly bent on re-engineering the moral values of our society. We consider ourselves true Canadians, proud of our country and its values, values that are sourced in deep and ancient wisdom and which we aspire to transmit to our children, the future citizens of this great land.

---

Hansard: Legislative Committee on Bill C-38, Meeting 16

Meeting 16: June 8, 2005, 18:47 - 20:48

Witnesses
- Joanne Cohen, Coordinator, Coalition of Canadian Liberal Rabbis
- Katherine K. Young, As an Individual, Professor, McGill University
- Bruce Goertzen, As an Individual

Excerpt from Testimony by Ms. Cohen [Equal Marriage Supporter]
In the Jewish tradition, we have an expression, “We should meet on happier occasions”.
[...]
We submit that we support the right of Jewish same-sex couples to celebrate religious same-sex marriage ceremonies, duly recognized in Canadian law. We support the right of interfaith and non-Jewish same-sex couples to obtain binding civil same-sex marriages that are portable and recognized across Canada and duly recognized in Canadian law. We support the right of rabbis and their congregations to celebrate a marriage between a same-sex couple, if they so choose, and we protect their autonomy in this regard. Various rabbis and various congregations have their own policies and procedures on this. We similarly support the right of other religious denominations and their clergy to make their own determinations and to have their autonomy respected. We support the right of interfaith and non-Jewish same-sex couples to obtain binding civil same-sex marriages in city halls, for example, across the country, duly recognized in Canadian law.

Right now, our rabbis in Toronto and Montreal, and in B.C. and other provinces, or in seven provinces and territories in Canada, can perform same-sex marriages, but we have rabbis and couples in Alberta whose families and interests are also affected by this legislation. If our couples married in Toronto and then moved to Alberta, their marriages and relationships would not be recognized. Accordingly, our religious freedoms, our equality rights, and our human dignity, as in Law v. Canada, continue to be negatively affected. It remains painful to us and members of the gay and lesbian community that we repeatedly have to come before the government to defend our very lives, which are being negatively affected by the stigma of homophobia, as thinly veiled in many of the presentations you've had from other witnesses.

Excerpt from Testimony by Ms. Young [Equal Marriage Opponent]
Here is another problem. Canadian courts have dismissed the risks for children, let alone acknowledged that the rights of gay adults are in conflict with those of children. The analysis of risk found in the affidavits for Halpern, for instance, was dismissed by the judges as mere speculation or advocacy. I suggest this indicates serious negligence.

Excerpt from Testimony by Ms. Goertzen [Equal Marriage Opponent]
Besides holding the position I've just named, I'm one of the many Canadians who truly means and believes the words of Canada's national anthem. In the anthem it states clearly that we ask God to keep our land. If we can be so bold as to ask God to keep our land, should we not pay him the respect of following his teachings on such things as marriage? The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states, “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law”. Again I must ask, should we not keep God's laws and teachings?

My religious convictions, as a person who has accepted Jesus Christ as my personal lord, master, and saviour, call me to follow the teachings of God's word. I believe God's word is clear in Genesis chapter 2, verse 24: “For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” Thus my personal religious beliefs come in conflict with Bill C-38 and the Saskatchewan justice department.

---

Hansard: Legislative Committee on Bill C-38, Meeting 17

Meeting 17: June 9, 2005, 15:31 - 17:35

Witnesses
- Nicole Dufour, Lawyer, Research and Legislation Service, Barreau du Québec
- Eva Petras, Lawyer, Barreau du Québec
- Kevin Kisilowsky, As an Individual
- David Novak, As an Individual, University of Toronto
- Roy Beyer, Operations Director, Defend Marriage Coalition
- Charles McVety, Senior Director, Defend Marriage Coalition

Excerpt from Testimony by Ms. Dufour and Ms. Petras [Equal Marriage Supporters]
In our contemporary society, homosexual couples increasingly want public recognition of their commitment to each other, just as married couples of opposite genders do. This solution meets their expectations. In social and legal terms, we have arrived at this level of understanding. The development of our society has meant that the ideal of equality in this area is accepted. Since civil marriage retains all its legal effect, contrary to the previous civil union solution or other solutions, it could suffice in the absence of religious marriage. In addition, religious officials will not be required to officiate at marriages of same-sex couples if this is not in accordance with their moral or religious beliefs. In Quebec, a similar provision has been included in the Civil Code of Quebec—article 367—under the reform that came into effect in January 1994.

Excerpt from Testimony by Ms. Kisilowsky [Equal Marriage Opponent]
I speak to you today not only as a fourth-generation Canadian, but as a human being whose life has been transformed by Jesus Christ, the living God. He is the way, the truth, and the life. He has lived in me for the past eight years of my 35 years here on earth. His presence is the sole explanation for whatever is praiseworthy and all that I do in this life.
[...]
I have seen many of you in the media holding that charter close to your chest and making same-sex marriage a rights issue. I tend to agree, but not for the reasons that some of you have given. The bill only continues to violate the rights of Canadians with a moral conscience and/or religious conviction. Why is this federal government so bent on stripping away my religious rights and freedoms only to hand them over to a small group of people who have never lost their rights in the first place?

Excerpt from Testimony by Mr. Novak [Equal Marriage Opponent]
In this universal definition of “marriage”, the commandment “Be fruitful and multiply” applies to all humans. This commandment is discovered through human experience and is known by human reason. It does not require affirmation of the historical revelation of any particular religious tradition. Human beings can only be procreated by some sort of sexual union between a woman and a man. In the overwhelming number of cases, that union is an act of bodily intercourse between a consenting woman and a consenting man. Furthermore, the commandment is not just to conceive children, but for the heterosexual couple to form a lasting union designed to build a family in which the raising of children is its main, although not exclusive, purpose. The birth and rearing of children by both their natural parents is in the best interest of society. That is why heterosexual marriage deserves the approval and encouragement of secular society. Now more than ever, considering among other things the seriously low birth rate of Canadians, our political institutions should be actively distinguishing the type of marriage that obviously is best able to provide the type of familial identity desired by the great majority of Canadians.

Excerpt from Testimony by Mr. Beyer [Equal Marriage Opponent]
Again, we do have concerns, of course, not just in terms of the substance, but also in terms of the process of this bill, as it's moved through Parliament. The flaw with Bill C-38, first of all, in terms of substance, is that it seeks to redefine an institution that has deep, deep roots in tradition and history and in all major world religions. It creates an unnecessary cultural conflict. I say “unnecessary” because other nations in the world who are credible and have wonderful track records on human rights have wrestled with the same question of how to extend the legitimate rights of homosexuals while at the same time respecting rights to religious freedom. This is exactly the kind of conflict we now have before us.

Excerpt from Testimony by Mr. McVety [Equal Marriage Opponent]
If this bill does become law, remember that the law is universal. It is for everyone in the country; it is not just for a special interest. This law will be imposed on every single member of our society. We see this as clever legislation that attempts to ghettoize people of faith. We see this legislation as an attack on our freedom. We see this legislation as an attack on our right to participate in democracy.

---

Hansard: Legislative Committee on Bill C-38, Meeting 18

Meeting 18: June 9, 2005, 18:02 - 20:12

Witnesses
- Mike Hogeterp, Research and Communications Coordinator, Committee for Contact with the Government, Christian Reformed Churchs in Canada
- Christina Pleizier, Co-Chair, Committee for Contact with the Government, Christian Reformed Churchs in Canada
- Gerald Chipeur, As an Individual
- Paul D. Faris, Executive Director and Senior Legal Counsel, Home School Legal Defence Association
- Bill Johnstone, As an Individual

Excerpt from Testimony by Mr. Hogeterp & Ms. Pleizier [Equal Marriage Opponent]
By altering marriage, the state oversteps its bounds. Justice and equality do not, in our view, require a uniform definition of marriage. Instead, justice requires a thorough recognition of, and legal equality and protection for, varying forms of interdependent relationships.

We believe, then, that civil union is a more appropriate way for the state to recognize and address needs that are experienced in committed same-sex relationships. The preamble of Bill C-38 of course says that civil unions are a separate but equal designation, one that violates section 15 of the charter. But the separate but equal argument in this context reveals a foundational assumption, that equality is sameness. This has implications for diversity and equality that need to be explored much more carefully than this declaration, “separate but equal”, has allowed.

Excerpt from Testimony by Mr. Chipeur [Equal Marriage Opponent]
The second recommendation that I would like to leave with this committee is that the committee consider amending Bill C-38 to include a provision that would make it a criminal offence for a provincial, municipal, or school board authority to interfere with the freedom of expression of a citizen of Canada. This is a model that was followed in the United States in the 1960s, when individuals in the south were persecuted by public officials because of their race.

Excerpt from Testimony by Mr. Faris [Equal Marriage Opponent]
On the issue of freedom of religion, I doubt that anyone would question the position that all people should be free to conduct their lives as they think best, but the difficulty arises when two people's beliefs are mutually exclusive. Most would agree that the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, as the Honourable Pierre Trudeau stated, but this issue becomes more complex when gay couples seek societal recognition and approval of their choices. This takes us to the heart of the issue, which is not whether people should be able to live the lives they choose, rather, whether they should be able to force society to approve and celebrate those lifestyle choices. This is where most groups of faith come in--the actual celebration and approval.

Excerpt from Testimony by Mr. Johnstone [Equal Marriage Opponent]
The men and women on this committee may not agree with the way I practise my faith. I don't demand that you agree. Each of us will be judged in a day not far away in a court of truth and justice not framed by any parliament of men. To not believe this does not make it untrue.
[...]
Bill C-38 legislates the supremacy of man by denying the creatorial supremacy of God. This is dangerous ground. Bill C-38 also denies the right of children to have both a father and a mother. Documented studies have shown that children growing up with a father and mother are statistically proven to become better functioning adults than those without that God-given right.

---

Hansard: Legislative Committee on Bill C-38, Meeting 19

Meeting 19: June 13, 2005, 15:30 - 17:30

Witnesses
- Mr. Hugo Cyr (Professor, Faculté de science politique et de droit, Université du Québec à Montréal, As an Individual)
- Prof. Bruce Ryder (Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, As an Individual)
- Mr. Terence Rolston (President, Focus on the Family Canada)
- Mr. Parminder Singh (Member, Ontario Gurudwara's Committee)

Excerpt from Testimony by Mr. Cyr [Equal Marriage Supporter]
Good afternoon. I am appearing as an individual but also to represent 133 of my colleagues who, along with me, signed a letter that was sent to the Leader of the Opposition last January, concerning the bill that you are examining. I will read it to you.

Dear Mr. Harper,

The federal government has made it clear that it intends to introduce legislation in the House of Commons to extend to same-sex couples the right to marry. You have indicated that you oppose this legislation, and intend to propose amendments to limit the definition of marriage to only opposite-sex couples. You also stated that it would not be legally necessary to use the Charter's notwithstanding clause to protect a statutory definition of marriage that excludes same-sex couples. As law professors, we strenuously disagree. You must be completely honest with Canadians about the unconstitutionality of your proposal, which will only guarantee that same-sex marriage ends up back before the courts as opposed to being resolved by Parliament. Your position is surprising for someone who has constantly defended the pre-eminence of Parliament.
[...]
In short, those who oppose same-sex marriage without supporting the use of the notwithstanding clause are shifting political accountability from themselves to the Supreme Court. Rather than ending the Supreme Court's involvement, it would further embroil the court in this issue.

You should either invoke the use of the notwithstanding clause, and justify this decision to Canadians, or concede that same-sex marriage is now part of Canada's legal landscape. If you intend to override Canadians' constitutional rights, you at least owe it to them to say this openly and directly. Canadians deserve better.

Sincerely,
[...]

Excerpt from Testimony by Mr. Ryder [Equal Marriage Supporter]
The degree to which Bill C-38 poses a potential threat to religious freedom, in my view, has been greatly exaggerated. It is true that many difficult issues have arisen where religious freedom and the equality rights of gays and lesbians appear to collide, and continuing uncertainty about how courts and tribunals will balance conflicting claims is generating considerable anxiety across the country. Many of these issues arose before the marriage debate and have little to do with Bill C-38.

Other religious freedom issues related to the legalization of same-sex marriage fall within provincial jurisdiction and need to be resolved whether or not Bill C-38 passes, since same-sex marriage is currently legal in most jurisdictions. Any attempts by Parliament to address many of these issues—especially those relating to the solemnization of marriage—in legislation would be an unconstitutional invasion of provincial jurisdiction.

Neither religious freedom nor equality rights are absolute, and neither consistently trumps or prevails over the other as a matter of principle. It all depends on the context. In the context of religious institutions and ceremonies, religious freedom will trump equality rights. No Canadian tribunal or court, for example, would uphold a law attempting to force the Catholic Church to ordain female priests.

Excerpt from Testimony by Mr. Rolston [Equal Marriage Opponent]
Bill C-38, and in particular many of the consequential amendments, sever parenthood from biology without any real understanding of the consequences this might have on children. The message of Bill C-38 is that fatherhood and motherhood are interchangeable, and their unique differences do not matter. This flies in the face of mountains of research that tells us that a child desperately needs both her mother and her father.

Excerpt from Testimony by Mr. Singh [Equal Marriage Opponent]
However, we wish to state the legislature is taking liberties with the state's coercive power and is misinterpreting the spirit of the charter. It is violating one of the most sacrosanct arrangements in modern western democratic secular polity. It is crossing the long-established boundaries that have separated prerogatives of the state from those of religion. This separation, evolved through the long period of European enlightenment, has ensured communal plurality and tolerance of different philosophical outlooks. It was never intended to replace one form of tyranny, uniformity, with another.
[...]
the state is intending to hijack this word and concept to give it an entirely different definition, reflecting its own bankruptcy of linguistic dexterity and context. No article of the charter or the Constitution entitles the state to encroach upon the recognized contextual identity of a word belonging to religious tradition and force a new, secularized interpretation upon it. This violates the boundaries that exist between state and religion. The state is in violation of charter paragraph 2(a) when it begins to interfere in the concepts of religion and change the doctrinal usage. Moreover, it is exceeding its power under section 1. It cannot convincingly argue that limiting the free domain of religion by imposing a new interpretation is in the interest of a free and democratic society.

---

Hansard: Legislative Committee on Bill C-38, Meeting 20

Meeting 21: June 15, 2005, 15:59 - 23:09

Witnesses
- Iain Benson, Executive Director, Centre for Cultural Renewal
- Stanley Hartt As an Individual
- David Mainse, Founder, Crossroads Christian Communications
- Ian Purvis, Lawyer