38th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
Legislative Committee on Bill C-38
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Monday, June 6, 2005
|
|
The
Chair (Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.)) |
|
|
Mr.
Joseph Ben-Ami (As an Individual) |
|
|
The
Chair |
|
|
Ms.
Elizabeth Bowen (Past President, Canadian Unitarian
Council) |
|
|
The
Reverend Brian Kopke (First Unitarian Congregation of Ottawa, Canadian
Unitarian Council) |
|
|
The
Chair |
|
|
Mr.
Brian Kopke |
|
|
The
Chair |
|
|
The Most
Reverend Fred Henry (Bishop, Roman Catholic Diocese of
Calgary) |
|
|
Mr. Réal
Ménard (Hochelaga, BQ) |
|
|
The
Chair |
|
|
Mr. Réal
Ménard |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
The
Chair |
|
|
Mr.
Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC) |
|
|
Mr.
Brian Kopke |
|
|
Mr.
Jason Kenney |
|
|
Mr.
Brian Kopke |
|
|
Mr.
Jason Kenney |
|
|
Mr.
Brian Kopke |
|
|
Mr.
Jason Kenney |
|
|
Ms.
Elizabeth Bowen |
|
|
Mr.
Jason Kenney |
|
|
Ms.
Elizabeth Bowen |
|
|
Mr.
Jason Kenney |
|
|
Mr.
Brian Kopke |
|
|
Mr.
Jason Kenney |
|
|
Mr.
Brian Kopke |
|
|
Mr.
Jason Kenney |
|
|
Mr.
Brian Kopke |
|
|
Mr.
Jason Kenney |
|
|
Mr.
Brian Kopke |
|
|
Mr.
Jason Kenney |
|
|
Mr.
Brian Kopke |
|
|
Mr.
Jason Kenney |
|
|
Mr.
Brian Kopke |
|
|
Mr.
Jason Kenney |
|
|
Mr.
Brian Kopke |
|
|
Mr.
Jason Kenney |
|
|
Ms.
Elizabeth Bowen |
|
|
Mr.
Jason Kenney |
|
|
Ms.
Elizabeth Bowen |
|
|
Mr.
Jason Kenney |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr.
Jason Kenney |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr.
Jason Kenney |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr.
Jason Kenney |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr.
Jason Kenney |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr.
Jason Kenney |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
The
Chair |
|
|
Mr. Réal
Ménard |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Réal
Ménard |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Réal
Ménard |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Réal
Ménard |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Réal
Ménard |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Réal
Ménard |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
The
Chair |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Mr.
Brian Kopke |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
Ms.
Elizabeth Bowen |
|
|
Mr.
Brian Kopke |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
The
Chair |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
The
Chair |
|
|
Hon.
Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland—Quinte West,
Lib.) |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Hon.
Paul Harold Macklin |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Hon.
Paul Harold Macklin |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Hon.
Paul Harold Macklin |
|
|
Mr.
Brian Kopke |
|
|
Hon.
Paul Harold Macklin |
|
|
Mr.
Brian Kopke |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Hon.
Paul Harold Macklin |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Hon.
Paul Harold Macklin |
|
|
Mr.
Brian Kopke |
|
|
Hon.
Paul Harold Macklin |
|
|
The
Chair |
|
|
Mr. Vic
Toews (Provencher, CPC) |
|
|
Ms.
Elizabeth Bowen |
|
|
Mr. Vic
Toews |
|
|
Mr.
Brian Kopke |
|
|
Mr. Vic
Toews |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Vic
Toews |
|
|
The
Chair |
|
|
Ms.
Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms.
Elizabeth Bowen |
|
|
Ms.
Anita Neville |
|
|
Ms.
Elizabeth Bowen |
|
|
Ms.
Anita Neville |
|
|
Ms.
Elizabeth Bowen |
|
|
Ms.
Anita Neville |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Ms.
Anita Neville |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Ms.
Anita Neville |
|
|
Mr.
Brian Kopke |
|
|
The
Chair |
|
|
Mr. Réal
Ménard |
|
|
Mr.
Brian Kopke |
|
|
Mr. Réal
Ménard |
|
|
Mr.
Joseph Ben-Ami |
|
|
The
Chair |
|
|
Hon.
Paul Harold Macklin |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Hon.
Paul Harold Macklin |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Hon.
Paul Harold Macklin |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
The
Chair |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
The
Chair |
|
|
Hon.
Paul Harold Macklin |
|
|
The
Chair |
|
|
Mr. Réal
Ménard |
|
|
The
Chair |
|
|
Mr. Pat
O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Ind.) |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Pat
O'Brien |
|
|
Mr.
Brian Kopke |
|
|
Mr. Pat
O'Brien |
|
|
Mr.
Brian Kopke |
|
|
Mr. Pat
O'Brien |
|
|
The
Chair |
|
|
Mr. Pat
O'Brien |
|
|
The
Chair |
|
|
Mr. Vic
Toews |
|
|
The
Chair |
|
|
Mr. Vic
Toews |
|
|
The
Chair |
|
|
Mr. Vic
Toews |
|
|
The
Chair |
|
|
Mr. Vic
Toews |
|
|
The
Chair |
|
|
Mr.
Jason Kenney |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr.
Jason Kenney |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr.
Jason Kenney |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr.
Jason Kenney |
|
|
Mr.
Joseph Ben-Ami |
|
|
Mr.
Jason Kenney |
|
|
Mr.
Brian Kopke |
|
|
The
Chair |
|
|
Hon.
Paul Harold Macklin |
|
|
The
Chair |
|
|
Mr. Réal
Ménard |
|
|
Mr.
Brian Kopke |
|
|
Mr. Réal
Ménard |
|
|
Mr.
Brian Kopke |
|
|
Mr. Réal
Ménard |
|
|
The
Chair |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
Most
Rev. Fred Henry |
|
|
Mr. Bill
Siksay |
|
|
The
Chair |
CANADA
Legislative Committee on Bill C-38 |
EVIDENCE
Monday, June 6, 2005
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
* * *
¼ (1810)
[English]
The Chair (Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.)):
Welcome to the legislative committee on Bill C-38.
[Translation]
Welcome to this meeting of the Legislative Committee
on Bill C-38.
[English]
The meeting was scheduled for 6 o'clock, so we
apologize for the 12-minute delay. Our previous meeting ended at 5:35 and we
decided we needed to eat something. Unfortunately, there was a glitch and we
didn't get to a table until 5:50. So again I apologize for the delay and any
inconvenience. We will complete this meeting at 8:10.
I want to welcome the witnesses.
[Translation]
I'd like to welcome the witnesses.
[English]
I'm sure you are aware of the way we proceed at this
legislative committee. We have opening statements by witnesses of ten minutes
each. Then we go into a round of questions and answers of seven minutes. Then
the additional rounds are for five minutes, questions and answers included.
So let's get started. The order for this evening will
be Mr. Joseph Ben-Ami, as an individual, then the Canadian Unitarian Council,
and then the Roman Catholic Diocese of Calgary, represented by Bishop Fred
Henry.
Let's start with Mr. Ben-Ami.
Mr. Joseph Ben-Ami (As an Individual): Thank
you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I note that in the notice of meeting I'm identified
as a private citizen. Of course, I'm happy and proud to wear that label, but I'm
also here today on behalf of the Institute for Canadian Values, which is a
faith-based public policy think tank located here in Ottawa. One of the goals of
our organization is to dispel the myth that Canadians of faith are unqualified
to hold high public office or even to participate in a meaningful and respected
manner in the debate over public policy simply because the philosophical and
intellectual framework in which they operate happens to be at odds with the
prevailing secular zeitgeist in our society.
This is a project that I've only just undertaken, and
as I think it's perhaps relevant to the proceedings of this committee, I'd like
to remind members, many of whom I know fairly well, that until recently I was
the head of government relations and international affairs for B'nai B'rith
Canada, which is the oldest Jewish human rights organization in this country. I
mention this only to establish a priori my credentials as a defender of human
rights. It's something that I'm compelled to do, given what I regard to be the
unprecedented campaign of vilification that has been directed by proponents of
this bill against its opponents, particularly its religious opponents.
Let me state from the outset that religious
objections to the legal redefinition of marriage are not based solely on God's
will. Those that portray it as such are being, in my opinion, extraordinarily
simple-minded.
If I could just go back for a moment or two to first
principles, one of the main contributions of the Judeo-Christian heritage in our
society is the idea that law exists in some form independent of and antecedent
to the establishment of civil society. It's true that many of us attribute this
law to God, but it's equally true that many of those who historically rejected
divine revelation as the source of this law nevertheless recognized that it must
be transcendent in nature and immutable; otherwise having an enduring civil
society would not be possible. It's the wholesale and reckless abandonment of
our fidelity to or even comprehension of this natural law that troubles us so
much. This is the chief reason I'm here before you today. Whether one believes
in the divine creation of humanity or a distinctly non-divine natural law, it is
here and only here that we derive a doctrine of fundamental human rights that
are the foundation of liberty and democracy in our world.
Time doesn't permit us to go into any great detail on
this subject, so let me just reiterate this premise for the sake of clarity
before discussing the impact of Bill C-38 on it and its implications for the
defence of human rights in this country in the future.
Fundamental human rights are not a gift granted by a
benevolent state to an adoring population. On the contrary, they predate the
existence of the state. Their recognition is in fact a necessary precondition to
the establishment of the democratic state. No constitution, not even our Charter
of Rights and Freedoms, can bestow fundamental human rights on a free society.
The most the constitution can do is to articulate those rights and set out the
rules by which the actions of the state are constrained in order to protect
those fundamental rights.
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. There is no benefit that accrues to married couples that is
presently denied to same-sex or opposite-sex common-law couples that cannot be
extended to the latter without redefining marriage. That being so, what possible
justification can there be for redefining marriage other than that society,
through marriage, does not presently affirm the lifestyle choice for these
individuals? In fact, Mr. Chairman, same-sex marriage is a social policy
masquerading as a rights policy.
¼ (1815)
Honest men and women of goodwill can and do argue the
pros and cons of this policy, and that's fine, but to defend it on the basis of
it being a fundamental human right, such an argument makes a mockery of the very
term “fundamental human rights”. This is why I spent a few minutes at the
beginning of my presentation scratching the surface of the theoretical defence
of human rights.
The argument that one group has a fundamental or any
right to appropriate unto its members the symbols of another group as a
manifestation of equality between the two is profoundly corrupt. Such an
argument does incalculable damage to the prestige and integrity of our Charter
of Rights and Freedoms as the essential expression in this country of
fundamental rights. It brings the whole doctrine of human rights into severe
disrepute.
In other words, the relentless drive to entrench
same-sex marriage undermines the very foundational arguments upon which the
basic rights of all Canadians are based, because if everything is a fundamental
human right, then nothing is.
This may seem like a small and even semantic matter
to members of this committee, but I assure you, as someone who's been in the
trenches for a number of years, it's not, for absent a strong theoretical basis
for human rights, we're left with nothing more than the charter for their
defence. Of course, it's precisely this charter argument, not natural law, that
Minister Cotler relied on during his presentation to you a few weeks ago.
Although most Canadians place their trust in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
I remind you all that, as we know, the charter can be amended.
One of the things that I confess really confounds me
about this whole debate is that proponents of Bill C-38 actually agree that
same-sex marriage is not a fundamental human right, because if it truly were,
they wouldn't be able to argue that the bill before us does not infringe on
religious liberties of Canadians. If same-sex marriage were a fundamental human
right, we'd be obliged to impose it on religious groups. This is just a small
illustration of how dangerously muddled all of our thinking has become on these
issues.
Of course, it's only in such an absurd intellectual
environment that members of Parliament can continue to maintain the deception,
or shall I call it the “self-deception”, that Bill C-38 protects religious
freedom. The evidence that this is not so is now so extensive that one has to be
wilfully blind to deny that there is a real and growing problem.
I realize that the rules generally oblige me to
propose if I'm going to make any proposals to change this bill, but they would
be amendments that would address some of the issues that I and others have
raised, without altering the substance. So at the risk of being ruled out of
order, I'm just going to make this simple observation and conclude by saying
that, in my view, there are no redeeming aspects of this proposed piece of
legislation. It is deeply flawed, and in my view, if it's enacted, it will do
great harm to the cause of fundamental rights in this country.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
¼ (1820)
The Chair: Thank you.
We'll now move to the Canadian Unitarian Council, Ms.
Bowen or Mr. Kopke.
Ms. Elizabeth Bowen (Past President, Canadian
Unitarian Council): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Elizabeth Bowen and
I am past president of the Canadian Unitarian Council. I am accompanied this
evening by Reverend Brian Kopke, the minister of the First Unitarian
Congregation of Ottawa. We appreciate this opportunity to speak to you.
The Canadian Unitarian Council is a national
religious body that represents all Unitarian and universalist congregations in
Canada. We are part of a worldwide movement and one of the founders of the
International Council of Unitarians and Universalists, whose members span six
continents.
The lives and actions of Unitarians are guided by a
set of seven principles. Two of our principles affirm the inherent worth and
dignity of all persons and urge us to work for justice, equity, and compassion
in human relations.
The Canadian Unitarian Council strongly supports the
passage of Bill C-38. For us, the right of two people to marry regardless of
their sexual orientation is a human right as guaranteed in the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms. And we do not think that heterosexual marriages have anything to
fear when two men or two women wish to marry as an expression of their love and
their commitment to care for and to support one another.
Bill C-38, the marriage bill, the marriage act, is
fair and balanced legislation. Implementation of the act will guarantee
religious freedom of those opposed to and those in favour of same-sex marriage.
The Canadian Unitarian Council supports the right of clergy of any faith opposed
to equal marriage to refuse to perform same-sex marriages. The right to refuse
is fully protected by the bill. At the same time, Unitarians want the religious
freedom to celebrate those same-sex marriages we feel to be appropriate for our
members and friends, and this right is also protected by the act.
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.
The Canadian Unitarian Council is proud to stand with
these religious communities who believe that anyone who wishes to participate in
a civil same-sex marriage recognized by law should have the right to do so. We
see this as a matter of individual freedom.
Reverend Kopke will now speak on the effect of Bill
C-38 on our Unitarian faith and our right to practice our religious
beliefs.
¼ (1825)
The Reverend Brian Kopke (First Unitarian
Congregation of Ottawa, Canadian Unitarian Council):
Mr. Chairman, I'm Reverend Brian Kopke, senior
minister at First Unitarian Congregation here in Ottawa. I'll be speaking about
several areas related to Bill C-38.
The first is related to the rights of Unitarians to
practise their religious faith in a way that is not outside the law. Unitarians
believe that we are all God's children, no matter what our skin colour, mental
or physical ability, place of birth, gender, age, or sexual preference. This is
part of our faith. We also believe that no God sets conditions on the
participation of people in life. God loves us all equally. This is also part of
our faith.
In the past, we have been unable to marry gay and
lesbian couples. This has been an infringement upon our acting out our belief in
the acceptance of all people—an infringement imposed by a majority of people in
our culture.
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.
I have performed well over 200 holy unions in my 35
years as a Unitarian minister. I treat these couples the same as I do
heterosexual couples. They all put together their own wedding service. They all
receive some pre-marital counselling. Through the years, I have received many
cards from gay and lesbian couples who recall their union service and the
feeling of acceptance it brought to their lives—clearly not accepted by their
province or by this nation.
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.
In June 2003 I performed my first legal lesbian
wedding, and in July it was followed by my first gay wedding. I cannot express
to you the flood of emotions I felt as these couples were able to feel for the
first time that they were truly accepted by Canadian society. This was mixed
with my own feelings of deep joy that I, as a Unitarian, was finally allowed to
practise my own religion more fully.
In addition, let me say that I have found gay and
lesbian couples to be wonderful parents, responsible contributors to the school
communities of their children, and wonderful teachers in our own church school.
I find their families filled with love and tenderness, good family values, and a
strong acceptance of multiculturalism in this nation.
The second item is related to the definition of
marriage. Canada has a developing definition of marriage over the years. It has
changed over the years. At one time in this country, in a province, it was
illegal for a Chinese man to marry a white woman. That is not a law any longer,
of course. But just as that narrow and prejudice-filled law went by the board,
it is time for Bill C-38 to be passed.
Thirdly, I want to say a few words about sacred
religious texts. Sacred texts such as the Bible or the Koran—wonderful, inspired
works of history, poetry, and narrative—become an issue in the debate only when
someone believes that they are the word of God. Such a belief leads to certain
interpretations. There are no sections of our sacred texts that have only one
interpretation by great scholars. So which interpretation is right?
I believe these texts are written by people. I
believe there are ideas in these texts that reflect the people of the time in
which the texts were written. To side with one understanding of words,
especially a literal understanding, which denies textual criticism, archaeology,
cultural and political influences of the times, is to act out of an individual
faith. That faith should not be allowed to infringe upon the practices of other
faiths with narrowly written laws.
Finally, selections from Genesis or Leviticus in the
Old Testament that are interpreted as laws against homosexuality are not
interpreted this way by Unitarians. We are not literalists. In no way does Bill
C-38 require any person to do something that is against his or her faith.
Rather, it makes Canada more accepting, not only of gay and lesbian people, but
it also allows Unitarians and others to more fully practise their own faith in
Canada.
By redefining marriage, Bill C-38 achieves what all
law in a multicultural nation should do, and that is to be written broadly
enough to include all citizens.
The Chair: You have one minute.
Mr. Brian Kopke: 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.
Thank you.
¼ (1830)
The Chair: Thank you.
Now for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Calgary, Bishop
Henry.
The Most Reverend Fred Henry (Bishop, Roman
Catholic Diocese of Calgary): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Calgary has currently
about 350,000 Roman Catholics. Calgary is the fastest growing city in Canada,
Cochrane the fastest growing town, and Chestermere the fastest growing village.
Therefore, I think it's probably not a stretch to say that the diocese is
probably the fastest growing diocese in Canada also. However, I'm grateful that
we don't have a yearly census, because the CCCB works its assessment basis on
the last census. So, fortunately, it's going to take them a while to catch up to
us.
I would like to speak about a number of issues. I
want to begin by setting the table by calling reference to a quote that was made
by Pierre Pettigrew, foreign affairs minister, when he recently quipped, “I find
that the separation of church and state is one of the most beautiful inventions
of modern times”. He went on to add that the church is obligated to remain
silent on the issue of same-sex unions, as the government and the churches
should not get involved in each other's affairs.
It is significant that no apology or retraction, to
my knowledge, was ever offered for his offensive and ill-informed views. The
whole concept of the separation of church and state is relatively recent, dating
back to the Constitution of the State of Virginia, which was written by Thomas
Jefferson. It also dates back to the slightly later Constitution of the United
States, where the statement was made to the effect that “Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof”. The First Amendment says nothing concerning the various churches'
positions; it simply limits the Government of the United States from
establishing one or the other of them as the official religion.
Canada does not have an equivalent statement, neither
in the British North America Act nor in the Constitution Act as repatriated.
What Canada does guarantee is freedom of religion. This is found both in the
parliamentary act and in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Article 2 of the
charter states, “Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of
conscience and religion.” There is no statement on the separation of church and
state in either of these basic documents.
The right to religious freedom is central to the
current debate about the reinvention of marriage. I want to point to a growing
spirit of intolerance in Canada and an inability to think critically.
Number one, on June 15, 2004, I received a harassing
telephone call from Terry De March from Revenue Canada. His telephone number is
941-1647. He called as a result of a complaint lodged by someone objecting to
another pastoral letter in which I attempted to clear up some moral confusion
engendered by the Prime Minister. In much of the secular media, Mr. Martin was
portrayed as a devout Catholic, even though his clarified positions re abortion
and same-sex unions constituted a scandal within the Catholic community and
reflected a fundamental moral incoherence.
Number two, in my response to my January 2005
pastoral letter on the subject of same-sex unions, which was printed in the
secular press, I received a number of messages that I would classify as hate
mail. I'll give you one example, from Billy, who said, “You are a sick,
narrow-minded, disgusting excuse for a human being. Child molesters like you
deserve to die.”
Thirdly, two individuals have recently filed a
complaint against the Roman Catholic Diocese of Calgary and me on the grounds of
sexual orientation discrimination in the area of services refused, in terms of
goods and services, and in the area of publication notices, signs, and
statements, based on my January 2005 pastoral letter in which I refuted the
standard arguments used to support same-sex unions as the equivalent of
traditional marriage.
These complaints are an attempt to intimidate and to
silence me and are without any foundation in fact. As a matter of fact, the
lodging of these complaints constitutes a violation of my rights of freedom of
expression and freedom of religion guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms.
The recent Supreme Court decision bows in the
direction of religious freedom. However, it adds a disturbing qualifier to its
decision, namely, the statement that, “Absent unique circumstances with respect
to which the Court will not speculate, the guarantee of religious freedom in s.
2(a) of the Charter is broad enough to protect religious officials...”.
¼ (1835)
When you read this carefully, you don't have to be a
lawyer to recognize an open door. Particular circumstances might lead to some
future court legitimately trying to force religious officials to perform these
ceremonies against their conscience, though the justice system declined to
speculate on what those circumstances might be. It's disquieting that the court
would even raise the possibility.
BIll C-38 not only does not close the door; as a
matter of fact, it fails in a number of particular ways to support religious
freedom.
One, it fails to recognize, protect, and reaffirm
marriage as the union of a man and a woman, which the Supreme Court of Canada
did not suggest was contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, nor did it
suggest that a redefinition of marriage was necessary to conform to the
charter.
Two, it fails to affirm cooperation with the
provincial and territorial governments to enact the necessary legislation and
regulations to ensure full protection for freedom of conscience and religion so
Canadians are not compelled to act contrary to their conscience and
religion.
Three, it fails to affirm cooperation with the
provincial and territorial governments to ensure all leaders and members of
faith groups are free everywhere in Canada to teach and preach on marriage and
also on homosexuality, as is consistent with their conscience and religion.
Four, it fails to affirm cooperation with provincial
and territorial governments to ensure that in addition to sacred places, all
facilities owned or rented by an organization that is identified with a
particular faith group are protected from compulsory use and preparations for or
celebrations related to marriage ceremonies contrary to that faith.
Five, it fails to affirm cooperation with provincial
and territorial governments to ensure all civil as well as religious officials
who witness marriages in Canada in every province and territory are protected
from being compelled to assist when these are contrary to their conscience and
religion.
Six, it fails to safeguard faith groups that do not
accept the proposed redefinition of marriage from being penalized with respect
to their charitable status.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga, BQ): You're going
too fast there. Could you slow down, please?
The Chair: The reason we're asking you not to
speak so fast is that there might be some problems in the translation. Mr.
Ménard is listening to the French translation. We'll give you a little bit more
time.
¼ (1840)
Mr. Réal Ménard: I don't want to miss
anything.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Most Rev. Fred Henry: Thank you very much.
Bill C-38 invokes freedom of conscience and religion
under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but it's
disturbing that there will not be a truly free vote on the bill. Apparently,
party solidarity takes precedence over rights guaranteed in the charter. This is
not democracy's finest hour.
Justice Minister Cotler has been quoted as saying “A
right is a right is a right”. Although I'm not a lawyer, but rather a
philosopher and theologian, I would point out that this simple approach ignores
two key facts. First, ordinary dictionary definitions of rights have a variety
of options, and second, there are vast differences between varied notions of
rights: merely asserted, conventional, legal, and natural. Governments may
euphemistically call mass destruction of civilians “collateral damage”, but such
definitions misuse language. Definitions of marriage can be misused as well.
Varied uses and notions of rights reflect essential
conceptual distinctions. Asserting that I have the right to fly the Concorde to
Paris does not establish the right. Legally, I have no right to a university
degree unless I meet certain university senate requirements. Claiming a natural
right to equality in income with Supreme Court justices does not establish the
right. Rights are of various kinds, and the application of racial models for
same-sex rights claims conflicts in many ways with logical uses of
analogies.
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.
The radical redefinition affects every order of human
life from uses of logic to healthy moral and cultural life. This radical
cultural shift accounts for the resistance of the majority of Canadians to
redefinition of marriage on both religious and rational grounds. It's a mystery
to the majority of Canadians as to why some parliamentarians just don't seem to
get it.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you. We will now proceed with
the first round, le premier tour de questions et commentaires. We will
start with the Conservatives.
Mr. Kenney, seven minutes.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC):
Thank you.
My first question is for Dr. Kopke and Ms. Bowen. I
believe your submission is that access for same-sex couples to marriage
constitutes a fundamental human right. Is that accurate?
Mr. Brian Kopke: It constitutes a right that
should be under the charter in Canada.
Mr. Jason Kenney: So it's a fundamental human
right.
Mr. Brian Kopke: I'm not necessarily going to
go with a fundamental human right, because--
Mr. Jason Kenney: So is it or is it not a
fundamental human right?
Mr. Brian Kopke: I'm not going to answer that,
because that whole argument--
Mr. Jason Kenney: Do you have an opinion on
that, Ms. Bowen?
Ms. Elizabeth Bowen: My view is that it is a
human right, period.
Mr. Jason Kenney: All right. It's a human
right, so those who are opposed to extending marriage to same-sex couples would
seek to deny a human right. Is that your position?
Ms. Elizabeth Bowen: Yes, it is.
Mr. Jason Kenney: All right. Why, then, would
you be in favour of allowing certain social institutions--say, churches that
maintain an exclusive heterosexual understanding of marriage--to deny a human
right? Insofar as the right to grant marriage licences constitutes a function of
the state that is performed by certain churches, why should they be given a
privilege to perform a state function if they are discriminating and violating
basic human rights?
Mr. Brian Kopke: The charter clearly states
that among the rights we have is the right to religion and conscience, and it
would fall under the charter in those areas, conscience and what your religion
states.
¼ (1845)
Mr. Jason Kenney: So do you think that charter
protection for right of conscience should include protection for social
institutions that promote racism?
Mr. Brian Kopke: Absolutely not.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Do you think there is
anything analogous between racism and the denial of basic human rights for
same-sex couples, in your point of view?
Mr. Brian Kopke: I think there's a big
difference between promoting racism and recognizing that it exists in our
society. There's a big difference between--
Mr. Jason Kenney: All right, let's just take a
hypothetical case. I understand there's an organization called the Aryan Nations
Church. If they were to apply for charitable tax status and they refused to
marry people of different ethnic backgrounds, do you think they should be
granted tax status?
Mr. Brian Kopke: That's up to Revenue
Canada.
Mr. Jason Kenney: I'm asking your
opinion.
Mr. Brian Kopke: I personally do not believe
they should be granted tax status.
Mr. Jason Kenney: So why should churches that
are prepared to, in your view, violate fundamental rights be given tax status,
which is a state benefit? Should they be?
Mr. Brian Kopke: I'll go back to your previous
question. The Aryan Nations group is really a political group. It's not a
religious group.
Mr. Jason Kenney: No, but why should churches
such as the Catholic Church, which refused to marry same-sex couples, be given a
state benefit in the form of charitable tax status?
Mr. Brian Kopke: They're acting within the
charter, expressing their religious rights and their conscience.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Ms. Bowen, do you think they
should be given charitable tax status?
Ms. Elizabeth Bowen: At the moment, because of
the changes in the provincial laws, there are religious communities, religious
churches, that are marrying same-sex couples, and they have maintained their
charitable status. So--
Mr. Jason Kenney: That's a different
issue.
Ms. Elizabeth Bowen: No. To me, it's the
same.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Okay. I'd like to pass to
Bishop Henry.
Bishop, you mentioned in your submission that you had
received a call from a certain Terry De March from the Canada Customs and
Revenue Agency. I believe that was in June of last year.
Most Rev. Fred Henry: Yes, it was.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Could you please describe
for us that call and what preceded it?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: First of all, when you
get a call from Revenue Canada, you start to shake in your boots, so it was one
of those things that went to the top of the pile really quickly. I phoned him
back the same day, I believe it was June 15, and he reminded me very forcefully
from the beginning that I wasn't to engage in partisan politics, pointing out
that my actions were in contravention of the Canada Elections Act and implying
that my actions jeopardized my charitable tax status.
I pointed out to him that if he'd read the pastoral
letter very carefully, I hadn't told anyone how to vote, that my letter was a
pastoral one to the people of my diocese and was inserted in bulletins and read
from the pulpit. It happened to be picked up by the media and reprinted, but I
had simply been writing to clear up the moral confusion that was generated by
the Prime Minister and the media. I asked him if pastoral letters were now
outlawed; he refused to answer that particular question.
He then talked about perception and said that some
people may perceive.... I said, I can't control the perceptions of all people in
Canada, but I have to assume that they can think, and can think critically and
evaluate, and surely to God they can understand that I'm not telling anybody how
to vote here.
Then he said, well, are you going to take down the
pastoral letter from your website? I said, no, why should I take it down from my
website? He didn't answer that either. Then he said, are you planning on doing
anything else? I said, I find that question very strange, but no, I'm not
contemplating doing anything else. Then he said, I'm going to write a report for
my superior; you may hear back from us again in the short term.
That was the end of the conversation. I assume that
things didn't go the way he wanted. My interpretation was that he thought that
Revenue Canada coming down and calling me to task would mean that I would beat
my breast and say I was sorry and fold my tent and go away. When he found out
that I wouldn't, and the conversation didn't go the way he wanted, he was upset.
However, I think he felt that his purpose was served: I was warned, I was
threatened. But since that time, I have heard nothing directly from him.
Mr. Jason Kenney: For the record, Bishop, you
said you felt threatened by this call. How so?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: Yes, I did. Well, I
think in the first instance it was clearly implied to me, and he suggested, that
I had done something wrong, that I had contravened the Elections Act. I was
familiar with the precepts and the content of that law, and I felt I was fully
within my right as a bishop to teach my people and to clear up moral
confusion.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Do you think he was implying
that the charitable status of your diocese depended potentially on your
conforming your religious expression to his interpretation of the charities
act?
¼ (1850)
Most Rev. Fred Henry: Yes, is the short
answer.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Bishop, clearly you're not
somebody to fold your tent. If you were just a pastor of a small independent,
perhaps a protestant, church and you received a similar call for something you
had expressed to your congregation, and the financial stability of your church
depended on that tax status, do you think you might have felt even more pressure
in that kind of situation than you did as bishop of a large and fairly
prosperous diocese?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: No question; several
ministers have told me precisely that.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Do you know others who have
received similar calls?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: No. Most of them have
been intimidated. Based on what has happened to me and it becoming public, most
of them are a little bit gun shy right now.
[Translation]
The Chair: We'll now go to Mr. Ménard for the
Bloc Québécois.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Thank you.
[English]
I'm going to speak in French.
[Translation]
I'd like to begin by directing my comments to
Monsignor Henry. I've heard a great deal about you. It's a pleasure to be able
to discuss this bill in person with you. You have many staunch supporters among
committee members. However, you would be wrong to count me among them.
Deep down, do you believe that Canada has a State
religion? Earlier, you had some harsh words for the Prime Minister and for the
Minister of Foreign Affairs. You're entitled, just like all Canadians are,
regardless of their religious affiliation, to your opinions and to your views on
men and women in public office. However, the debate on same-sex marriage and the
position taken by Catholics demands at the outset that you state whether or not
you believe Canada has a State religion and if so, whether you think some
believers should enjoy a favoured position with the nation's lawmakers.
[English]
Most Rev. Fred Henry:
Thank you. That's a good question.
Obviously, I don't think there is a state religion.
Nor am I in favour of a theocracy, like they have in Iran. However, what has
happened right now is that we have gone to the opposite pole. There is a stream
of anti-religious bias within, I'm afraid, the halls of Parliament and in
society in general. We don't exclude a Freudian psychiatrist and tell him to
leave his Freudian traits outside when he enters into public debate. You don't
tell a trade unionist to leave out his thinking. You don't tell a CIBC bank
manager. I don't want to be told I can't participate because I happen to be a
religious believer.
You'll notice that I have yet to quote sacred
scripture in anything I've said today. I have been talking from the vantage
point of a citizen who also happens to be a believer. I want to talk about
reason. I want to talk about the state of affairs in our country. I want to talk
about the nature of marriage. I'm quite prepared to bracket a religious text and
teaching of the church for the purposes of discussion.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: I have a second question, if
you have no objections.
You realize full well that the bill now before us has
nothing to do with religious marriage; it came about as a result of a
consultative ruling which did not, admittedly, bind the government to a Supreme
Court reference. It has nothing whatsoever to do with religious marriage.
Canada does not have an official State religion. For
the sake of equality, do all governments not have an obligation to uphold
equality by eliminating discrimination?
I have to admit that I'm having a bit of trouble
following your argument this evening. You agree that there is no State religion
in this country. However, if the government grants homosexuals the right to get
married, this would, in your view, violate religious principles.
I can't quite get a handle on some aspects of your
argument, because we're talking here about civil marriages, not religious
marriages. No member of any specific religious community in Canada will be
forced to marry homosexuals in a religious ceremony.
With all due respect, your argument smacks a little
of religious interventionism. Are you not trying to impose your views on the lay
community and on politicians? Politics cannot be driven by religious opinion or
by some particular view of the world. Equality must be the primary
consideration, as entrenched by various charters and human rights codes.
Putting it another way, if you consider marriage to
be a civil right—and civil rights is the issue here—are you not appealing
through your arguments to an audience that holds somewhat extreme views?
¼ (1855)
[English]
Most Rev. Fred Henry: No, I don't think I'm
being excessive. If it makes you any more comfortable, I'll take my collar off.
I'm just going to talk about marriage. I don't believe that religious and civil
marriage are in opposition. What we're talking about is one fundamental reality,
marriage as we know it, which pre-dates this country, this Constitution, and all
of us. It's irrelevant whether or not I happen to be a religious person. All I
want to talk about is marriage itself.
Now, I happen to be both a minister of the state, in
terms of having a civil licence to perform marriages, and a religious minister.
I'm quite prepared to reflect upon the nature of marriage itself. I don't have
to keep talking about marriage as a sacrament. I'm a citizen here. As a citizen,
I object to an attempt to reinvent a fundamental social institution of society
in the manner in which we're proceeding right now.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: If you're prepared to remove
your collar, I'll remove my tie.
[English]
Most Rev. Fred Henry: We'll exchange. I'll
give you my collar.
Mr. Réal Ménard: No, no. You don't
understand.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Most Rev. Fred Henry: No, it's interesting.
You wouldn't take mine, but I'll take yours. I like your tie.
Mr. Réal Ménard: I am a secularist, don't
forget.
[Translation]
Seriously though, you talk about the sanctity of
marriage and about preserving and upholding the current interpretation of the
institution of marriage.
[English]
Most Rev. Fred Henry: I haven't talked about
that here.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: However, you refer to
marriage as a social institution, whereas that is not the case. Your position as
a Catholic is not necessarily shared by other religions. You value marriage not
as a social institution, but for its religious nature. If marriage is a social,
and therefore lay, institution which must conform to the principle of equality,
then it's our role to ensure that marriage is accessible to everyone. What
connection do you draw between the religious nature and the social nature of
marriage?
[English]
Most Rev. Fred Henry:
Well, I think it's a natural fit. First of all, we're
starting with nature and natural law. We're talking about a fundamental
institution that serves two purposes. One, it involves the gender
complementarity of the participants in this union. Second, there's a procreative
dimension or an openness to new life. That I understand to be fundamental, and
so far, I haven't used any religious terminology whatsoever.
As a religious person, I would add an overlay to that
particular reality and call it a sacramental union in virtue of it being a
situation, any bond, that is sanctified by God himself. But for the purposes of
this table, I don't have to do that. Let's just talk about the institution
itself. That's all I'm prepared to do.
When I use all my arguments that I brought forth and
the six or seven weaknesses with respect to Bill C-38, I'm doing so because
supposedly everybody keeps saying, oh, yes, but we're guaranteeing that you will
not have to perform, as a Roman Catholic, same-sex marriages. I'm saying I don't
care what the government has to do there; I'm not going to do it, period, even
if it means surrendering my civil licence. I'm prepared to go that far.
However, for someone simply to say that you shouldn't
have anything to say with respect to the nature of marriage because you happen
to be religious, I'm going to say, excuse me, this is a false understanding of
the separation of church and state that the foreign minister, unfortunately,
didn't take a course in when he was doing his course in political science. I
venture to say there are probably a few others in the halls of Parliament who
haven't passed Political Science 020. I say that as a former university
professor.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you.
[English]
I will go to the NDP.
Mr. Siksay, seven minutes.
Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to all the witnesses for your testimony
here tonight.
I want to begin with Ms. Bowen and Mr. Kopke. I want
to thank you for the long history of the Unitarian Church on this issue. When I
was a young gay man struggling to come to terms with my sexuality, I remember
hearing an interview with Richard North and Chris Vogel back in 1974 on As It
Happens. In fact, I went to the CBC website and that interview is actually
still on there in their archives. They tried to get a marriage licence in
Manitoba back in 1974 and were denied, but they met with the folks from the
Unitarian congregation there and were married in that congregation back in
1974.
That example meant so much to me, because I'd grown
up with all the usual misinformation that that kind of commitment was not going
to be possible for me as a gay man and that I was condemned, somehow, to brief,
questionable relationships, and certainly no stability, in terms of a personal
relationship. Chris and Richard's example, and the Unitarian congregation's
example, meant a whole lot to me and really pointed to another possibility for
my life. I want to thank you very much for that example.
Mr. Kopke, you mentioned that you've done over 200
holy unions and marriage ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples. Do those
couples bring something different to an understanding of marriage? Are they
living out their married lives differently than heterosexual couples? We hear
that somehow this is changing our understanding of marriage. I'm wondering if
the values you see in those relationships are similar to the ones you see in
heterosexual couples you've married.
½ (1900)
Mr. Brian Kopke: Well, actually, they are
changing the values, but I think in a very positive way.
What happens is that heterosexuals generally have
their parents as their images, their role models. They bring those role models
from two different families to the marriage. Those are role models who are out
there, living in front of them.
Gay men and lesbian women make up their own models.
When they do that, they do a lot of soul searching and tend to do what a lot of
us have done and say, you know, my parents did this and that, and I'm not going
to do that; I'm going to do it a different way. They bring I think a deeper
sense of respect for the partner. I think they bring a tenderness to the
marriage relationship that I don't always see in heterosexual relationships. I
think one of the things they bring is a knowledge that it's a very special thing
that carries a special responsibility with it, because in fact people are
watching.
My experience with the couples I've known who had
holy unions 10 years, 15 years, 20 years ago--and most of the ones I know are
still together--is that they're still living out a relationship that is forging
new ground. It's ground that actually a lot of heterosexual couples who live
close to them are looking at and saying, gee, their relationship is really much
closer and much more filled with living out of family values than ours is,
because we got sucked into the culture.
So I applaud what's happening in those
relationships.
Mr. Bill Siksay: I wonder if I may ask Ms.
Bowen and Mr. Kopke again, has the Unitarian Church, or have some of the
churches, ever been contacted by Canada Customs and Revenue Agency—Revenue
Canada—about participation in partisan politics, or with other concerns?
Ms. Elizabeth Bowen: Not to my knowledge, no,
and I have served on the Canadian Unitarian Council board of directors for seven
years, including the years passed as president. We have charitable status, of
course.
Mr. Brian Kopke: I'll answer that a little bit
differently. A number of years ago, though, some of the new Unitarian groups
that were coming in that didn't have ministers were given a hard time over
charitable status. To a person, they felt it was because sometimes Unitarians
don't believe in God, and because of that particular belief they were being
discriminated against.
Mr. Bill Siksay: But there has been contact
with CCRA, or Revenue Canada.
Bishop Henry, I appreciate your experience of dealing
with Revenue Canada back during the federal election. When the United Church was
here, they testified that they had also received a phone call during that period
from Revenue Canada. When I asked similar questions of them, I was told that
this happens regularly, that they saw this as part of their regular dialogue
with Revenue Canada, or CCRA, about their charitable status and how it operates.
I was told they didn't see anything particularly threatening or intimidating
about the call, that it was actually a friendly call and one that was built out
of a relationship they had with CCRA previously.
Had you had any contact with CCRA or Revenue Canada
previously with regard to these kinds of issues?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: No, I hadn't.
½ (1905)
Mr. Bill Siksay: Can I ask how long you've
been bishop of the diocese?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: Nineteen years.
Mr. Bill Siksay: Would there be another
officer of the diocese who would deal more regularly with Revenue Canada, rather
than you?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: No, most of that kind of
stuff is sufficiently important that it ends up on my desk.
Mr. Bill Siksay: I know from my own volunteer
work with the United Church that a number of years ago Revenue Canada was doing
an audit of a lot of clergy because of the special provisions that exist for
clergy in the Income Tax Act. I remember it was an inconvenience for a lot of
people. It wasn't seen particularly as intimidation or a threat from Revenue
Canada, but it was contact between ministers of the church and Revenue Canada.
Has that kind of thing happened for priests in the diocese?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: It's happened to some
priests, yes. If I were to be totally honest with you, I fully expected to be
audited this year, based on the telephone call I got back in June. But I don't
think I was.
Mr. Bill Siksay: That hasn't happened
yet?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: Not yet.
Mr. Bill Siksay: Can I ask about the
complaints that have been made against you? Where are they, at this point? Who's
made them? I don't mean names particularly, but are they individuals who have
made the complaints? Where do they stand? Are they going forward? Have they been
heard already? Has there been a judgment in them?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: You're referring to the
human rights...?
Mr. Bill Siksay: Yes.
Most Rev. Fred Henry: There have been two
complaints, lodged, I believe, by individuals. I simply have received a copy of
the complaint form, which is like a three-page questionnaire that's been filled
in. It's passed on to me and asks “How do you respond?” You are given 21 days to
respond. My lawyer and I have responded by compiling two telephone books of
materials, based on speeches I've given and all the rest of that sort of thing,
and submitting it to them.
I have also done a television program with one of the
complainants. Based on clarification of what I said in my pastoral letter
regarding the word “coercion”, it appears as if he is ready to drop the
complaint. The other person is not as open, apparently, to that thing, so that
one is likely to proceed.
Mr. Bill Siksay: But there's no indication yet
whether it is going to go forward or not? It hasn't gone into hearings or
anything like that?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: No, it hasn't reached
that stage.
Mr. Bill Siksay: Is this under the Alberta
human rights act?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: That's right, under
Alberta human rights.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Siksay.
Mr. Bill Siksay: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: We'll now go to the Liberals.
Mr. Macklin, the parliamentary secretary.
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland—Quinte
West, Lib.): Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you, witnesses, for being
with us.
Let me just follow along on the general tenor of
charities and charitable status, because I think it is something that has had
its profile raised significantly in this process.
I guess at this point I can conclude that both of
you--“both” representing you, Bishop Henry, and the Unitarian Church
Council—have not heard of anyone else who has either been phoned or has actually
had their charitable status revoked for speaking out on this or any other
controversial issue, such as abortion. Is that fair?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: I'm not exactly sure how
to answer that. As a minister of religion, no, I don't know of anybody who has.
But I know some other charitable groups who have voiced opinions based on moral
principles and have had their charitable number revoked.
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin: Now, in your case,
at the moment are you forming the opinion, subject to future events, that this
is an isolated incident, based on your experience with Revenue Canada?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: I really don't know. I
don't know what goes on inside Revenue Canada, but I tend to think personally
that the individual who phoned me made a mistake. I suspect Revenue Canada would
like this thing to disappear as quickly as possible. If it proceeded to a next
stage, I think the only thing that would ensue would be embarrassment for them.
I'm quite capable of defending my pastoral letter as not being in contravention
of the Elections Act, and I don't think Revenue Canada wants that kind of
discussion to take place.
My guess--and I might be totally wrong--is that a
mistake was made. It's over and done with, and let's get on with things.
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin: With respect to this
area--because it is a very broad area, when we talk about registered charities
and their capacity to participate in society--are both of you agreed that in
fact there should be some limitation on what registered charities can do in
terms of their ability to speak out, especially because in a sense they're
representing their donors? I ask that to both of you, Bishop Henry and the
Canadian Unitarian Council.
Most Rev. Fred Henry: Well, I think it's a
delicate area we have to deal with. First of all, from a religious vantage
point, we firmly believe our religion and faith should fit together and faith
should permeate everything we say and do, so in a sense there is nothing that is
outside the parameters of being fused by gospel values.
It seems to me to be rather strange that we live in a
country in which, during the high point of some of our debates on moral issues,
the Canada Elections Act is being used to muzzle the voices of the churches at
this particular stage. I think there's something incongruous here and something
that's out of sync.
At the same time, I'm not interested in being
involved in partisan politics. My God, I have enough to do without trying to do
your job.
½ (1910)
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin: And from the
Unitarian Council?
Mr. Brian Kopke: I think it's important to
recognize that in the Judeo-Christian tradition on which our laws are based
there is a prophetic voice, and it's that prophetic voice the churches act out
of. That voices allows for clear debate but not for getting involved in the
elections, and I think that's where the line is drawn. The prophetic voice is
what creates a lot of the dialogue in the nation. There has to be dialogue as we
go into bills like this, and this dialogue is very important.
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin: I'm following up on
that. Do you believe, then, religious charities should have special protections
for their religious freedom on an issue? If so, how far should that go? Again,
that's to both of you, Bishop Henry and the Unitarian Council.
Mr. Brian Kopke: Insofar as English common law
is built on the history of interpretation through the years, I really think
English common law and Canada have done pretty well on that. They've allowed a
huge amount of debate, and seldom has the line been drawn, except when people
clearly cross the line. So I'm pretty happy with the way things have gone. There
is a lot of debate.
Most Rev. Fred Henry: Mr. De March's telephone
call, especially when he asked me whether I contemplated doing anything else,
just sufficiently angered me that I said I hadn't been thinking about it but I
was going to think about it. Consequently, I wrote an article entitled “Election
2004: Discernment and Responsibility” for one of our newspapers, The Calgary
Sun, and proceeded to talk about some key principles of moral and social
teaching.
These function like a lens through which to examine
public policy and programs, such as respect for life, support for marriage and
family life, the preferential option for the poor, the common good, and so on.
Basically, I was borrowing from much of the material that was produced by the
Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. I thought the people in my diocese have
a right to try to look at things through the lens of their moral principles in
terms of trying to evaluate the various platforms and the candidates who had
presented themselves to run for public office, but I didn't endorse
anybody.
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin: You are a proponent,
obviously, of registered charities being able to spend their revenues on
promoting their religious belief. Would you limit that to being based on the
holy text upon which that religious organization relies?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: When you talk about
religious belief, I don't think that respect for life, support for marriage and
family life, the preferential option for the poor, and the common good are
religious issues. I think they're human issues. As a result, I can't see why a
group, because it happens to be rooted in faith, should be excluded from the
debate itself. It doesn't make any sense to me.
Again, you don't tell a Freudian psychologist...you
don't tell a CIBC corporate manager to bracket their corporate philosophy prior
to entering the public forum. Why should I, or a charitable institution, be
asked to bracket myself before I comment on an issue?
We come at it from different vantage points, but
that's part of who we are. That's part of our being. As citizens of Canada, I
thought that was one of our charter rights.
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin: From the Unitarian
Council....
Mr. Brian Kopke: Faith communities ought to be
able to speak out of their faith. The best statements about social policy are
rooted in our own traditions in our texts. That goes back to the type of
statement that Joseph Ben-Ami made, which gets into the philosophy and things
that pre-exist what we now have. These debates are absolutely necessary in the
long run, because without them we end up with a society that floats around and
doesn't give us any sense of stability.
½ (1915)
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin: Thank you.
The Chair: We'll go to the Conservatives, Mr.
Toews.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Thank you,
Mr. Chair.
I want to make note that some of our colleagues who
are not regular members of the committee are here as well—Mr. Jeff Watson and
Mr. Pat O'Brian. I welcome them as observers. Paul Szabo is sitting in the front
row. He wasn't around the table. He's certainly welcome to come to the table as
well.
I'm concerned about this issue of the Revenue Canada
official, Terry De March, making these kinds of statements. I'm concerned not
only about this perceived threat against a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church,
but also about the fact that this individual was trying to enforce the Elections
Act, which is not an act that Revenue Canada should be enforcing. I may well be
making a motion, if we can get unanimous consent, to have this individual here,
because I think he has a lot of explaining to do.
My specific concern, though, is directed at the
comments of the Unitarian Church, that this act is somehow balanced and that
religious freedoms are protected. We heard a constitutional expert today, a law
professor, who said that by trying to frame this as a constitutional requirement
in the preamble, we were clothing a policy as a constitutional requirement. He
said this is not a constitutional requirement, and that it was regrettable that
the governing party would try to shape this debate as though it were a
constitutional imperative.
The second point—and I would like you to comment on
both these points—is that Ms. Bowen said that religious freedoms are protected
in this act. If this is the case—and she was referring to section 3—then section
3 must be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Canada, in its decision, said
that a virtually identical provision was unconstitutional, if it tried to
protect religious freedom in a substantial or declaratory way. So it concerns me
even more that Ms. Bowen is saying that religious freedoms are protected by this
section. If this section actually protects religious freedoms, then according to
the Supreme Court of Canada, it's unconstitutional.
I hope your interpretation is wrong, because it
concerns me gravely. It's all part of what the government is trying to do—to
dress up this skeleton in emperor's clothes. There really is no protection of
religious freedom, and it's trying to dress a policy issue as a constitutional
one.
For the Unitarian Church now to come here and offer
this legal opinion gives me a lot of concern. I'm wondering if you could expand
on your legal opinion about this act and how you think it protects religious
freedoms.
If Mr. Kopke is giving the answers, he can
speak.
Ms. Elizabeth Bowen: No. I just said to him I
am not a lawyer, so it makes it very difficult for me to engage in a
conversation with you and refer to the testimony of someone who is a lawyer. But
I am looking at the section that I think you refer to.
Mr. Vic Toews: It's section 3, which the
Supreme Court said was unconstitutional in the reference last year.
That concerns me. You come here as a faith
organization and then dress up your faith beliefs in a legal context. I'm
concerned about that. If there is a basis for your legal opinion, please present
it. If there is no basis for that legal opinion, please state that so we can
move on to other testimony.
Mr. Brian Kopke: We could have brought a
lawyer. We did not bring a lawyer. Normally in Canadian society, when you're
pinned down like this, you have the right to have a lawyer with you, and we
don't have that. So I guess you can move on.
Mr. Vic Toews: I'm not saying you should have
a lawyer. I'm just concerned when you venture into the legal area and make
statements regarding law and constitutional law, which are clearly wrong.
Now, Bishop Henry, there is the issue of something
that my colleague, Mr. Kenney, mentioned. You're the bishop of the Roman
Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church is a very big organization.
I come from a relatively small Protestant group.
Right now that Protestant group is facing challenges because it will not rent a
facility to a homosexual choir. It is now facing these kinds of disputes in
front of the Manitoba Human Rights Commission. Again, we're seeing these kinds
of developments right across this country.
My fear is that once we change the definition of
marriage as a matter of law right across this country, what are now apparently
exceptional circumstances will escalate because there will be a legal,
constitutional basis for saying that those who oppose same-sex marriage on
ethical grounds are the equivalent of racists from the deep south in the 1860s.
That's what my concern is here. I know the Unitarian Church skirted around that
issue, but if there is no hierarchy of rights, if same-sex marriages are right
the same way that equality of races is right, how then can we distinguish these
rights? That's my concern. Could you elaborate perhaps on that, Bishop
Henry?
½ (1920)
Most Rev. Fred Henry: We're in a mess right
now because we have a bill in front of us that supposedly guarantees religious
freedoms, but sufficient dialogue has not taken place between the various
jurisdictions concerned with marriage, namely the provinces and the territories.
We're not all on the same page.
If this bill passes, I think all of us are going to
see a proliferation of court cases. I know I for one am probably going to end up
before many judicial bodies and tribunals and so on. This is something that I
regard as so fundamental that no matter what form Bill C-38 takes, if it
passes, to my mind it will be just like opening Pandora's box. I've already said
there are four issues anyway.
Mr. Vic Toews: I'm just saying that already
the commissions are doing it. The courts are also doing it.
The Chair: Mr. Toews, please.
We're going to go back to the Liberals. Mrs. Neville,
go ahead, please.
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me begin by thanking you all for coming here this
evening. Let me say to you, Mrs. Bowen, that I too am not a lawyer. I've been
sitting and listening to a whole host of legal opinions. What I'm learning in
this process, and what I'm aware of, is that there are many differing legal
opinions on this. As we saw with the constitutional experts, 134 took one
position and 32 took another position. So you are as entitled to make your
comments, based on the information, as I am here today. I think it's reasonable
participation for all of us.
I'm struck by a number of things. Mr. Kopke and Ms.
Bowen, I'm struck by the fact that, as you mentioned, the Unitarian Church now
has the ability to perform same-sex marriages in a certain number of
jurisdictions. What's happening in the jurisdictions where this has not passed?
And then I have another question.
Ms. Elizabeth Bowen: People are coming from
those provinces into provinces where marriages are considered legal.
Ms. Anita Neville: And is that a significant
number? Do you have any sense of that?
Ms. Elizabeth Bowen: I have no number. Maybe
Reverend Kopke does. I do know that a lot of people have come from the United
States as well as from other provinces to be married in Ontario.
Ms. Anita Neville: Within the Unitarian
community?
½ (1925)
Ms. Elizabeth Bowen: Yes.
Ms. Anita Neville: As I'm listening to the two
faith groups, I'm struck by the fact that the Unitarian community is finding the
law liberating, if I can use that word, in allowing you to perform your
religious rights and to expand your religious association.
Bishop Henry, I'm listening to you and you're finding
it, in my words, obstructionist and inappropriate for you.
I guess what I would ask each of you is this. How do
you see some potential reconciliation of the government's desire to honour the
individual human rights of all Canadians with your own faith-based
beliefs?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: Well, I think there are
a number of things that could be done.
One, I would hope the government would decide to
define the traditional understanding of marriage as a union of a man and a woman
to the exclusion of all others; and not to go in the direction of talking about
some kind of analogous marriage such as civil unions, but look for those social
rights deemed to be denied to members of the gay and lesbian community under an
umbrella such as adult interdependent relationships.
I think that desexualizes it, and it puts it within a
context where it also takes into account, say, my niece, who is currently
committed to sacrificing her own life to look after grandma. Inheritance rights
ought to be accorded to her, visiting rights ought to be acknowledged when she
goes to the hospital, and so on, and she shouldn't be barred from doing so.
If there are other rights that members of the gay and
lesbian community feel are being denied to them right now, I would like them to
clearly specify what those are. I think those rights can be dealt with and
protected and enshrined in law, without reinventing marriage itself as a social
institution.
My best hope is that there would be a reaffirmation
of traditional marriage and then you as a body of legislators would look at the
whole question of adult interdependent relationships.
Ms. Anita Neville: Basically, I hear that as
no reconciliation between--
Most Rev. Fred Henry: You're right. If you're
asking me to accept a watered-down understanding of the institution of marriage,
that's not going to happen.
Ms. Anita Neville: Reverend Kopke, can you
comment on it?
Mr. Brian Kopke: I think it's a long, slow,
and deliberate process, and it's going to require a huge amount of talking, not
only among faith communities, but also among Canadians across this land. We saw
it certainly back when women were given the vote, when blacks were given the
vote, etc. Things were just as messed up and vociferous at that time as they are
now. Yet we've all come together as a nation, and a stronger nation.
I believe that's what will happen. I have faith in
Canada. I have faith in the faith communities in Canada being able to embrace
what the future is going to bring.
I think the reason marriage probably became the
vehicle for this discussion was because...whether it's inheritance, or
retirement benefits, or being part of a family health plan, they are all tied to
marriage.
Nevertheless, there is also discrimination in Canada
against gay and lesbian people, and I think we've seen those barriers slowly
dropping over the last 10 years.
Coming at this from the point of view of marriage is
one way of making sure those barriers do drop, and they should drop.
[Translation]
The Chair: Merci.
Now, back to the Bloc Québécois.
Mr. Ménard.
Mr. Réal Ménard: I would just like to point
out, Mr. Chairman, that not one of the witnesses we've heard this evening has
presented a legal opinion on the scope of clause 3. Earlier, a witness was
criticized, somewhat too harshly I might add, for not presenting one. However,
he was not alone. A person doesn't have to be an expert to hold an enlightened
view of this issue. All we can hope for is that people are not prejudiced.
However, no legal expertise is required to express the opinion that the bill
protects freedom of religion.
I'd like to exchange some views with the
representatives of the United Church, whose testimony was very refreshing. The
position they espouse seeks to reconcile values such as generosity, commitment
and tolerance. It's regrettable, in my view, that certain spokespersons for the
Catholic Church have a somewhat different discourse. No doubt this explains when
people in some parts of the world are deserting the Roman Catholic Church.
That being said, it is important to recognize legal
precedents and Supreme Court rulings on the subject. In Canada, there have been
15 relevant rulings. Maybe it would be worthwhile to have our researcher dig
them up for us before we conclude our proceedings. Last semester, I took a
course on public freedoms, and on freedom of religion in particular, at the
University of Ottawa.
Clause 3 of the bill clearly states the
following:
It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to
refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their
religious beliefs. |
The reference in this provision is to officials of
religious, not lay, groups. I think a person would have to be operating from a
position of bad faith to think that this guarantee is inadequate. This provision
safeguards religious beliefs associated with the right of freedom of religion. I
remind you that when the Supreme Court and other courts ruled on the question of
freedom of religion, jurisdiction wasn't an issue. Do you recall, for example,
the rulings in Quebec on the carrying of the kripan?Thirty years ago, when the
courts ruled on the observance of Sunday as a day of rest, the question did not
arise as to whether this was a federal, or provincial, matter.The courts held
that people's religious beliefs must be respected, and that jurisdiction wasn't
an issue.
I wholeheartedly respect the right of Catholics to
reject homosexuality. The crux of the debate is that there are men and women in
the Church who reject the right of homosexuals to exist and to form families.
People are entitled to their religious beliefs, but they cannot ask legislators
to subscribe to these views. If in fact Canada has no State religion, then the
only real value that must transcend all political parties is the right to
equality. It's a myth that equality exists when a homosexual male cannot get
married.
I'd like to ask you—and maybe Monsignor Henry would
like to venture a response as well—if you have any serious concerns about the
scope of clause 3. I'm relying completely on your analysis. One doesn't have to
be a law student to understand the scope of this provision. What weight do you
ascribe to clause 3, from a practical standpoint? As a minister, how do you view
clause 3? I'm not asking for a legal opinion. The committee can always request
one if it wants, Mr. Chairman, but I'm asking the question from the standpoint
of what's actually going on.
½ (1930)
[English]
Mr. Brian Kopke: Every officiant for a
marriage has the right now to refuse to do any marriage they want, based on what
their faith is. I have people who come to me because they are divorced and their
priest or their minister simply will not marry anybody who is divorced. Are we
going to throw divorces out and redo that? No, we're not.
I don't see any difference between that and what's
going on here with gay and lesbian marriages. They have the right to say no;
it's very clear. I think there understandably is a fear in relation to this. I
understand it, but I'm going to trust the courts on this. I know that not
everybody wants to trust the courts. If the courts turned around and tried to
make Catholics marry gays and lesbians, I'd be on the picket line with the
Catholics.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: You haven't said anything
this evening, Mr. Ben-Ami. Would you care to comment on clause 3?
[English]
Mr. Joseph Ben-Ami: Thank you very much. I was
beginning to think I had taken a vow of silence, which is not really part of my
religious beliefs.
By the way, for the record, I'm prepared to trade
hats with you too.
I think one of the fundamental flaws of that
particular clause is that it addresses itself specifically to religious
officials, and I don't think anyone throughout this debate has seriously
expressed a concern that religious officials--that is to say, representatives of
a particular religious group--are going to be compelled to perform same-sex
marriages. I don't think that has ever been a realistic concern.
The real problem is, what about individuals--and I'm
sure you have heard or will be hearing from witnesses who are marriage
commissioners or who are involved in the solemnization of civil marriage--who
refuse to participate in this because it offends their religious convictions?
The clause itself doesn't purport to protect them at all.
What about religious institutions that feel they
don't want to make their facilities available to same-sex couples because it
would be a violation of the religious standards of that organization? They
aren't protected by this clause either. So the first thing is that the clause as
it's written doesn't even purport to protect broad religious freedom.
The second thing--and Mr. Toews mentioned it
earlier--is that all of this is a nonsensical debate because the Supreme Court
has already said that particular clause is unconstitutional. So the only purpose
of putting it into this bill, the only explanation, is to engage in some kind of
subterfuge to fool Canadians who may be concerned legitimately about religious
freedoms into thinking--they're not going to delve deeply into the subject
because they're not lawyers, etc., and I'm not a lawyer either--when they see
the clause, “Oh, the Prime Minister is right, the government is right, they
protect religious freedoms”.
½ (1935)
The Chair: I am sorry, five minutes is very
short.
We're going back to the Liberals.
Mr. Macklin, please.
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin: Thank you very
much.
As we look at this issue, to a great extent the
question at the end of the day is the protection of freedom of religion in all
its forms. I guess the question then becomes, what forms should we be trying to
protect, and how far do you extend that protection?
The Supreme Court said, we conclude that the
guarantee of freedom of religion in the charter affords religious officials
protection against being compelled by the state to perform marriages between two
persons of the same sex contrary to their religious beliefs. I seem to be
hearing, at least from you, Bishop Henry, that that's likely not broad enough
for you to be satisfied as a religious leader that your faith will actually be
protected in all its forms.
Again, we are an inquiry, we are trying to find out,
so what do you believe we should be doing in order to help you gain the
protection you believe you ought to have? We spoke earlier about the Income Tax
Act and its implications. What other protections would you like to see
implemented that we could look at?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: I think one of the major
issues already spelled out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is “freedom of
religion and conscience” in paragraph 2(a). I would suggest that it might be
more appropriate and easier to work if you started with a conscience dimension,
because there are an awful lot of people who, for example, may be marriage
commissioners and may not have any religious beliefs right now, but who in
conscience are having a problem with this proposed legislation. It's like you're
not taking conscience seriously, in the same manner that sometimes a doctor or a
nurse may have a conscience problem with participating in abortion, or a
pharmacist may have a conscience problem with respect to prescribing certain
medications. Nobody right now in government is really dealing with a conscience
issue and freeing those people up from these conflictual situations. Even within
your own Liberal Party, I know there are some members of the cabinet who have a
conscience problem because of party solidarity, and you are seemingly prepared
to forget about conscience. I think that's wrong; I don't think that's a
Canadian principle. I think we have to flesh that out and spell it out more.
In the larger realm, of course, I've already
suggested what I think you ought to do in terms of reaffirmation of the
traditional definition of marriage, and also in looking seriously at any rights
that the gay and lesbian community think they are not being accorded, and
looking towards development of adult interdependent relationships as a vehicle
for doing so. My whole stance is not predicated on being anti-homosexual or
anti-gay. As strange as it may seem to think this, it's predicated on being pro
traditional marriage, and on basically one thing that we haven't even talked
about here—children.
Despite all the glowing things my confreres at the
end of the table have said about children in these same-sex relationships, I'm
still very much concerned about them, because all the evidence I read from all
of the studies that have been done to date is that children thrive best in terms
of nurture when there are gender complementarity situations. Of course, not
every marriage of different sexes works out very well, and I think sometimes our
children are being victimized. But in this whole redefinition of marriage, it
seems to me that the people we're forgetting most are the children. I think
that's too bad.
½ (1940)
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin: We had Professor
Cere with us today, who was suggesting that maybe what we should be looking at
as one possible way of, shall we say, incorporating the thought process of those
who support heterosexual marriage would be to amend the preamble, such that we
could at least give them a sense of feeling a part of this defining process, and
that we don't diminish in any way a heterosexual relationship, but rather in
fact recognize that it is part of this concept of civil marriage.
Do you think that would be helpful?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: Doing anything at this
stage I regard as helpful, but how helpful, I'm not sure. My experience—mostly
in the education area, dealing with the education acts in the provinces of
Alberta and Ontario—is that the preamble is the weakest part of the bill. You
can put all kinds of stuff and tinker around in there, but the meat and the
potatoes come later on. If you're really serious about doing something about
religious protection and freedom of conscience for everybody, you've got to deal
with the meat and the potatoes, not just the preamble.
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin: But I think his
point was that the question was one of engagement. In other words, we don't want
to make it seem as if those within our broader community who believe that
heterosexual marriage is “the” way one should view marriage should be excluded
from this process of melding the two together in this particular bill.
I guess the question becomes, is this going to be
helpful, or would it be helpful, or not? Your position is...?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: You're watering things
down so much. I'm trying to find an analogy, but it would be like saying, is it
okay to play golf using your opposite hand with only a wedge, dragging around a
ball and chain, and expect to be able to shoot under 80? The answer is no, it's
not helpful at all. If you really want to do something about marriage, then
you're going to have to look at a serious rewrite of this whole bill. It's
fundamentally flawed. I've given you seven things that are wrong with the bill,
which are not just my things, but are basically legal points from lawyers.
The Chair: Thank you.
Back to the NDP. Mr. Siksay.
Mr. Bill Siksay: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Bishop Henry, civil marriage has been around for a
while. It's been possible to be married by a marriage commissioner or a justice
of the peace and not be married by a priest or a minister. Has civil marriage,
as it has existed in our society, met Catholic standards?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: Usually we have some
more requirements than are simply required by the registry office. For example,
I think the state of affairs right now in Canada, and in almost all the
provinces and territories, is that it's probably easier to get a marriage
licence than a driver's licence. That's not true in the Catholic Church.
Mr. Bill Siksay: So civil marriage, for
instance, hasn't made it a requirement that the ability to procreate be present
among the couples being married?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: No.
Mr. Bill Siksay: So we've had a situation for
some years where there is in fact a different civil standard, or perhaps even a
different definition of civil marriage, than there is for religious
marriages.
½ (1945)
Most Rev. Fred Henry: There's always been the
understanding, until relatively recently--I thought we were more or less
united--about the nature of marriage itself as always having that openness to or
that possibility of human life. What I see this bill doing is striking that down
and saying, forget about it, what we really are interested in are just committed
relationships.
Mr. Bill Siksay: But that hasn't necessarily
been the case with, say, a couple beyond procreation age.
Most Rev. Fred Henry: No, but the difference
is that there is at least in principle, by reason of the gender complementarity,
the remote possibility, even at an advanced age, of such conception occurring.
In same-sex unions you're dealing with a biological impossibility, unless you're
going to get very esoteric and very technological and you're going to talk about
in vitro fertilization or some form of transferral into the womb of a
partner.
Mr. Bill Siksay: We might want to talk about
that, but it might also frighten a lot of people who are older and think they're
beyond childbearing age to consider that possibility.
You raised the issue of conscience a little while
ago, and I don't want to be argumentative, but is conscience a Catholic
principle as well?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: Again, I don't think
you're going to be able to put the Catholic label on anything really that I've
said here. I specifically decided not to talk about sacramentality. I haven't
quoted scripture, not one verse. I'm simply saying, let's look at this from the
vantage point of philosophy, reason, and natural law.
Mr. Bill Siksay: I guess my question was more
whether you can be a devout Catholic and still support same-sex marriage. Are
there any dissenting Catholic voices?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: There are some who call
themselves Catholic, but then it gets to be questionable as to whether they
ought to go parading under that label of devout Catholic. For example, if they
were in my diocese and they were a public official, they would be refused
communion.
Mr. Bill Siksay: So you would take action to
do that?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: Absolutely.
Mr. Bill Siksay: Do you do that on other
issues as well?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: Yes, there are some
issues where if you're a notorious public sinner you're refused communion
also.
Mr. Bill Siksay: Can you give me some examples
of what those would be?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: I have told some people,
for example, who have acknowledged that they are in abusive relationships that
they are not to receive communion until these matters have been dealt with
forthright.
Mr. Bill Siksay: Bishop Henry, have you ever
been taken to court to force you to provide a religious service to someone? For
instance, if there were people you had denied ordination, have they taken you to
the courts to force you to ordain them? Could a Catholic woman, for instance,
who thought she might have some claim on the priesthood do that? Has that ever
been attempted?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: No, it's never been
attempted, to my knowledge. Not for me anyway; maybe somebody else, but not
me.
Mr. Bill Siksay: Nowhere that you know of,
eh?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: No, nothing comes to
mind.
Mr. Bill Siksay: Have divorced people ever
gone to court to force a Catholic priest to marry them, to your knowledge?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: No.
Mr. Bill Siksay: Do you have any sense as to
why that might not have happened, given that people seem ready to take advantage
of legal remedies?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: I think it's pretty
clear cut. We don't believe in divorce and remarriage. If there is a valid
marriage in the first place, you're only out, if you want to even talk about it
as being out, if you request a declaration of nullity that no marriage existed
in the first place, or no marriage can take place.
Mr. Bill Siksay: So if it's really clear cut
in that circumstance, why do you feel it's not so clear cut in the circumstance
of same-sex marriage?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: Very clearly, it's not a
marriage. There is no gender complementarity and there's no openness to
life.
Mr. Bill Siksay: But in terms of protection
for the Catholic Church's religious freedom to deny doing that, why do you not
have the same confidence there?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: I think I do right now,
but by virtue of what the Supreme Court has said, with its open door, the nature
of this legislation, which talks an awful lot about religious freedom, can't
deliver. This is smoke and mirrors.
Mr. Bill Siksay: But there's no evidence that
this religious freedom hasn't existed already and doesn't exist now in other
circumstances that may have--
Most Rev. Fred Henry: Yes, there are some
instances. For example, the gay couple in British Columbia that is taking the
Knights of Columbus to court because they don't want to rent their facility to a
gay and lesbian couple for marriage purposes, and so on.
Mr. Bill Siksay: It's not the same as a
religious official providing a religious service, though.
Most Rev. Fred Henry: You'll notice that the
Alberta human rights complaint is lodged as discrimination based on services and
so on, and also publication, so it's not just one.
Mr. Bill Siksay: But we don't even know if
it's going ahead yet either.
Most Rev. Fred Henry: Listen, if it's lodged
and I have to hire a lawyer, it's engaged at this particular stage, because it's
been accepted.
Mr. Bill Siksay: All right. To your
understanding there's been no example where the church has been forced to marry
someone to admit them to the Eucharist, to bury them, any of those kinds of
things by the courts?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: No, but you're setting
the stage for it to happen, and that's what I think you have to understand, that
if this becomes law, Bill C-38 as it's written, that is going to happen.
Mr. Bill Siksay: Why did the protections that
currently exist disappear with this bill?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: Because you're seeking
to blow open the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by reading in, based on some of
the decisions of the Supreme Court and also by the action of some judges with
respect to inventing or changing common law, and also now by reason of this
particular bill.... As a result of that sort of thing, I think we're into a
changed social reality that is hostile to religious belief.
½ (1950)
The Chair: Thank you.
Back to the Liberals.
Mr. Macklin.
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin: I'm prepared to
allow Mr. O'Brien one round of questioning, if that's appropriate with
everyone.
The Chair: If the committee has no
objection....
Agreed?
Mr. Réal Ménard: Of course.
The Chair: Mr. O'Brien, five minutes.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Ind.): Thank
you very much, Mr. Chairman, and to my former colleague, still colleague in the
House, Mr. Macklin, thank you for that. I didn't really anticipate questions,
but now that I have the opportunity, I certainly will avail myself.
And I'd like to speak to a man I'm proud to say is an
old friend, and our families were close in days past, Bishop Henry. We're proud
he's a native Londoner, and I want to get that commercial in for the city of
London. Now he's proudly a Calgarian, we know.
Bishop, as a former Catholic educator yourself, in
the strictest sense of the word, and now as the bishop of the Calgary diocese,
what are the concerns that you have heard, or that you may have yourself, around
the issue of the potential for a restriction of Catholic teachers and the
Catholic curriculum vis-à-vis homosexuality and Catholic teaching?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: I can speak from my
experience with Alberta most recently, because they have recently issued a new
health curriculum guideline for the province and similarly a CALM program, which
is a career and life management program. Those have been formulated within the
context of a secularist philosophy within the Ministry of Learning or the
Ministry of Education. There was no significant Catholic input into either of
those documents, and yet we are regarded as a public school system within the
province of Alberta.
So right now we are faced with trying to either
baptize documents that come out of the ministries of learning or education in
terms of curriculum.... Obviously, with respect to issues on the question of
homosexuality, abortion, and some of the other life issues, we have
mega-problems. Yet while we are in a position of being a public school system
acknowledged by the government, able to meet government standards, we are not
given the wherewithal or the resources in order to be able to write our own
programs and curriculum.
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you very much.
Reverend Kopke and Ms. Bowen, I happen to disagree
with you that this is a human right, and I've been very forthright about that. I
understand the different opinions on that, but I wonder, can you point to any
country in the world, or any national or international court or tribunal, that's
made a ruling, as you say, that this is a human right? I'd be happy to have any
example you're aware of.
Mr. Brian Kopke: If Canada passes this
legislation, it would only be the third country in the world to legalize--
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Maybe I didn't phrase my
question well. I'm looking for any example you have of an international court or
tribunal, or a national court, that has ruled consistent with your opinion that
you think this is a human right, because of course the Supreme Court of Canada
has not so ruled. Do you know of any court that has?
Mr. Brian Kopke: I don't believe that in any
of these three countries it has gone to that point in the courts.
Mr. Pat O'Brien: All right. Thank you very
much.
I'll leave it there, Mr. Chairman. My next one would
be too long, I think.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you.
The Chair: Now we're going back to the
Conservatives. I understand it's Mr. Kenney.
Mr. Vic Toews: I just want to raise the issue
I raised before—the 8 o'clock time limit—on a point of order.
The Chair: You're on a point of order?
Mr. Vic Toews: On a point of order.
My concern is that the bishop has stated something
about a Revenue Canada official, this Terry De March. I think it would be
appropriate for this committee, if we don't want to hear from that individual
directly, at least to give him the bishop's testimony and ask him to send us a
response by a certain time, because I think this is a concern.
I would ask for unanimous consent, first of all, to
have him come here.
The Chair: Mr. Toews, you would need unanimous
consent if we're going to do it tonight. Do you want to do it now?
Mr. Vic Toews: I'd rather do it right now.
The Chair: Okay. Is there unanimous
consent?
No, I'm sorry, there isn't, so we're back—
Mr. Vic Toews: Mr. Macklin says no.
The Chair: We're back to Mr. Kenney.
You have five minutes, Mr. Kenney.
½ (1955)
[Translation]
Mr. Jason Kenney: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to give Monsignor Henry an opportunity to
respond to one of Mr. Ménard's comments. I believe he just said that some
Catholics think homosexuals do not have the right to exist.
That's news to me. Monsignor, have you ever heard a
Catholic say that homosexuals did not have the right to exist? Is that the
position of the Catholic Church? Does the Catholic Church not defend the dignity
of all human beings, including homosexuals?
[English]
Most Rev. Fred Henry: The short answer is, of
course, yes. I think my own track record indicates that as a social justice
activist in a great many areas, I've also been very outspoken on the whole
question of legitimate rights of members of the gay community in terms of human
rights. I have challenged anyone who has raised issues that I've thought...even
from simple jokes to positions with respect to the rights of members of the gay
community with respect to housing and all the rest of that kind of stuff. So I
don't really find myself as....
Well, it's somewhat ironic. Here I am, and supposedly
among my own I'm thought about as one of those loose cannons in terms of social
justice, and yet I'm being very clear on this one and am regarded as being
anti-social justice. I don't know how you put this together. Maybe it's just
this particular issue or whatever, but I don't find the labels particularly
helpful.
If I find any Roman Catholic who does not adhere to
the section of the catechism numbered 2358, which says that discrimination
against homosexuals is unjust and is not to be tolerated, then I have to
challenge them and not allow such behaviour to go on within the church.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Thank you.
It might comfort Mr. Siksay from the NDP, Your Grace,
to know that one nickname the media has given you in the past—if I may—is “Red
Fred”. Is that not correct?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: Yes, Ted Byfield gave me
that one when I got a little too far to the left on some social issues.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Your Grace, Mr. Siksay was
doubtful whether any institution of the church could have its privileges
jeopardized by the adoption of this legislation. Are you aware that it's already
the case that a facility belonging to a parish council of the Knights of
Columbus in the archdiocese of Vancouver is facing some form of legal challenge
because of its refusal to rent its facilities to a same-sex couple for the
celebration of the solemnization of their marriage?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: Yes, I believe I
mentioned that in my comments to him.
Mr. Jason Kenney: And with respect to
education, some say the Catholic school system is protected under the
Constitution. Mr. Ben-Ami perhaps could comment on this as well. Is it not true
that there are independent schools that don't have the protection of the
Constitution per se for religious purposes?
For instance, my father was headmaster of an
independent school that is not in the Catholic separate system but has a
Catholic identity. Would it not be possible, if not likely, that the adoption of
this bill would increase the possibility that such schools would be
challenged—at least their partial public funding would be challenged—if they
were to refuse to teach that heterosexual and homosexual marriages were morally
equivalent? Wouldn't that jeopardize public funding of schools like that, in
your view?
Mr. Joseph Ben-Ami: Unquestionably, for
private schools that would be an issue. From the Ontario perspective, we have a
problem with any kind of public funding in private schools. There is some,
though, through the health department that would be an issue. I would be far
more concerned, Mr. Kenney, with the problem of religious students attending
public school and being compelled to buy into the moral view being taught by
that school. That's a far more troubling thing.
I take a view contrary to Bishop Henry's statements
about there not being a state religion. It's my view that there is a state
religion, and it's secularism. The whole notion of separation of church and
state is a simplistic way of approaching that whole problem. There's no question
that there are going to be instances where religious students are forced either
to compromise or abandon their religious principles, simply to fit into the
so-called public school system.
¾ (2000)
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Kopke, you refused to
state clearly whether you believe that the denial of same-sex marriage was
analogous to racism. But twice you've offered the example of society making it
illegal to discriminate, in marriage, on the basis of race. Do you or do you not
believe that the denial of access to marriage on the grounds of sexual
orientation is analogous to the denial of marriage on the grounds of race or
ethnicity?
Mr. Brian Kopke: I think there are some
similarities.
The Chair: Mr. Macklin.
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin: No questions, Mr.
Chair.
The Chair: Monsieur Ménard.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Thank you.
I have two quick questions for you, Mr. Kopke.
I don't deny that the Church acknowledges the dignity
of homosexuals. Let me qualify my comment. Certain movements within the Roman
Catholic Church love homosexuals provided they practise abstinence, and their
unwillingness to recognize same-sex marriage amounts to a rejection of
homosexual relations. Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with human dignity.
The issue is intrinsically linked with the very nature of homosexuals.
You Church has opted to advocate openness. You began
by referring to universal values. Do you not feel that your logic is seriously
flawed when you claim to accept homosexuals, but in the same breath reject their
loving commitment to each other or their right to avail themselves of an
important lay institution, namely marriage? Do you not see a major contradiction
here?
[English]
Mr. Brian Kopke: There is a contradiction, but
I have to remember that every law that requires major changes in Canada has been
part of a process. Sometimes these processes take generations. The changes don't
come easily. I think what will happen is that over a period of time, generation
after generation, people are going to see that respecting gay and lesbian people
as married couples poses no threat to family values or religions.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes.
Some researchers have developed the concept of
institutionalized homophobia. How would you qualify the actions of a political
party—any political party—the elected representatives of which have, on seven
occasions, voted down the rights of homosexuals?
Consider the example of the political party that
voted against Allan Rock's amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act, that
voted against Anne McLellan's benefits legislation, that voted against the bill
recognizing social benefits in the public service, and that voted against a 1999
NDP motion respecting hate crimes.
On seven separate occasions, a party has collectively
denied the rights of a group, specifically homosexuals. From the standpoint of
empirical research, do you agree with some researchers who see these votes as
displays of institutionalized homophobia?
I spoke theoretically, so as not to hurt anyone. You
know how sensitive I am, Mr. Chairman, and I'd like everyone to be the same.
[English]
Mr. Brian Kopke: I would say most Unitarians
would have a problem with that party.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: And Canadians as well, in my
view.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
¾ (2005)
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Siksay.
Mr. Bill Siksay: Bishop Henry, Mr. Kenney
asked you about the Knights of Columbus hall in Coquitlam, B.C. I think he
implied there was a solemnization of marriage. It was just a wedding reception,
is that right? It wasn't an actual wedding ceremony as such. Is that your
understanding as well?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: I'm not sure of whether
or not the plan was to use the hall for the solemnization. I don't know
that.
Mr. Bill Siksay: My understanding is it was a
reception. That's not sacramental in terms of Catholic tradition, is it?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: No, it's not. We believe
in parties, but not that far, no.
Mr. Bill Siksay: Bishop Henry, do you know if
that particular Knights of Columbus hall is a free-standing facility?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: No, I don't know.
Mr. Bill Siksay: Do you know what their policy
has been on rentals? Would they rent to people who don't conform to Catholic
policies or doctrine so the couple could be married?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: I have no idea what
their policies are at all.
Mr. Bill Siksay: You don't know what their
history has been with regard to that.
Most Rev. Fred Henry: No.
Mr. Bill Siksay: So there are lots of
unanswered questions about that particular situation.
Most Rev. Fred Henry: That's right, and you
might add another one: were they set up?
Mr. Bill Siksay: Why would we assume
that?
Most Rev. Fred Henry: Well, I just think it's
a fair question. You're asking about their policies. I'm looking at it from the
other vantage point and saying, is this a convenient way for, say, someone in a
gay or lesbian kind of relationship to challenge the church and get some kind of
ruling through a lower court?
Mr. Bill Siksay: So you don't think it would
be reasonable, if you lived in Coquitlam and saw a sign outside of a facility
saying “Banquet Hall for Rent”, to check that out if you were--
Most Rev. Fred Henry: No. You might go to the
legion or you might try another hall. Why try the Knights of Columbus when you
know what their stand is in general on marriage?
Mr. Bill Siksay: Maybe they didn't. Not
everybody knows the Knights of Columbus. As a good Protestant boy, I'm not
really familiar with them myself, so there you go.
Most Rev. Fred Henry: Well, look into them,
Bill. They're good for you.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Bill Siksay: I wouldn't be that suspicious
of people's motivation at that point in their lives, I don't think.
Anyway, thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you.
Let me thank the witnesses for appearing in front of
the committee this evening. We know some of you travelled far. We appreciate
your cooperation. It was an interesting evening, and thank you again.
The next meeting, as you well know, is tomorrow
afternoon at 3:30 p.m.
The meeting is adjourned.