Manitoba Committee Hansard — 24 July 2002 (Legislative Affairs Committee, Sitting 9, 37th Legislature, 3rd Session)

37-3-la9

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session - Thirty-Seventh Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Law Amendments Chairperson Mr. Doug Martindale Constituency of Burrows Vol. LII No.9 - 6:30p.m., Wednesday, July 24, 2002

Member AGLUGUB, Cris ALLAN, Nancy ASHTON, Steve, Hon. ASPER, Linda BARRETT, Becky, Hon. CALDWELL, Drew, Hon. CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. CUMMINGS, Glen DACQUA Y, Louise DERKACH, Leonard DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary, Hon. DRIEDGER, Myrna DYCK, Peter ENNS, Harry FAURSCHOU, David FRIESEN, Jean, Hon. GERRARD, Jon, Hon. GILLESHAMMER, Harold HA WRANIK, Gerald HELWER, Edward HICKES, George JENNISSEN, Gerard KORZENIOWSKI, Bonnie LATHLIN, Oscar, Hon. LAURENDEAU, Marcel LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. LOEWEN, John MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. MAGUIRE, Larry MALOWAY,Jim MARTINDALE, Doug McGIFFORD, Diane, Hon. MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn, Hon.

MITCHELSON, Bonnie MURRAY, Stuart NEV AKSHONOFF, Tom PENNER, Jack PENNER, Jim PITURA, Frank REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. ROCAN, Denis RONDEAU, Jim SALE, Tim, Hon. SANTOS, Conrad SCHELLENBERG, Harry SCHULER, Ron SELINGER, Greg, Hon. SMITH, Joy SMITH, Scott, Hon. STEFANSON, Heather STRUTHERS, Stan TWEED, Mervin WOWCHUK, Rosano, Hon. MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Seventh Legislature Constituency The Maples St. Vital Thompson Riel Inkster Brandon East Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Russell Selkirk Concordia Charleswood Pembina Lakeside Portage Ia Prairie Wolseley River Heights Minnedosa Lac du Bonnet Gimli Point Douglas Flin Flon St. James The Pas St. Norbert La Verendrye Fort Whyte St. Johns Arthur-Virden Elmwood Burrows Lord Roberts Minto River East Kirkfield Park Interlake Emerson Steinbach Morris Transcona Southdale Rupertsland Carman Assiniboia Fort Rouge Wellington Ross mere Springfield St. Boniface Fort Garry Brandon West Tuxedo Dauphin-Rob lin Turtle Mountain Swan River Political Affiliation N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C.

N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. Lib. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P.

311 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AMENDMENTS Wednesday, July 24, 2002 TIME- 6:30 p.m. LOCATION -Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON- Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows) VICE-CHAIRPERSON - Mr. Jim Rondeau (Assiniboia) ATTENDANCE - 11 -QUORUM- 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Ms. Barrett, Hon. Messrs. Mackintosh, Sale, Smith (Brandon West) Ms. Cerilli, Messrs. Laurendeau, Maguire, Martindale, Mrs. Mitchelson, Mr. Rondeau, Mrs. Smith (Fort Garry) WITNESSES: Mr. Gilles Marchildon, EGALE Ms. Noreen Stevens, Private Citizen Ms. Lisa Naylor, Private Citizen Ms.

Erika MacPherson, Private Citizen Mr. Larry Speiss, Private Citizen Ms. Tammy Gutnik, Private Citizen, Ms. Jean Chennell, Private Citizen Mr. Robert Humphrey, Private Citizen Mr. David Reimer, Pastor, Shalom Family Worship Centre Mr. John Froese, Private Citizen Ms. Karen Busby, Private Citizen Mr. Jeremy Buchner, Private Citizen Mr. Gary Monkman, Private Citizen Ms. Krista Piche, Private Citizen Ms. Kristine Barr, Private Citizen Ms. Janet Baldwin, Chairperson, Manitoba Human Rights Commission Mr. Elliot Leven, Manitoba Human Rights Commission Mr. Tim Preston, Private Citizen Ms.

Donna Huen, Rainbow Resource Centre Mr. Lloyd Fisher, Private Citizen Ms. Sharon Hunter, Private Citizens Mr. Edward Lipsett, Private Citizen Mr. Rory Grewar, Private Citizen Mr. Mike Law, Manitoba Bar Association, Gay and Lesbian Issues

Section Ms. Jordan Cantwell, Private Citizen Mr. Thomas Novak, Dignity Winnipeg Ms. Michelle Paquette, Winnipeg Trans gender Group Ms. Sharon Pchajek, Private Citizen Ms. Donna Brigham, Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays Ms. Kerry Cazzorla, Private Citizen Ms. Faye Kliewer, Private Citizen Ms. Rhonda Chorney, Private Citizen Ms. Jayne Kapac, Private Citizen Ms. Dina Juras, Private Citizen Mr. Jeremiah Lexier, Private Citizen Mr. Jason Ryan, Private Citizen Ms. Marilyn Friesen, Private Citizen Ms. Virginia Larsson, Private Citizen Mr. John McCarron, Private Citizen Ms.

Elena Blomquist, Campaign Life Co alition Ms. Sharon Damn, Private Citizen Mr. Fred Cameron, Private Citizen Mr. Martin Paul Opitz, Private Citizen Mr. Ken McGhie, Private Citizen Mr. Carl Dornn, Private Citizen WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Mrs. Mireille Clark, Private Citizen Ms. Maggie Wasyliw and Mr. Doug Wasyliw, Private Citizen Mr. Ken Mandzuik, Manitoba Association of Rights and Liberties MATTERS UNDER DISCUSS ION: Bill 34- The Charter Compliance Act * * * Mr. Chai rperson: Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Law Amendments

312 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA July 24, 2002 please come to order. The first order of business is the election of a Vice-Chairperson. Hon. Scott Smith (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Chair, I would recom mend Mr. Rondeau for Vice-Chair. Mr. Chair person: Mr. Rondeau has been nominated. Are there any further nominations? Hearing none, Mr. Rondeau is declared Vice Chair of this committee. This evening the committee will be considering the following bill: Bill 34, The Charter Compliance Act. We have presenters who have registered to make public preentations on this bill.

It is the custom to hear public presentations before consideration of bills. Could I ask those persons in attendance who are speaking in French to please make themelves known to the Clerk of the committee if you have not already done so/ Is it the will of the committee to hear public presentations on the bill, and, if yes, in what order do you wish to hear the presenters? Hon. Becky Barrett (Minister of Labour and Immigration): I am not sure, but I believe that there may be some presenters in the audience who have children who are on the list.

I would suggest that we add, in addition to our normal suggestions of going with people from out of toWn, that anyone who has a child here this evening that would like to make a presentation that they be heard in the order along with the out-of-towners, so that they will not have to stay too late if their name is in the normal course of events further down the list. Mr. Ch airperson: It has been suggested that we hear parents with children first, and then out-of town presenters.

Is that agreed? [Agreed] Is there leave of the committee to hear those persons making their presentation in French, in what order, immediately after or before the out of-town? If someone will put up their hand, I will recognize them. Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Let us hear the French presenter first, so that we can send the translator home. * (18:40) Mr. Chairperson : As far as we know, we just have one person registered to present in French. It has been suggested by Mr. Laurendeau that that person go first, and then we can send the translator home.

Is that agreed? {Agreed} Bill 34-The Char ter Compliance Act Mr. Chai rperson : I will now read the list of people who are registered to present. It is a long list. I apologize if I pronounce any of your names incorrectly.

Karen Busby, Larry Speiss, Jeremy Buchner and Gary Monkman, Krista Piche, Dawn-Lee Piche, Noreen Stevens, Gilles Marchildon, Kristine Barr, Nadine Gilroy and Lorri Millan, Janet Baldwin, Jaik Josephson and Brent Lott, Tim Preston, Donna Huen, Lloyd Fisher, Lisa Naylor and Lori Bielefeld, Stacy Garrioch and Sharon Hunter, Asher Webb, Edward Lipsett, Rory Grewar, Mike Law, Brad Tyler-West, Jordan Cantwell, John Millward, Thomas Novak, Jean Chennell, Michelle Paquette, Grant Fleming, Sharon Pchajek and Maureen Pendergast, Erika MacPherson, Kendra Foster and Kegan McFadden, Diane Kelly, Sherri McConnell, Elizabeth Steindel, Robert Humphrey, Kerry Cazzorla, Ken Mandzuik, Faye Kliewer, Jean Chorneychuk, Carol Hartman, Mireille Clark, Jayne Kapac, Rhonda Chorney, Dina Juras, Sharon Taylor, Karen Luks, Gio Guzzi, Kirby Fults, Pastor David Reimer, Jeremiah Lexier, Jason Ryan, Marilyn Friesen, Virginia Larsson, John McCarron, Elena Blomquist, Walle Larsson, Sharon Dornn and Carl Dornn, Fred Cameron, John Froese.

The last two were add-ons. We are going to read the list of presenters with children and then the out-of-towners. We are going to start with No. 7, Gilles Marchildon and then the presenters with children who are registered at No. 6, Noreen Stevens; No. 15, Lisa Naylor and Lori Bielefeld; and No. 29, Erika MacPherson. Then we are going to do out-of town presenters. Larry Speiss; Jaik Josephson and Brent Lott; Jean Chennell; Erika MacPherson; Robert Humphrey; Carol Hartman; Pastor David Reimer; and that is it for out-of towners. John Froese is out-of-town as well.

Those are the persons and organizations that have registered so far. If there is anybody else in

July 24, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 313 the audience who would like to register, or has not yet registered and would like to make a presentation, would you please register at the back of the room. Just a reminder that 20 copies of your presentation are required. If you require assistance with photocopying, please see the clerk of the committee. Before we proceed with the presentations, is it the will of the committee to set time limits on presentations? Hon. Scott Smith (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) : Mr.

Chair, I would recom mend we follow our standard procedure of 15 minutes for presentation and 5 minutes for ques tions. Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): That is fine, Mr. Chair, but I do not believe we should be calling it the regular procedure. It is a procedure that has been adopted by this Government, not one that we have agreed to or accepted, which will be changed when we form government. Mr. Smith: As mentioned, procedures that we have followed through the past three years as we have been in government, and quite frankly, we will talk about his further comment at a later date. Mr.

Chair person: It has been suggested that we allow 15 minutes maximum for presentations and 5 minutes for questions and answers from committee members. Is that agreed? [Agreed} How does the committee propose to deal with presenters who are not in attendance today but have their names called? Shall these names be dropped to the bottom of the list? [Agreed} Shall the names be dropped from the list after being called twice? [Agreed} As courtesy to persons waltmg to give a presentation, did the committee wish to indicate how late it is willing to sit this evening? Mr. Smith: Mr.

Chair, I would recommend, by the number of presenters that we have here tonight, that we assess the situation around midnight and make an evaluation at that time. Mr. Laurendeau: Mr. Chair, I agree with the honourable member, that we should reassess it at midnight, but, at midnight, we should also give the opportunity to those people who want to pre sent, at that time, to present. I do not believe anybody should be dropped off the list tonight, that anybody who chooses could come back to the next meeting if we are not concluded at midnight. Mr.

Chair person : It has been suggested that we reassess at midnight, and, at that time, we also give anyone the opportunity who wishes to present tonight, to do so. Is that agreed? Hon. Becky Barrett (Minister of Labour and Im migration): I would prefer not to set any constraints around the reassessment at midnight and just reassess at midnight, at which time we can look at the situation then in all of its parameters. Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): Mr.

Chairperson, I would like to ask for some clarification because, out of respect for people that have jobs and people that are serious and committed to making representation on this legislation, I think that we should afford and allow people the opportunity that are still here at midnight to make presentation, and some may prefer. I know that we are prepared to stay all night long if that is what is needed, but I think it is very disrespectful to people to drop them off the list and not give them an opportunity to speak. This is a public hearing process.

It is the only opportunity for members of the public to make representation to their legislators on a piece of legislation. This is something that the Government uses on a regular basis and as the public hearing process. So I want to indicate that we, on this side, support allowing people to come back to committee if they cannot stay after midnight and that we should set another time for committee proceedings, possibly tomorrow evening, to finish up if there are any pre sentations, but I do not want to drop people off the list after midnight because they cannot stay. Mrs. Joy Smith (Fort Garry): Mr.

Chair, I want to support what my colleague is saying. I think it is very important that each and every

314 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA July 24, 2002 person have a chance to present, and I think it would be very disrespectful to drop anybody off at midnight and not give them the opportunity to speak. I want to make sure that is open. This is the one opportunity. As my colleague has re iterated a few minutes ago, it is the one op portunity that the public has to come and speak to this legislation. I think it is very necessary. Mr. Smith: Mr. Chair, I do not think any of us disagree with the fact that we want to hear everybody.

Certainly, the time that we are using now eats up that time, but I know all of us would like to hear the presenters come and make their presentation, which is why I do support that we reassess this at midnight, we consider the people that are left and reassess the parameters around these decisions at that time. Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Family Services and Housing): I move that the committee re assess its progress at midnight and make decisions on continuing at that time but that it offer an opportunity to any who still wish to pre sent tonight to do so. * (18:50) Mr. Chai rperson: It has been moved by Mr.

Sale that the committee sit until midnight and reassess. Is that agreed? [Agreed] I am advised that now that we have the motion in writing that I need to put it to the committee. Moved by Mr. Sale that the com mittee sit until midnight and reassess its progress at that time and that any person remaining at that time who wishes to present will be invited to do so. Agreed? [Agreed] I would also like to inform the committee that a written submission has been received from Maggie and Doug Wasyliw.

They have asked that their brief be included as a written sub mission to appear in the committee transcript for this meeting. Copies of this brief have been made for committee members and were dis tributed at the start of the meeting. Does the committee grant its consent to have this written submission appear in the committee transcript for this meeting? [Agreed] I would also like to advise all presenters in attendance that Room 254 which is just down the hall from here has been set up as an overflow room. The sound from this room will be broadcast in the overflow room.

So if anyone in attendance would like to have a little bit more space please feel free to wander down to that room. There will be a staffperson in attendance to assist you. I will now call Gilles Marchildon who will be speaking en franrais. Will you please come forward to make your presentation. Mr. Gilles Marchildon (EGALE): Cheres membres et chers membres du comite, merci d'abord d'avoir bien voulu recevoir les citoyens et les citoyennes interesses a faire une presentation au sujet de ce changement de loi important pour le respect des droits de Ia personne au Manitoba.

Je viens parler en mon nom personnel, en tant que proprietaire d'entre rise, journaliste et, bien sur, residant de la province qui sera touche par cette modification de la loi. De plus, je siege au conseil d'administration national du groupe EGALE. Translation Honourable committee members, firstly, thank you for hearing the citizens interested in making a presentation on the subject of this change in legislation which is important for the respect of human rights in Manitoba.

I am making this presentation on my own behalf, as a business owner, journalist and, of course, as a resident of the province who will be affected by this change in the law. I am also on the national board of directors of E GALE. English Though I am addressing the committee in French, my mother tongue, and speaking in the name of EGALE, EGALE is a bilingual national organization, so I want that underlined. Comme certains d'entre vous le savez, EGALE fait la promotion de l'egalite et de la justice pour les personnes Jesbiennes, gaies, bisexuelles et transgenres, et leurs families.

July 24, 2002 LEG ISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 315 Nous avons plus de 2 500 membres a travers le Canada, et ceux-ci se trouvent dans chaque province et territoire du pays dont le Manitoba, bien sur. Depuis plusieurs annees, EGALE fait des presentations devant des comites parlementaires et intervient devant les tribunaux dans des causes d'envergure, touchant les droits de la personne.

En plus de faire la sensibilisation aupres du grand public et de disseminer de !'information pertinente, EGALE fait aussi du demarchage politique pour changer les lois du pays afin qu'elles refletent davantage la realite sociale contemporaine en eliminant la discrimination a l'egard des personnes lesbiennes, gaies, bi sexuelles et transgenres, et leurs families.

Si j'ai pris la peine de parler de la mission et des objectifs du groupe EGALE, c'est parce que le Projet de loi 34 et sa suite logique, le Projet de Joi 53 introduit plus recemment, s'inserent dans notre desir de voir les lois de notre pays traiter les personnes qui ne sont pas heterosexuelles de Ia meme fayon que les personnes qui le sont. Ce ne sont pas des droits speciaux que notre communaute reclame mais bien d'avoir acces aux memes droits que tout le monde.

Effectivement, !'orientation sexuelle d'une personne ne devrait pas determiner le nombre et la qualite des lois qui Ia protege ou !'oblige, Je cas echeant. Un exemple qui illustre bien cette notion d'egalite devant la loi, c'est le changement propose vis-a-vis la declaration des conflits d'interet. Je ne crois pas que Jes personnes elues qui sont homosexuelles devraient beneficier d'exemptions speciales par rapport a !'obligation de declarer un conflit d'interet lorsque leurs responsabilites publiques les amenent a prendre une decision ou elles pourraient beneficier personnellement.

On peut imaginer une situation ou un elu, ayant un partenaire de meme sexe, voudrait ne pas etre oblige de declarer cette relation, etant donne Je fait que de telles relations ne seront pas acceptees par tout le monde completement de nos jours. <;a s'en vient, mais ce n'est peut-etre pas acquis a 100 pour cent. Or, lorsqu'on declare un conflit d'interet, on n'est pas oblige de divulguer au grand public les details precis qui nous motivent a nous excuser de la prise de decision. Done, une declaration d'un conflit d'interet n'entraine pas necessairement la perte d'un certain degre de vie privee.

D'autre part, je pense que notre societe, grosso modo, est rendue a un point ou une relation entre deux personnes du meme sexe ne fait plus les manchettes comme auparavant. II existe des elus ouvertement gais et lesbiennes a tous les niveaux du gouvemement: scolaire, municipal, provincial et federal. En effet, il serait possible de citer des exemples manitobains pour ces trois premiers niveaux. Je pourrais me pencher sur les autres lois qui seront touchees par cette nouvelle initiative legislative, par exemple, !'adoption et les decisions medicales, entre autres.

Or, je sais qu'il y a plusieurs autres intervenants qui souhaient prendre Ia parole et je vais leur laisser davantage de temps pour le faire, sans doute plus eloquemment que moi. Ce que je voudrais souligner c'est que le groupe EGALE, ses membres a travers le pays, ainsi que ceux et celles qui habitent le Manitoba, puis moi-meme personnellement, nous felicitons le gouvemement d'avoir pose ce geste eclaire en modifiant ses lois pour les rendre conforme a la Charte canadienne des droits et libertes.

Le Manitoba a toujours ete une terre d'accueil pour une grande diversite demographique, linguis tique, culturelle, raciale et religieuse. Dans cette meme veine, c'est un point de fierte pour moi, en tant que Manitobain, de pouvoir dire que Ia discrimination sur Ia base de !'orientation sexuelle n'a pas sa place non plus dans notre province. De plus, les lois qui gouvement notre province vont bientot refleter cette ouverture d'esprit, cette tolerance et ce respect des droits de Ia personne. Merci de votre ecoute et bonne chance dans vos deliberations.

J'ai tres hate de pouvoir celebrer !'adoption finale de ce projet de loi avec, je l'espere, !'accord non seulement des membres du parti gouvememental mais de tous les membres de tous les partis politiques de Ia Legislature. Merci. Translation As some of you know, E GALE promotes equality and justice for lesbian, gay, bisexual and

316 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA July 24, 2002 transgendered people, and their families. We have over 2500 members across Canada in every province and territory including Manioba, of course. For a number of years, E GALE has been making presentations before parliamentary committees and intervening before the courts in major cases dealing with human rights.

In addition to raising public awareness and disseminating relevant information, E GALE also engages in political lobbying to amend the country's legislation to more accurately reflect contemporary social realities by eliminating discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people and their families. I have taken the trouble of speaking about E GALE 's mission and objectives because Bill 34 and its logical continuation, Bill 53, introduced more recently, address our desire to see the laws of our country treat people who are not heterosexual in the same manner as people who are.

Our community is not asking for special rights, but simpl y for access to the same rights as everyone else. Indeed, an individual's sexual orientation should not determine the number and quality of the laws that protect or constrain him or her, as the case may be. An example that illustrates this concept of equality under the law, is the proposed amend en/ with respect to the disclosure of conflicts of interest.

I do not believe that elected officials who are homosexual should benefit from special exemptions with respect to their obligation to disclose a conflict of interest if, in the course of their public duties, they must make a decision from which they could benefit personally. One can imagine a situation in which an elected official with a same-sex partner would prefer not to be obligated to disclose this relationship, given that such relations are not fully accepted by everyone these days. It is coming along, but has not perhaps been achieved 100 percent.

But when disclosing a conflict of interest, one is not obligated to release to the public the details of what motivates one to abstain from making a decision. So disclosing a conflict of interest does not necessarily mean the loss of a certain degree of privacy. Moreover, I think that on the whole our society is at the point where a relationship between two people of the same sex does not make the headlines the way it once did. There are openly gay and lesbian elected officials at all levels of government: on school boards as well as in municipal, provincial and federal governments.

In fact, it would be possible to cite examples here in Manitoba for the first three levels. I could discuss the other legislation that will be affected by this new legislative initiative, for example, adoption and medical decisions, among others.

However, I know that several other people are waiting to speak and I will give them the time to do so, no doubt with greater eloquence than l I would like to emphasize that E GALE, its members throughout the country as well as those here in Manitoba, and I personally, congratulate the government on taking this enlightened action to amend its laws to make them consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Manitoba has always been a land that has wel comed great demographic, linguistic, cultural, racial and religious diversity.

In the same vein, I am very proud to be able to say that discrim ination on the basis of sexual orientation has no place in our province either. Our province 's legislation will soon reflect this open-minded ness, tolerance and respect for human rights. Thank you for your attention and good luck in your deliberations. 1 very much look forward to celebrating the enactment of this bill, which 1 hope will be passed with the agreement of the members of all political parties in the Legis ature. Thank you. Mr.

Chairperson : Ladies and gentlemen in the audience, I would like to remind you that we have a rule here that people in the public do not participate in the debate in any way. I would ask you to take that into consideration. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. The next presenter is Noreen Stevens. Please proceed. Ms. Noreen Stevens (Private Citizen): Good evening. My name is Noreen Stevens. I am

July 24, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 317 speaking here today on behalf of myself, my partner, Jill Town, and our two children: Savannah, who is two years old, and Dillon, who is almost one. I am presenting this evening in support of The Charter Compliance Act, which, in my opinion, moves the province of Manitoba signifi cantly forward in acknowledging the rights of gays and lesbians, rights which are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights. * (19:00 ) The Charter Compliance Act also brings the province in step with the majority of provinces in Canada. That is long overdue.

I have ex pressed my impatience with the Government on this issue many times during the past couple of years to government members, through the media and certainly among my friends and family. I think impatience is justified when our lives hang in the balance waiting for political and social change. At the same time, I would like to commend the Government for the amount of care and consideration and public consultation that has been a part of drafting this legislation. You have listened, and the end result is better for it.

Regarding the oppos1tton to this new legislation, or at least the parts of it that deal with parenting and with children, generally speaking, those who speak out against this legislation do so because they are fundamentally opposed to the idea of gays and lesbians parenting children at all. This is not the issue under debate. The fact is that gay and lesbian people have children. We have been parenting all along. The Charter Compliance Act is simply an acknowledgement, finally, of this diversity in our society.

Lastly, I would briefly like to tell you about my family, because I think that personal stories help us to gain a better understanding of the impact of legislation. Stories lift the legislation out of the law books and into the mosaic of day to-day life. Five years ago, Jill and I decided we would like to share our home and our lives with children. So we applied to adopt through Winnipeg Child and Family Services.

We came to understand that, although CFS workers respected Jill and me as a couple and would prepare our file and conduct our home study as a couple, they were required by the limitations of The Adoption Act to register our application in only one name. So, when we adopted a child, only one of us would be his or her legal parent. A few years later we were still waiting to adopt a child, so we became foster parents as well as adoptive applicants. Our daughter, Savannah, came to live with us a few months later, only two days after she was born.

Almost a year later, we learned that Savannah's birth mother was pregnant again, and the baby would come into care. So we asked that he or she come to live with us as well. So our son, Dillon, joined our family four days after he was born. Offering Savannah the opportunity to grow up with her brother was our first birthday present to her. In the process of becoming foster parents as well as adoptive applicants, we became aware of a ridiculous incongruity. Jill and I are both foster parents to our children.

Winnipeg CFS recog nizes us as a couple, accepted our application to foster as a couple, and completed our home study as a couple. Practically speaking, unlike adoption, there is no law that prevents us from fostering our children as a couple. However, if we were to adopt our children today under the current legislation, under the existing legislation, only one of us would be their legal parent.

So in the transition from being foster children to permanent adopted children, a transition that should be a joyful step and a step forward, our kids would go from having two foster parents to having only one adoptive parent. This is an excellent example of how current legislation does not reflect reality, and does not serve the best interests of children in this province. The Charter Compliance Act will change that for the better. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to express my support for this new legislation. Thank you. Mr. Chair person: Thank you for your pre entation.

Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to present in French? If so, please come

318 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 24, 2002 forward now. If there are none, we can send the translator home. The next presenters are Lisa Naylor and Lori Bielefeld. Please proceed. Ms. Lisa Naylor (Private Citizen): Good even ing, my name is Lisa Naylor. This is my partner, Lori Bielefeld, and our daughter, Shayla. I am not sure how long they will both be standing up here, but we will do our best. We are here tonight to speak specifically to the amendments proposed by Bill 34 that pertain to adoption.

It is essential that same-sex couples have the right to adopt children together, and that partners of gay and lesbian parents have the right to adopt their partner's biological children. Anything less is simply not within the best interests of our children. Although Lori and I are private people, we have chosen to share our personal story with you in order to put some real faces on what is other wise just words on a page. With or without the sanction and protection of law, we are a family. Lori and I entered into a relationship with each other almost 11 years ago. After a year of dating, we moved in together.

Soon after, we began slowly to merge our financial interests and to become part of each other's extended families. Together, we were asked to be guardians and godparents to other people's children. Together, we have survived the deaths of friends, family members and our first pet. Together, we packed up and moved from Ontario to Manitoba in order to build the life we hope to have. Together, we bought our first car and our first house. Together, we decided we wanted to be parents and we spent over five years sorting out options, attempting to achieve pregnancy and undergoing infertility treatment.

Together, we laughed and cried with joy when a pregnancy test was finally positive. Together, we attended every single appointment and supported each other through some frightening moments during the preg nancy. Together, we experienced each incredible sacred moment of our daughter's birth. Together, we held her new little body close as we gazed in awe at her perfection and imagined the bright ness of her future and the seriousness of our responsibility. Together, we have parented this amazing child for the past 15 months. She is funny and intelligent.

She takes in everything going on around her and she knows which one of us is her mama and which one of us is her mommy. She adores her grandpa and her grandmas, her aunts, her uncles, from both sides of her family. She knows absolutely where and with whom she feels most safe and most loved. We have no doubt that Shayla will always know who her family is. Nothing that is or is not written in the law will ever change that. However, without the passing of this bill and without the ability for her non-biological mother to adopt her, Shayla has only one parent under the law.

As a result, she is denied basic benefits and protections that other children have. As parents, we are committed to the well-being of our daughter no matter what. However, laws exist to protect children when their parents do not live up to their commitments. Sometimes, parents need to be held accountable for sup porting their children. Even with the best of intentions, relationships sometimes end. All chil dren need to know that they will still be entitled to financial support from both of their parents in this situation.

If Shayla's legal mother were to die, her parental relationship with her other mom would not be protected. If her non-legal mother were to die, she would not be automatically entitled to survivor benefits or inheritance rights. These inequities also hold true for children adopted by only one parent when there is actually a loving couple raising those children. This aspect of the bill is also very personal for me as I was adopted.

Throughout my growing up, and now as an adult, no one has ever questioned my place in my adopted family, my right to be there, my undeniable sibling relationship with my parents' other four children. No one has ever caused me to question if my parents were truly mine. When I was six years old, my father died very suddenly and tragically. You can imagine the distress that followed. My mother was suddenly a single parent with five children, in the seventies, when being a single parent was not nearly as common as it is now, and few supports

July 24, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 319 were in place. There was immeasurable grief, confusion, a bit of chaos, economic challenges, as we struggled to reinvent ourselves as a one parent family. Fortunately, there was also a great deal of love and support from our community, and our family survived and thrived. Now, imagine this situation again if only one of my parents had legally adopted me. Imagine if that had been the parent who died. What would have happened then? Would I have gone back into the Children's Aid system after six years?

Would I have lost, first, a parent and then lost an entire family? Imagine if the surviving parent was the one who had legally adopted me. Would I have been the only one not to inherit from my father's estate, watching as the others later went on to university with the help of his insurance policy? This might seem like an extreme example, but it is simply the story of my life and what might have been if the system only allowed one adult in a family to adopt a child. Yes, it does sound ridiculous. We cannot image it.

Not even in 1965 was the child welfare system so out of touch with the needs of children and families. However, today, in 2002, there are couples raising adopted children in their homes who are the legal child of only one parent. Remember, that there have been no barriers within the law for years preventing a gay or lesbian person to adopt a child as a single parent. Therefore, this situation is far more common than you might think. In these families, just as in our family, the non-legal parent could be denied family health coverage through their employers.

They could be denied time off work to care for a sick child. In fact, under the bereavement-leave guidelines in some workplaces, the non-legal parent would not even qualify for time off to attend the funeral or grieve if their child were to die. Non-legal parents do not qualify for employment insurance parental leave if two parents wanted to share the time off that is available for adoptive parents. Non-legal parents may be prohibited from travelling with the child, especially out of the country. No doubt, there are other risks and barriers that our family has not yet encountered.

In conclusion, I want to say that most same sex couples set out like most opposite-sex couples when we start our families. We come together out of love, common interests, passion, a desire to journey side by side through life, and, like many couples, this sometimes leads to a desire to become bigger than ourselves, to expand the relationship, to create family. This is when we tum to alternative insemination, adoption or surrogacy to create our families. These are options that opposite-sex couples also must tum to on occasion.

Like anyone else, we set out with good intentions to create fair, loving and equitable relationships, and, like everyone else, sometimes our families break down or our partners die. Sometimes our families of origin do not support our relationships and interfere in the rightful distribution of assets or the guardianship of surviving children. It is for these reasons that you must pass this bill into law. The Govern ment is finally doing the right thing in taking steps to protect all of its citizens regardless of sexual orientation.

No matter how you may feel personally about same-sex relationships or about children being born or adopted into our families, the indisputable facts remain. We already are a family. Our daughter is being raised by two parents who love her deeply. Same-sex adoption legislation will ensure that she has the same basic rights as other children and that we, her parents, are held accountable to the same standards as other parents. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your pre entation.

Ken Mandzuik, who appears as No. 36 on the list of presenters, has indicated he wishes his presentation to be included as a written sub mission. Does the committee grant its consent to include this submission in the committee transcript? [Agreed] The next presenter is No. 29, Erika MacPherson. Please proceed. Ms. Erika MacPherson (Private Citizen): Thank you. This is my partner, Jackie Hagel, whose name, somehow, was left off the registration, and our daughter, Eva.

320 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 24, 2002 I just wanted to start by saying that we are really happy that The Vital Statistics Act has been amended to allow partners to be registered as parents on the birth certificate. This is a great thing. It is great for future common-law parents, as they will not have to go through the frustra tion and the humiliation that we went through after Eva was born. We have been partners together for seven years, and we did not come lightly to the deci sion to have a child and expand our family. We would have both been happy to have the experi ence of childbirth.

However, it was irrelevant to us who carried the child because we both could do that. So we both tried, and nine months later we excitedly filled out our birth registration forms, but we noticed when we filled them out all the while that there were some lines missing on the birth registration form, so we just did the best we could under the circumstances. We just put our names in there and did the best we could.

Anyway, Jackie got a call a few months later from the Vital Statistics office telling her that she had filled out the form wrong, and that they would fill it out for her again, that she would be registered as a single parent and that Eva could not have my last name, which is how we had registered her; which was extremely frustrating and humiliating-at the same time. So, like I say, it is really good that the amendments have been made so that common-law partners can be named on the birth registration. We now face another hurdle in our family, and that is that I have to adopt Eva.

Even though I can retroactively go back and we could put my name on the birth registration form and the birth certificate, I have to adopt Eva, if I want to be legally her parent under the law. That involves home studies. It involves great expense. It involves a court appearance. We are a family. We are equal parents in Eva's life, and we always have been, and it really makes no sense that I should have to adopt my own daughter. I was an equal part of conceiving her in our lives so it makes no sense that I should have to adopt her. So, under the law, we should be considered equal.

If now we go back and retroactively change her birth certificate and my name is on there, and I am a parent for all intents and purposes on the birth certificate, I should not have to adopt her. So we are just hoping that you will amend The Vital Statistics Act yet one step further so that common-law partners and social mothers will be deemed legal parents by virtue of having their names on the birth registration, on the birth certificate. That is all we came to say. Mr. Ch airperson: Thank you for your pre sentation. We will now begin the out-of-town pr esenters, beginning with No. 2, Larry Speiss.

Please proceed. Mr. Larry Speiss (Private Citizen): Okay, this is an oral presentation, so I did not bring 20 copies. I am sorry. Before beginning, I would like to thank the Chair and the honourable members of the committee for allowing me this opportunity to speak. I am 44 years old, and other than my university years, I have always lived beyond the Perimeter. I am currently postmaster up at Arborg, in the Interlake, and have been with Canada Post for over 21 years.

I see this bill as a badly needed complement to the legislation passed last year in which the Government updated some laws, but specifically excluded extending rights to gay and lesbian parents. Having several friends and acquaintan ces who are both parents and in same-sex rela tionships, I was concerned at the implication that they had no rights to their kids. At the time, I wrote several letters to my MLA, Mr. Tom Nevakshonoff, to the Attorney General (Mr. Mackintosh), the Premier (Mr. Doer), the leaders of the Conservative and Liberal parties.

My MLA, Tom, and Doctor Gerrard responded promptly, the Premier six months later, and I am presuming the replies of Mr. Murray and Mr. Mackintosh got lost in the mail. It struck me that justice was not a high priority and that my friends are basically on their own. One such set of friends is two men who have been together for nearly 25 years. About 7 years ago, they adopted a native child, or I should say, under the law, one of them adopted a son. His

July 24, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 321 lifetime partner has no legal status under the legislation to date, and should something happen to his partner, what would happen to the kid? Surely we are not proposing the boy would be stolen away by Child and Family Services. Then there are friends who are parents through marriage to someone of the opposite sex and who are divorced and now in same-sex relationships. In some cases, they are the custo dial parents, while in other cases they have visitation privileges.

I realize divorce is a bit stickier, but what is the status of the man's or woman's same-sex partner in case of an emergency and neither biological parent is available? A close friend of mine, who I met while I was posted at Winnipeg Beach, had a son from a one-time thing. Over the years, she was deter mined to raise the child on her own, to do it on her own. She worked as a working mother, working poor. She never had enough time or energy or money for her home. Three years ago, she found another woman to spend her life with. Again, I ask you what would happen if some thing became of her.

Her partner would have more rights to the German shepherd than to her own stepson. The principle of the welfare of the child should always be the guiding principle. We cannot prejudge gay and lesbian couples, just as we no longer prejudge unwed mothers or Aboriginals. * (19:20) Having lived and worked in four different towns over my career, you hear lots of gossip and innuendo about parents who are said to be abusing their kids. I have no concrete proof that any physical, mental, emotional or sexual abuse was taking place, but, in small towns, people do know a lot more about the neighbours than they let on.

In many of these families, the parents were active in their churches-be it Catholic, Anglican, United, Lutheran, Mennonite, or what ever. On the other hand, where there has been gossip or innuendo about gay and lesbian parents, I have never heard them connected to child abuse or abuse of their kids. I grew up and attended school in Neepawa, and just a few years ago, a classmate of mine won a case against her natural father for abuse that she suffered as an adolescent.

I was shocked, basically because I knew her-it was the first person I knew as a victim-and, even more so, because her family had struck rp.e as being very religious. For her pains, the family has essentially disowned her. There is no guarantee at all that a child's natural parents will raise him or her with the respect, the dignity, the care and the security that is required. There is no guarantee that a parent who is devout or an active Christian or a funda mentalist will not abuse the children in their care.

There are no guarantees that a child with a traditional mother-father household will be better adjusted than a child living with two moms or with two dads. I have read the report of the review panel on the common-law relationships, and I really cannot add anything to what they have re searched or said. It was a very thorough under taking, and I would hope that the work of its members will be taken seriously by all members of the Assembly. The Province's main concern should always be the welfare and the security of the child, and the laws should reflect that.

We need to recognize that kids are being raised in non-traditional families and ensure that our laws assist those parents in raising those children to the best of their ability. Thank you. Mr. Ch airperson: Thank you for your pre sentation. Mireille Clark, who appears as No. 40 on the list of presenters, has indicated she wishes her presentation to be included as a written submission. Does the committee grant its con sent to include this submission in the committee transcript? [Agreed] The next presenter is No. 11, Jaik Josephson or Brent Lott. Floor Comment: Hi, there. Mr.

Cha irperson: You do not look like Jaik or Brent. I understand you are going to present on their behalf. Floor Comment: Yes. Mr. Chair person: Is there consent of the committee to have this person present on their behalf? [Agreed] We need your name first.

322 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 24, 2002 Ms. Ta mmy Gutnik (Private Citizen): My name is Tammy Gutnik. Mr. Ch airperson : Thank you. Please proceed. Ms. Gutnik: I am just going to read this verbatim from their statement. As of January 2003, we will have been a couple for 15 years. During our time together, we have been subjected to exclusion, alienation and homophobic violence. Many within the gay and lesbian communities have tired of waiting for the state to give us our rights.

We have been forced to move on, to experience the fullness of our lives without the protection of laws and policies; a liberating and necessary adaptation to bigotry, but still there are those of us who wish to be part of a larger society. We are waiting to embrace all of the rights and responsibilities that come with such membership. News of the Charter Compliance bill brought us a sense of relief. While it is clear that changing laws cannot dictate an immediate end to prejudice, govern ment sanction does provide a long-overdue message of validation and welcoming.

Of particular relevance to us are the proposed changes to The Adoption Act. Despite significant obstacles in both our private and professional lives, we have made a commitment to improving the lives of children. In 1992 we were licensed as foster parents with the stipu tation that children in our care would be limited to adolescent boys who identified as homosexual or babies with AIDS. Child and Family Services had not previously processed an application from a male couple.

The well-meaning social worker explained that while the agency had previously accepted lesbian couples and single males as parents, they were unfamiliar with our style of kinship. She cited concern about community perceptions of gay men as pedo philes. Despite our temptation to quit our jobs and open up every spare room in our house to children deemed too undesirable for mainstream families, we declined to pursue our dream. By 1994, the child welfare policies had taken a more inclusive stance. The greatest gift of our lives together has come in the parenting of two beautiful children.

We busied ourselves arranging music lessons, attending parent- teacher meetings and driving a son and a daughter from one event to another. Like any other parents, we worried when they came home late; we struggled over math homework; we held their hands through the hardships of adoles cence. We were and are a family regardless of legalities, yet, still, it would be our greatest wish to look toward adoption to assure our children of all the legal and social protection taken for granted by children of heterosexual couples.

While our foster children have now reached the age of majority, the proposed changes to The Adoption Act provide a powerful statement in support of the next generation of families who are vulnerable to social exclusion. As in all long term relationships, we have reached the life stage where it is necessary to make plans for old age. While we enjoy the benefits of good health, and still have many years in the workforce, the unpredictability of life requires careful con sideration about how to manage the future. However, current policies do not adhere to our deep commitment to ensure the well-being of each other.

In the dreaded event of an individual becoming incapacitated, who but one's intimate partner should hold the power to determine end of-life issues? Decisions surrounding health care and the division of acquired property must be protected in order that gays and lesbians can enjoy the rights and uphold the responsibilities inherent in kinship contracts. We have been lifelong residents of both rural and urban Manitoba. Despite opportunities elsewhere, we remain passionate about what our province has to offer.

Our relationship is fully supported by a large network of friends and family who participate locally in all political parties and faith communities. We volunteer our spare time to a range of political and cultural organizations in the hopes of contributing to the enrichment of the Manitoba experience. But for many gays and lesbians, larger urban centres continue to hold the promise of a more tolerant and open social milieu. With the introduction of progressive political policies such as Bill 34, a powerful invitation has been extended to our community. We are welcome. We are safe.

We can make the choice to comfortably live in the place we have always known as home. Thank you.

July 24, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 323 Mr. Chair person: Thank you for your presentation. The next out-of-town presenter is No. 25, Jean Chennell. Ms. Jean Chennell (Private Citizen): Good evening, my name is Jean Chennell, and I would just like to state that I strongly support the Charter compliance bill, No. 34. Mr. Ch airperson: Excuse me, Jean. I am going to ask you to get closer to the microphone. Thank you. Ms. Chennell: I strongly support the Charter compliance bill.

It is the only fair way to ensure that all people are treated with dignity and respect regardless of sexual orientation or people's decision to live common law as opposed to being married. I have been in a same-sex common-law relationship for over 20 years, and we have raised four children who are heterosexual and solid contributing members of the public. I found it insulting that the Government did not see fit to recognize same-sex adoption and, therefore, am very glad to see it being recognized in this bill.

It has been costly to legally ensure our rights as same-sex partners to have the same rights as other couples regarding property, accurate wills and end-of-life issues and to ensure that our children are treated equally. This bill will, hopefully, allow for further recognition of our status-for example, in hospital for visiting-without continued battles with authorities. The right of equality is para mount to all citizens being accepted to help reduce racism, homophobia and other underlying causes of hatred. I hope the Government will continue to amend all laws that persist in maintaining inequality. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your pre sentation. The next presenter is No. 34, Robert Humphrey. Mr. Robert Humphrey (Private Citizen): Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I want to applaud the Legislature for this opportunity to give a presentation on issues that are a concern to us, as this privilege is not extended in every province. A true democracy listens to its constituents and gives careful consideration to their concerns. As you often say, we are here to serve. For this opportunity, I thank you. I am Robert Humphrey, and I was born in Timmins, Ontario, in 1954.

I have been living in Manitoba with my family since 1998. I was born again in 1994, this time in the Spirit, which means that I am a full-fledged, evangelical, born-again Christian, which, according to most media, atheist and homosexual community, I am the worst kind. I stand before you today as an ambassador for Christ, not a title I earned, but received the day I accepted Jesus Christ as my Saviour and Lord of my life.

Having said that, it would be outrageous for anyone here to disagree with anything that I am about to say. * (19:30) I have sent you all a copy of the research paper entitled The Potential Risks of Homo sexual Parenting to Children that was compiled by Professor Lynn D. Wardle from Brigham Young University, wherein the 1997 Illinois Law Review exposed flawed social science studies comparing same-sex and opposite-sex child rearing.

This a quote from his study: At least 90 different law review articles, comments, notes, and essay pieces primarily addressing custody, visitation, assisted procreation and adoption issues involving gay or lesbian parents have been published since 1990, compared to only 3 pieces published in the same period 20 years earlier. In contrast to the law review, publi cations addressing same-sex marriage two decades earlier, the most recent review literature of same-sex marriage and homosexual parenting has been drastically imbalanced.

Only 1 of the 72 pieces published in the nineties unequivocally supports the rule of exclusive heterosexual marriage, where 67 pieces advocate or support same-sex marriage. Thus, the ratio of recent law review literature that favors same-sex marriage to that opposing it is roughly 67 to 1, hardly a record of a fair exchange or serious examination. Likewise, virtually all of the law review literature addressing homosexual parenting advocates the politically popular progressive

324 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 24, 2002 position favoring legalization or expansion of legal status, benefits and privileges for homo sexual parenting. An imbalance even greater in the

article is addressing homosexual parenting. None of the articles contain substantial criticism of proposals to legalize or expand the legal status of homosexual parents. Such unanimity in the law review literature is quite remarkable.

Because lawyers generally are known for their penchant to discuss all issues from the other hand, to espouse alternative perspectives, and generally to disagree and to produce more opinions on a given subject than the number of lawyers involved in the dis cussion, the absence in the law review literature of virtually any substantial disagreement with the orthodoxy favoring homosexual parenting is quite notable. Moreover, the monolithic solidarity of the law review literature endorsing homosexual parenting stands in stark contrast to the sharply divided public controversy regarding homo sexual parenting.

The substance of the position promoted in the law review literature hardly reflects general public opinion either. In fact, public opinion polls indicate that the American people strongly disfavor adoption by same-sex couples. For instance, in 1993, a study by Philip A. Belcastro, an independent examination of theme methodological validity and reliability of 14 post-1975 published data-based studies address ng the effects of homosexual parenting on children's sexual and social functioning found: The most impressive finding is that all of the studies lacked external validity.

Most were biased toward proving homosexual parents were fit parents. Some of the published works had to disregard their own results in order to conclude that homosexuals were fit parents. The study concluded that the statement that there was no significant difference in children reared by homosexual parents versus hetero sexual parents is not supported by the published research base. In your opinion, do you feel that you need to take more time to evaluate the merits of these biased studies before placing defenseless chil dren in homosexual homes? I wonder if Dr.

Robert Spitzer wished that he had taken a closer look at the research before he made one of the worst decisions of his professional career. He has played a critical role in why we meet here tonight. This

article is written by Mark Cowan, dated May 10, 2001, titled "Psychiatrist to AP A: Homosexuals can Change." The American Psychiatric Association is on record claiming that reparative therapy for homosexuals does not work. But that position is being seriously undermined by a new study from a very influential man. Columbia University psychiatry professor Dr. Robert Spitzer made a landmark presentation to the American Psy chiatric Association, APA, on Wednesday. Spitzer told the nation's psychiatrists that his research shows homosexuals can change their sexual orientation. Mr.

Vice-Chairperson in the Chair I interviewed 200 subjects who claimed that they had changed their sexual attraction from homosexual to heterosexual, Spitzer said. Es sentially what we found is that, first of all, in terms of sexual attraction, the vast majority had made major changes. Does this mean Spitzer believes a homosexual can change their heterosexuality? Absolutely. Absolutely, he said. I approached this quite skeptical and I have been convinced otherwise. Dr.

Joseph Nicolosi, presi dent of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), said his findings are monumental and will be difficult to ignore. This is clearly a historic event in the history of psychiatry's understanding of sexuality, said Nicolosi. What makes Spitzer's new position so monumental is the fact that he was the chief architect of the APA's 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from a list of disorders. In other words, he normalized homosexuality. Nicolosi said one question remains: Was Dr. Spitzer's work influenced by a religious bias?

I am an atheist, Jewish, secular humanist, Spitzer said. I was before this study, and I continue to be one now. He said there is no reason to believe that

July 24, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 325 those he interviewed were lying about their changes from homosexuality. The research included people with five years of recovery cur rently engaged in healthy heterosexual relation ships. In your opinion do you feel it is wise to place children in an environment without doing valid research on the effects this will have on their welfare? Professor Wardle continues with designing families that would exclude fathers. Point: to allow homosexual women to adopt deprives a child of a father.

Separation of children from their fathers is a leading cause of declining child well-being in our society. It is also the engine driving our most urgent social problems, from crimes to adolescent pregnancy to child abuse to domestic violence against women. Fatherhood is fragmenting in role. The two consequences of fatherlessness in American society are rising youth violence and declining child well-being. It has been observed that boys with fathers rarely commit crimes; fatherless boys commonly commit crimes.

As one commentator notes, sur veys of child well-being repeatedly show that children living apart from their fathers are far more likely than the other children to be expelled or suspended from school, to display emotional and behavioural problems, to have difficulty getting along with peers and to get in trouble with the police. Accordingly, the preconditions for effective fatherhood are co-residency with children and a parental alliance with the mother.

Bronislaw Malinowski maintains that the most important moral and legal rule concerning the physio logical site of kinship is that no child should be brought into the world without a man, and one man at that, assuming the role of the sociological father, that is, the guardian and protector, the male link between the child and the rest of the community. This generalization amounts to a universal sociological law. The consequences for children of eff ective fatherhood are compellingly beneficial. Parental investment enriches your child in four ways. First, it provides them with the father's physical protection.

Second, it provides them with the father's money and other material resources. Third, and probably most important, it provides them with what might be termed parental cultural transmission, a father's distinctive capacity to contribute to the identity, character and competence of the children. Fourth, and most obviously, paternal investment provides children with the day-to-day nurturing, feeding them, playing with them, telling them a story, that they want and need from both of their parents.

In virtually all human societies, children's well-being depends precisely upon the relatively high level of parental investment. * (19:4 0) In your opinion, do you feel that is healthy for a child to be placed in a designed family which excludes fathers? What can we learn from other countries? Professor Wardle states: In the past eight years, four independent Scandinavian countries, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Iceland, have legalized same-sex domestic partnerships ex tending to those registered relationships virtually all the economic incidents of heterosexual marriage.

However, those permission laws are quite restrictive with regard to child-rearing rights. The Icelandic law specifically excludes same-sex couples from adoption and artificial insemination. In Denmark, the same-sex couple may not adopt a child or exercise joint custody. The Swedish law excludes adoption, joint custody and fertilization in vitro for registered same-sex domestic partners. In Norway, same sex registered partners may not adopt.

All of these countries manifest a permissive policy concerning relations between two con senting adults, but all take a paternalistic posture when it comes to protecting children. The common theme is that adults can do what they want with regard to consenting adults, but they are not free to do what they want with regard to children. These nations take great care to prevent adults from subjecting children to the potentially detrimental effects and consequences of adult sexual preferences.

Although homosexual be haviour may not bar a responsible biological parent from asserting parental rights, consistent again with the permissive non-judgmental attitude about adult behaviour, the Scandinavian states put the needs and interests of the child ahead of the autonomy of the rights of adults. I do not know of any other nations whose laws are so sexually permissive. I would call it

326 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA July 24, 2002 morally bankrupt; however, even they will not allow homosexual couples to adopt. In your opinion, do you feel that the Scandinavian nations know something that the NDP government does not? Do you feel that you need to put the interests and the safety of the children ahead of the perceived rights of homosexual couples? I want to start my conclusion from a letter to the editor which I wrote, that he published: The Province of Manitoba is working hard at passing into law Bill 34. This bill will allow homosexual couples to adopt children.

The children of our province are at risk and they need your help. The NDP government is trying to wash their hands of the responsibility of this bill by communicating that they are being pro-active, because the current laws under The Adoption Act would not be Charter-compliant. This means they believe that if the current adoption laws were challenged in court, they would be found unconstitutional, so why not change them now. This way, at election time, they can say they had no choice and had to pass these laws. Now that the political spm has been uncovered, let us deal with some facts.

The adoption laws have not been challenged in court, so they have not been found unconstitutional. If they were challenged and found unconstitu tional, Premier Gary Doer could invoke the notwithstanding clause to exempt Manitoba. So let us be clea r that this is a matter of choice and desire of the NDP government to pass legis lation. Let me add there are a substantial number of Conservatives that are going to vote for this bill also.

Let us also be clear that God will hold every MLA accountable for your vote, as well as the citizens of this province at election time and the children that you are placing in harm's way. I have been told that they will not likely hold a recorded vote, which will allow some to hide their vote by saying this was a vote of conscience and a private matter. We, the people of Manitoba, have the right to know how you voted, so I ask that you respect the democratic process and have a recorded vote. I have been speaking as an ambassador for Christ.

Now I close with the words of the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Jesus Christ. "At that time, the disciples came to Jesus, saying, 'Who then is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?' And he called a child to Himself and set him before them, and said, 'Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

And whoever receives one child in My name receives Me; but whoever causes one of these little ones to believe in Me to stumble, it is better for him that a heavy millstone be hung around his neck, and that he be drowned in the depth of the sea."' I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Mr. Vice-Chair person: Thank you very much. The next presenter is Carol Hartman. Floor Comment: Number? Mr. Vice-Ch airperson: Number 39, Carol Hartman. Carol Hartman's name will be dropped to the bottom of the list and be read one more time. An Honourable Member: She could be in the other room.

Maybe she is in the other room? Mr. Vice-Cha irperson: We will just check if she is in the other room. Is it the will of the committee to go to presenter 42 and give Carol a moment and call her again, in case she is in the other room? [Agreed] Okay, we will go to No. 42, Pastor David Reimer. Do you have copies of your pre entation? Mr. David Reimer (Pastor, Shalom Family Worship Centre): I do, Mr. Vice-Chair. Mr. Vice-Chair person: You may start when ever you are ready. Mr. Reimer: For the record, my name is David Reimer, and I pastor a church called Shalom Family Worship Centre, located in Steinbach, Manitoba.

I am a constituent with our MLA present, Mr. Jim Penner. I acknowledge him as our representative, and I am happy to be a citizen

July 24, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 327 in his constituency. I also happen to be the pastor rep for Manitoba for 15 of our fellowship churches, located all the way from the northern part of our province, all the way through Winnipeg and to the southern parts of our province as well, which boast in attendance on a weekly basis several thousand members. I want to acknowledge, first of all, and express my appreciation to all of the committee members for hosting this hearing at this time, albeit with short notice for some people who would be on vacation and who would have liked to have been here in person and made presentations as well. The

preamble to our Canadian Constitution states that Canada was founded upon principles which recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law. The God referred to here in Canada's Constitution is the God of the Bible. It is capital G, God, the creator of the heaven and the earth and every living thing in the entire universe. This God, who is my God, has inspired the writing of His book, the Bible, the Holy Scriptures. The Holy Bible is referred to as God's word, and is still the most popular and best-selling book in all history.

It is recognized to be the accepted standard of moral and ethical principles both in the church and in our society in general. I want to read a passage from His book. Remember that I am only reading what He, God, said. Found in Romans 1:18-32, it said: The wrath of God is being revealed from Heaven against all the godlessness and wicked ness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness.

Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them, for since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For, although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God, nor gave thanks to Him. But their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore, God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts, to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator who is forever praised. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way, the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, He gave them over to a depraved mind to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God haters; in solent, arrogant and boastful. They invite ways of doing evil. They disobey their parents. They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but they also approve of those who practise them. * (19:50) Mr. Chairperson in the Chair This was not only an accurate description and a stern warning by the Apostle Paul about the moral climate in his day, but it is also, my friends, a clear picture of our society in North America today. In the Old Testament, in Leviticus

chapter 18, verse 22, it says: Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; in other words, have sexual relations, for that is detestable to God. The context here is that God places homosexual relations in the same category as incest, bestiality and killing innocent children as a human sacrifice. God says in verses 24 to 29 that these evil practices defile the land or the nation and the land will vomit

328 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA July 24, 2002 these people out. In other words, these forms of perversion will make the whole nation sick to the point of vomiting and will bring about the judgment and the punishment of God. Verse 29 states: Everyone who does or condones any of these detestable acts, such persons will be cut off from their people. Verse 30 says: Keep my requirements and do not follow any of these detestable customs and do not defile yourself with them. I am the Lord your God.

Society today takes some of these practices lightly and sometimes even trying to make them acceptable, but they are still sin in God's eyes. If we consider them to be acceptable, we are not judging by God's standards. As hard as society may try to change, revise and alter God's laws in favour of what is today termed as being politically correct, God's laws are unalterable and he is not a God who changes his mind. Neither government legislation, nor the compromise and dilution of certain religious beliefs, can alter what God has said in His word, which is the standard of righteousness by which he will judge.

I choose, personally, to be biblically correct. I would rather be unpopular among the gay and lesbian community today than to face the wrath and judgment of Almighty God for all of eternity. Regardless of your recommendation to the Legislature based on your

interpretation of these hearings tonight, and should this proposed amendment be accepted by the Province of Manitoba granting adoption privileges to same sex couples, that will not change God's law, and it will not make it right. God alone is sovereign, and He can only offer His blessing when we obey His word and when we live by his principles. You need to be aware that with your decisions and your actions here in the provincial Legislature come long lasting and potentially severe consequences. You have a great and God given responsibility.

Homosexuality is con sidered an alternate lifestyle and an acceptable practice by many in our world today, even by some churches. But society and the church does not set the standard for God's law. It is clear from Scripture that homosexuality or same-sex relationships are strictly forbidden. God does forgive our sins and our transgressions but only when we repent and tum from our sinful lifestyle. Obviously, I am personally opposed to this amendment proposal.

I would like to officially register my opposition as a Canadian citizen based upon our Constitution, and as a resident and taxpayer in Manitoba and representing our local church congregation in Steinbach, and our fellowship of churches located all across this province of Manitoba. Please, please recommend that the Gov ernment reconsider this amendment proposal which would grant adoption privileges to same sex couples based upon both the Constitution and biblical grounds. Please vote against Bill 34 in its present form and please recommend that the vote be recorded and be made public.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation tonight according to our democratic political system. May God grant you wisdom and bless you. I would like to conclude my remarks by sharing this personal story as others have done on the other side before me. Over the past 10 years, my wife Kathy and I have had the privilege of fostering approximately 35 children through Child and Family Services. Some have been long-term placements of up to 8 years, and others were short term of only a few weeks. We still currently serve as an emergency home in southeastern Manitoba.

One of the reasons why we have had a good reputation and are considered to be a desirable foster home is because we are a traditional family unit of a husband-father and a wife-mother. We function in a loving, happy, monogamous marriage relationship. We love God, we love our country, and we live by Christian values and principles, which is our heritage here in this country, Canada. Several of the young people who were teenagers when they came into our home remained with us until after they had completed their high school education and graduated.

July 24, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 329 Today they have moved on successfully. Some are married and have their own children and consider us to be their grandparents. Others are in the labour force and are respectable law abiding citizens making valuable positive contri butions to our society. We have an ongoing and personal relationship with many of these special people who are our extended family. One young lady who is now entering Grade 12 this fall applied to serve as a page in this Legislature based on my encouragement and my personal reference.

She just received the acknowledgment that she had been indeed accepted for that position, and was she ever excited. Our lives have been enriched by the joys and by the challenges of this experience. It is important for you to know that my wife and I practise what we preach. We do obey the laws which honour God. We do respect and pray for those whom God has placed in authority over us, our Governrnent, and that includes all of you. Thank you for your time. Mr.

Cha irperson: The previous out-of-town presenter Carol Hartman's name was called and they canvassed the other room, and apparently she is not here, so her name will be dropped to the bottom of the list. I believe the last out-of town presenter is John Froese, No. 52. Mr. John Froese (Private Citizen) I am here to have my vote recorded that I stand in opposition of Bi11 34. That is it. Mr. Cha irperson: Thank you for your pre sentation. Now we are going to start at No. 1. Karen Busby, please. Ms. Karen Busby (Private Citizen): Of course, I brought copies of my presentation and some additional information. Mr.

Cha irperson: Please proceed. Ms. Busby: Mr. Chair and committee members, I am Karen Busby. I have been a lawyer for 20 years, and I have been a law professor for 14 years at the University of Manitoba. Much of my work as a lawyer, researcher and teacher has been to examine ways in which laws function to keep socially disadvantaged groups mar ginalized. I try to make my work responsive to the needs of the communities it affects, and practical and action-oriented.

My work is focussed on how sexuality is used in law to subordinate women and girls, particularly those who have been sexually assaulted, those who are prostitutes, children exploited in the sex trade, and lesbian women. * (20:00) Over the last decade, I have met with many feminist and queer groups and individuals on a local, provincial and national level to discuss the issue of how our relationships should be treated in law.

These meetings have resulted in national support for the principle of full equality; that is, that same-sex common-law relationships should enjoy the full protection and respect of law and be subject to the same obligations, benefits, rights and responsibilities as heterosexual couples. A very small minority, actually about two people out of the hundreds in the Manitoba queer community with whom I have spoken in the last two years, disagree with some of the provisions in Bill 34, its companion, Bill 53, or the amendments made last summer.

Thus, I have no hesitation in stating that the principle of full equality animating these bills and how it has been realized in these bills enjoys overwhelming support in Manitoba's gay, les bian, bisexual and transgendered community. I am pleased that Bill 34, together with Bill 53, is comprehensive. As far as I can tell, it leaves no stone untumed on laws prohibiting anti-dis crimination on the ground of sexual orientation and laws regarding the recognition and support of our relationships when they are being created, while they endure and when they end.

These two bills will ensure that Manitoba's NDP gov ernrnent has done everything it can in provincial legislation to ensure that queer relationships are afforded the protection, dignity and respect that the law can give. This is especially evident in the amendments proposed CQnceming adoption and end-of-life issues. With two caveats, which I will mention shortly, I want to state that, once these two bills become law, Manitoba will have the most comprehensive provincial laws on queer relationships in all of Canada and, therefore, indeed, in all of the world.

330 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA July 24, 2002 I want to acknowledge on the record before this committee that a few people in government have shown a willingness to go the extra mile to figure out what our community needed, and they have done a great job. In particular, I should mention the Minister of Justice, Gord Mackintosh, and MLA Jim Rondeau, who have had the courage to push for the right thing, and Department of Justice lawyers Colette Chelack, Ann Bailey and Holly Penner, who have worked hard to ensure that these two bills are comprehensive and workable.

I want to speak very briefly on three matters: one, adoption law; two, birth registrations; and, thirdly, on gender identity discrimination. This committee has heard opposition to extending gays and lesbians the ability to adopt children on the ground that such adoptions cannot be in the best interests of children. With permission of counsel, I have filed with this standing committee the affidavits and expert reports of Dr. David Brodzinsky and Dr.

Katherine Amup that were filed in the case of A.A. against the Attorney General of Manitoba, which is a case challenging the constitutionality of Manitoba's current adoption laws. I would like to ask the Chair if it is possible that these affidavits can be reproduced as part of the record in these proceedings, as they are extremely com prehensive, and reproduction would ensure that they are widely available. At this time, though, I would like to draw the committee's attention to some important findings in these reports that I would like to read into the record.

If we can start with Katherine Amup's report, which I think you all now have copies of, I am just going to read some of the provisions, some excerpts from this report. So if you tum to paragraph five, first, of Katherine Amup's report. She says: There is a common perception that the structure of the "family" has never changed and that the traditional nuclear family is, and has always been, the only "real" family form. My review of the historical record has not supported this view. Then she goes on.

Paragraph 10, she says: My review of the research indicates that the tra ditional nuclear family has changed dramatically over the past 40 years. The development of reproductive technologies such as in-vitro fertilization has enabled many heterosexual couples, single women and gay and lesbian couples to become parents. She goes on further. Paragraph 12, and this one is very interesting. She says: My review of the research shows that crisis in the family has been a recurring theme in Canadian history.

I note that virtually every decade of the 20th century can be characterized by its own unique crisis in the family. I conclude that, despite this unending cycle of change, families persist and most adults continue to form stable relationships. I also conclude that changes to the law that reflect different family forms do not destroy the family. She then cites Cynthia Cornacchia in her report who stated: Families persist because they are elemental and change because they are constructed and reconstructed to meet specific social needs and objectives. Finally, from Amup's report, I would note paragraph 18.

She says in paragraph 18: From my review of the research, I note that same-sex couples form committed, loving relationships and families which are comparable to hetero sexual couples. I conclude that children are not detrimentally affected by being raised by same sex couples and that children raised in these families show a great degree of tolerance and diversity. I note that they may experience peer ridicule, but in my opinion greater social support and legal protection of lesbian and gay families would remove the stigma associated with same sex relationships. If we could then tum to the report of Dr.

David Brodzinsky which I have also given to you and start at paragraph 4 in that report. In paragraph 4 he summarizes the main points from his report. In particular, I would note (

d) where he says: The most reliable determinant of an adopted children's healthy development, like other children, is the quality of the parenting they receive. Gays and lesbians have the same qualities associated with eff ective parenting as do heterosexual individuals. Gays and lesbians are already adopting children and doing a good job of parenting. And, finally, that case-by-case, pre-adoption evaluations are sufficient to protect the best interests of children. In paragraph 11, he says: My research also addresses the belief that children need both a

July 24, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 331 mother and a father. My review of the research shows that it is parenting style, and not the gender of a particular parent that is important. In his opinion, children benefit when a parent is warm, caring, respectful of their feelings and needs, supportive of their activities and interests and able to provide appropriate structure and limit setting when necessary. He then goes on.

Paragraph 15, he says: The next part of my report deals with second-parent adoption, which is when a gay or lesbian individual seeks to adopt their partner's biologi cal or adopted child. In my opinion, children benefit when this happens because the second parent adoption provides greater stability and strengthens the commitment of the family. I note, also, that there are practical benefits to children such as additional health coverage and inheritance rights.

Most importantly, in David Brodzinsky's report, I want you to tum to page 24 of the actual report, paragraph 53, where he addresses many of the misconceptions about gay and lesbian parenting. This is on page 24 of the actual report, paragraph 53. He says: In my testimony, based on my own review of the literature as well as years of clinical and consultative work with gay and lesbian parents, I will argue that-I will skip over the citations that he gives-homosexual and heterosexual parents show few differences in terms of emotional ad justment and parenting behaviour.

Homosexual men are no more likely to commit child sexual abuse than are hetero exual men. Partners of lesbian mothers display more skilled caregiving and are more involved with the children in the family than their heterosexual male counterparts. Lesbian co-parents appear to be more co-operative and compatible in parenting relationships than do heterosexual couples.

Children of lesbian mothers show no evidence of greater psychological problems compared to children of heterosexual parents especially in terms of anxiety, depression, self esteem, social relationships and indicators of general emotional and behavioural disturbances. The former group do report occasional peer teasing about their mothers' sexual orientation which sometimes creates stress and embarrass ment.

He goes on to say both boys and girls of lesbian mothers display frequent departure from traditional gender role expectations in relation to behaviour, play, dress and aspirations compared to the offspring of heterosexual parents. He also notes that adolescents and young adult children of lesbian and gay parents have more friends and acquaintances who are gay and lesbian and they also report that they consider the possibility of a same-sex relationship to a greater extent than the children of heterosexual parents.

However, he concludes by saying: There is no firm evidence that children raised by gays and lesbians are significantly more likely to identify as homo sexual when they reach adulthood. I just wanted to ensure that that evidence was on the record of this committee. That the social science evidence reviewed in these two reports does conclusively show us that gays and lesbians, that raising children in gay and lesbian families, can be in the best interests of the children. I said that I have two caveats concerning the comprehensiveness of the amendments that have been proposed in Bill 34.

I want to put those caveats to you now.

Last summer, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal ruled that a law which permitted a married partner but which did not permit a common-law partner to be registered as a parent on a birth certificate when the child born to that person's partner was conceived by artificial insemination violated human rights norms. * (20:10) While no such challenge has been made in Manitoba, this Government has recognized, rightly so, that the failure to recognize a common-law partner on a birth certificate when the child was born has lead to some very practical difficulties for parents and their children.

Therefore, I support the Government for making an amendment which will permit common-law partners to be registered as parents on their children's birth certificates. However, in my view, this

section still suffers from a serious omission. As the amend ment now stands in Bill 53, both a married man and a common-law partner whose partner conceives a child through artificial insemination

332 LEGISLATNE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 24, 2002 are not the legal parent of that child for all legal purposes. Any good lawyer will advise them to go through a formal adoption. I have no doubt that the vast majority of hetero sexual families out there who have conceived child ren through ar tificial insemin ation would be shocked to learn that the relationship between the husband and the social or non-biological father and the children so conceived would not be recognized for all legal pur poses. For the sake of these families, this gap in the law must be closed.

Moreover, the adoption process is expensive and invasive . While it is required in many circumstances, it should not be required when two people have made a decision to conceive a child together and both have been invo lved in the planning and the pr ocess of this event and have raised the child together from its birth. Thus, I would urge this committee to recommend an additional amendment to The Vital Statistics Act to cover this gap. It can recommend this amendment.

Where a husband or common-law partner has been registered as the father or other parent of a child, that person shall be consid ered, for all legal pur poses, as a parent of that child. Now, some may say that The Vital Statistics Act is only a registry act and not a statute which confers substantive legal rights and there fore that this amendment does not belong in this act. However , I would point out that substantive rights are granted by other sections of this act. For example, in the mid-1970s,

section 25 of the act was amended to provide that transfolk who have undergone sex reassignment surgery can have their reassigned sex registered on their birth certi ficate. This

section goes on to provide that a tran sperson can marry a person of the opposite sex to the tran sperson's reassigned sex. The common-law marri age is clear that a person can only marry someone of the opposite sex to the sex that they were assigned at birth and that sex reassignment cannot change eligibility to marry. Thus

section 25 of The Vital Statistics Act currently does change the substantive common law on transgendered people and mar riage . Finally, I just want to note for this committee that the next frontier in anti discrimination law will be to examine how law margi nalizes and subordinates transgendered people. Bills 34 and 53, ins ofar as they make gender irre levant to the recognition of conjugal relationships, should apply with equal force to relationships where one or both partners are trans gendered.

However , our Human Rights Code and other statutes which contain anti-discrimination pro visions do not prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity. I therefore urge this committee to recommend that the Manitoba Human Rights Code and other anti-discrimin ation statutes like The Defamation Act and The Disc riminatory Business Prac tices Act, which are being amended by Bill 34 now to finally prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation are also amended to prohibit dis crimination on the basis of gender identity. Thank you. Mr. Ch airperson: Mr. Maguire has a question . Mr.

Larry Maguire (Arthur -Virden): Thank you, Ms. Busby. Just in following your presentation under page 2, No. 4. At the bottom, you indicated that in your presentati on you said as the amendment now stands in Bill 53. Your written copy says Bill 34. Ms. Busby: It should be Bill 34. I am sorry. Mr. Maguire: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Ch airperson: Thank you for your pres entation. The next presenters are Jeremy Buchner and Gary Monkman. Mr. Jeremy Buchner (Private Citizen): Good evening . I am Jeremy Buchner, and this is my partner, Gary Monkman. We are here to speak in support of Bill 34.

We support everything it stands for, but simply we want to be dads. I am very happy to hear the information that the previous speaker put forward on the social science informat ion. I am a social worker, and I am entrusted with the responsibility of assessing the safety of children of our pro vince, so it is very bi zarre for me to realize that as a person, as

July 24, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 333 an individual person, not a professional social worker, I am not able to adopt with my partner. I am from a very unique position in my life. I am not only someone who wants to adopt a child within a same-sex relationship, but I also am a product of a lesbian household. Earlier on this evening, we heard many sorts of studies that talked about the products of same-sex house holds being criminal, or a bunch of other stuff that was said, and I am here to say that I am a product of a lesbian household, and I am not a criminal. I am a social worker.

I am a loving person. This household was not based on abuse or neglect. It was based on love and respect. Speaking on my part of the relationship here, I know that I want to pass that love and respect on to a child, and I know that my partner, Gary, agrees with me here. Just to share with you a personal experience, we have already started the process of adoption. For those of you who have not done this before, it is not a very fun thing. It takes a lot of heartfelt questions, a lot of discussions with the person you are adopting with, or if you are adopting by yourself, with yourself.

It is not sort of a fun sort of holiday experience. We started this earlier this year. Everything was going fine after filling out the long, long forms, until about three months ago, when we received the dreaded phone call from the social worker which said, this is all fine and dandy, but you both are males and both your names are on the application. You know, I think for some people, that might not be very much of a shock because they knew it was coming.

But it really hit home for me, personally, because we decided as a partnership to adopt a child, and I know there are strategies that we can go about doing this. Gary or myself can adopt singly and then co-parent the child, and, hopefully, the bill will pass and we will be able to go for adoption in another route. What we decided is, right from the begin ning, we wanted to adopt together. We wanted both our names on the file. We wanted both our situations to be assessed during the home visits.

We did not want to have to do it the other route, and it infuriates me that there are many people in this province, the majority of people in this province, that would not necessarily receive that phone call about withdrawing one of their names. Just in conclusion-Gary is going to say something also-I stand, or we stand for everything that Bill 34 is going for, but, on a personal note, we are here because we simply want to be dads. We want to share the loving and support we received and continue to receive from our family and friends. Mr.

Gary Monkman (Private Citizen): My name is Gary Monkman, and I am a recreational therapist who has worked with kids for about 16 years now. I have been a foster parent for two and a half years, and I really would like the opportunity to be a full-blown real parent with someone who I really care about. Thanks. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your pres entation. The next presenter is Krista Piche. Please proceed. Ms. Krista Piche (Private Citizen): Good evening, honourable committee Chair and com mittee members. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for hearing my presentation this evening on Bill 34.

Tonight, I am mostly here to support the bill's amendments to The Adoption Act. Tonight, I would like to share with you two personal stories that I hope will support the legislation and provide you with some input into the real lives of lesbian parents. My first story occurred while the last time I was here at the Legislature. The Pride rally had finished and nearly all the people had proceeded on to the parade portion of the celebration. I was walking away from the Legislature with my two children, thinking of all the positive changes this Government was making, when a car pulled up in front of me.

A man rolled down his window and looked me up and down, disgust in his eyes, and he shook his head. He appeared as though he was about to say something, or get out of his car, when another motorist turned onto the grounds. The man then pulled forward, and, as he was backing up, I was able to cross the roadway and take my children to safety. I believe that this was a blatant attempt to try to intimidate me and my family for the simple reason that we are a same sex couple with children.

334 LEGISLATNE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 24, 2002 I believe that the amendments to this current legislation will provide legitimacy for our children and for those that believe that only heterosexual people should have children. On a more deeply personal note, I would like to start by saying that I am very dis appointed that last year's Bill 41 did not include the adoption piece in that legislation. I spoke in front of this committee and implored you, along with numerous other people, to amend the bill to include The Adoption Act. Unfortunately, at the time, the NDP government chose not to do so.

I am grateful for the amendments put forth in Bill 34, but unfortunately for my situation, it is a little too late. * (20:20) In June of this year, my partner and I of seven years had a breakdown of our relationship. We have two children that we brought into this world together. Had The Adoption Act been amended last year, I, as the non-biological parent, would not be scrambling for ways to ensure that I will have access to my children. My ex-partner would not be having the problems of getting a mortgage.

The bank would not recog nize our separation as a legal document, and she is worrying about her financial situation. Also, our fears of what could happen if the other partner chooses to not uphold her end of the agreement would be lessened if we had in place legal protections that you are now amending. We are trying to do what is best for our children in areas of access and support. Even though there has been a breakdown in our relationship, our children should have the same legal protections as children of heterosexual parents do. Like anyone else going through a separation, we have had struggles.

Our struggles could have been less complicated had our long-term common-law relationship been legally recog nized and both parents' names been put on the birth certificates as we tried to do when our boys were born. My purpose this evening is once again to implore you to include a clause in The Adoption Act that will extend rights and obligations to me as a parent. The legislation that is under discussion with you today could be retroactive so that people like myself will be recognized. I hope that I can count on you and this Government to do the right thing for me and my ex-partner and my children.

Before I close, I would just like to add that my ex-partner was scheduled to be here tonight to speak right after me as the next presenter. Unfortunately, our children took ill and she was not able to attend, but she asked me to pass on that she supports this bill as well and that she would really like for some legislation to be put through, too, so that no one else in this situation finds themselves in our situation. Again, thank you, and I would be pleased to answer any questions of you at this time or in the future. Mr. Ch airperson : Thank you for your presentation.

We have just been informed that the next presenter, Dawn-Lee Piche is unable to be here. The next name is No. 8, Kristine Barr. Please proceed. Ms. Kristine Barr (Private Citizen): Honourable Chair and committee members, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you tonight regarding the Charter Compliance, Bill 34. Bill 34 is an important piece of legislation. It builds on and supports this provincial govern ment's commitment to equality, human rights and the respect and dignity of all Manitobans.

It goes beyond Bill 41, which amended 10 legis lative acts last year, to address financial ineqmhes and extends some rights and responsibilities to same-sex couples. I am very pleased to see that my NDP government listened to and responded to community input and concerns about the gaps that existed in Bill 41, and I am most pleased to see that amongst the 56 acts that the bill will amend, The Adoption Act is featured prom inently amongst them.

Through this piece of legislation, the Government is acknowledging the reality that gay and lesbian couples are parents and should be accorded all the rights and responsibilities that accompany parenting. Manitoba laws will now ensure that children who are born into or adopted by same-sex families get the same legal

July 24, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 335 protection as those children who are born or adopted into families with opposite-sex parents. You have taken the opportunity to make history in Manitoba. Last year, I was most disappointed that Bill 41 was not as com prehensive as I and a large number of community members had expected it to be. Many other provincial jurisdictions had at this time already introduced legislation to permit same-sex couples to adopt children together, and that list included British Columbia, Saskatch ewan and Ontario.

I felt that clear precedents had been set and wondered why you were denying full human rights to same-sex couples here in Manitoba. I believe that at the time I asked you the question: Why are you waiting? I am not a very patient person, and I did not understand why you were not acting more quickly and diligently, but I now feel like I have a better understanding. I was disappointed, I was skeptical, and like many other members of the community, thought that by sending this to a review panel you were using a stall tactic and adding an additional hoop for us to jump through, but I can now appreciate your delay.

The review panel took the time to analyze what has been done across Canada, build on the strengths of legislation in other jurisdictions and eliminate the weaknesses of some of those pieces of legislation. I am very pleased with the outcome as it is now clear to me that it was worth the wait to take the time to develop a very comprehensive bill like Bill 34. In addition to adoption rights, this bill will ensure that common-law couples will be eligible for tax benefits, have the right to make health care decisions for an incapacitated partner and be recognized as a parent on their children's birth certificates.

As a local school trustee, I am happy to see that my obligations regarding conflicts of interest have been clarified. It is only fair, just and in the public good that I should have to disclose any conflicts publicly just like any other elected official in an opposite-sex relationship must. All gay and lesbian elected officials that I know currently do this in practi ce, but it is important to have this obligation spelled out in places like The Public Schools Act.

I have taken the time to analyze the content of Bill 34 and discussed it with many activists, parents, community members and lawyers across Canada who have much more legal expertise than I do, and I can honestly say that, upon the passage of this bill in partnership with Bill 53, the one that addresses property concerns, I believe that Manitoba will have the most progressive and comprehensive legislation to support same-sex couples in Canada. What this means is that a same-sex couple living in Manitoba will have better rights here than they would anywhere else in Canada.

This means that Manitoba will be recognized as a leader in human rights, as a safe place to be, a safe place to raise families and a safe place to live your life openly and honestly. Thank you for introducing this bill and working to extend full equality and human rights to same-sex couples in Manitoba. It is long overdue, but thank you also for taking the time to do it right once and for all. Your actions will help to provide fairness, end discrimination and educate the community at large.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight and would be happy to answer any questions that the com mittee may have in regard to my presentation. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. The next presenters are Nadine Gilroy and Lorrie Millan. Are Nadine Gilroy and Lorrie Millan here? If not, their names are dropped to the bottom of the list. The next presenter is Janet Baldwin of the Manitoba Human Rights Commission. Ms. Janet Baldwin (Chair person, Manitoba Human Rights Commission): Good evening.

The Manitoba Human Rights Commission is represented tonight by my colleague, Com missioner Elliot Leven, by our executive director Dianna Scarth, who is in the audience, by our research and policy analyst Debra Beauchamp, who is also in the audience, and by myself as chairperson of the Human Rights Commission. The Human Rights Commission is here tonight to express our support for Bill 34 as the second piece in the Government's Charter compliance legislation. Now, the Human Rights Commission has no direct jurisdiction over some

336 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 24, 2002 of the matters in Bill 34, but part of our mandate under the code is to promote as well as protect human rights. As you know, the human rights code prohibits discrimination on the basis of a number of characteristics, including sex, gender determining characteristics, sexual orientation and marital or family status. We are also, as a Human Rights Commission, mindful of our international obligations.

More than 50 years ago, in 1948, the members of the United Nations met following a horrific world war characterized by unspeakable acts of inhumanity visited on people for no reason other than group characteristics such as race, religion or homosexuality. * (20:30) In an effort to prevent a repetition of these horrors, the UN adopted its Universal Decla ration of Human Rights, which affirmed every person's right to equality and dignity. This universal declaration is referred to expressly in our code.

Our code also refers to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and we must consider, in looking at amendments to our legislation, the directions of the Supreme Court of Canada in charter cases. I will just quote one short passage from the leading case of M v. H. in regard to sexual orientation. The exclusion of same-sex partners from the legislation in question in that case promotes the view that individuals in same-sex relationships generally are less worthy of recognition and protection.

It implies that they are judged to being incapable of forming intimate rela tionships of economic interdependence, as com pared to opposite-sex couples, without regard to their actual circumstances. Such exclusion perpetuates the disadvantages suf fered by indi viduals in same-sex relationships and contributes to the erasure of their existence. We have come a long way on the road to equality, but gays and lesbians and also bisexual and transgender persons have had to wait longer than most for appropriate recognition.

It is only 18 years ago that Manitoba became one of the first Canadian jurisdictions proudly to add sexual orientation to the Manitoba Human Rights Code as a protected characteristic. It was another several years before the Manitoba case· of Vogel extended certain spousal employment benefits to common-law partners. It was even longer before this appreciation of the conjugal relationships into which same-sex couples enter received due recognition in the case of M. v. H., which I have just quoted. This Government has now moved to redress the short comings with last year's legislation to implement M v.

H., Bill 41, now Bill 34, which we are discussing today, and Bill 53, tabled last week, in regard to property issues. I am now going to ask my colleague, Elliot Leven, to talk about some of the specific pro posals in Bill 34. Mr. Chair person: Is there leave of the committee for Mr. Levin to speak? [Agreed} Mr. Elliot Leven (Manitoba Human Rights Commission): Thank you, Chairperson Baldwin. Thank you, members of the committee. My name is Elliot Leven, and I am a Manitoba Human Rights Commissioner. By way of background, I am a lawyer in private practice here in the city of Winnipeg.

I am also a proud member of the Winnipeg gay community and the Winnipeg Jewish community. The commission supports the bill, as cur rently drafted. The bill is consistent with general human rights principles and with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In recent years, using the Charter, Canadian courts have begun to consistently strike down laws which discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, including adoption laws, which prohibited same-sex couples from adopting as a couple.

There is every likelihood that, if this bill were not enacted, courts would eventually begin to strike down Manitoba laws, as well. Let me take this opportunity to say a few brief words about adoption. Various individuals and groups have commented upon this matter. Not all of these parties seem to realize that, under current laws, single gays and lesbians in Manitoba can and do already adopt. Further more, individual gays and lesbians living in

July 24, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA 33 7 committed lifelong relationships can already adopt as individuals. However, gay and lesbian couples cannot adopt as a couple. This is, frankly, a bizarre situation, and, more importantly, it is almost certainly incon sistent with the Charter. The bill before us today would remedy the problem. Some individuals and groups may not realize that in any adoption in the province of Manitoba, whether by a legally married husband and wife or otherwise, the courts must always place the best interests of the individual child above all other considerations.

This will not change. No adoption, whether by a same-sex couple or any other couple or any single person, will be approved until a court determines that the adoption would be in the best interests of the individual child. This bill deals with both rights and respon sibilities. This is as it should be. Eliminating discrimination in relation to both rights and responsibilities is consistent with general human rights principles. As others may have pointed out, this bill is not about same-sex marriage. Only the federal government has jurisdiction to facilitate same-sex marriage in Canada.

What this bill does is to eliminate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Again, the Manitoba Human Rights Com mission supports this bill. The battle to eliminate various forms of discrimination is an ongoing process. This is an important step in that process. Subject to any questions from the committee, those are my comments. Ms.

Baldwin: If I may just be allowed to add a couple of further comments, one very specific comment in relation to Bill 34, we do support the removal of the outdated anti-discrimination provisions in various specific statutes with the consequential recognition that the Human Rights Code and pr ocess is the appropriate vehicle, generally, to address discrimination issues.

Now I know we are not talking about Bill 53 tonight-it was, indeed, only tabled last week extending family property laws to common-law partners, which is the third piece of the legislation in the Government's attempt to achieve equality for common-law couples. But in regard to Bill 34, I would assume, we would assume as a commission that Bill 34 applies as Bill 53 explicitly does, to common-law rela tionships which are existing at the time the legislation comes into force. That is clear in Bill 53 but not quite so clear in Bill 34.

Now, as my colleague has indicated, of course, Bill 34 has nothing to do with the definition of marriage and indeed marriage is not primarily within provincial jurisdiction. But the Manitoba Human Rights Commission has take a position supporting the right of same-sex couples to choose to marry, and in that regard we welcome the recent Ontario decision declaring Canada's current definition of marriage to be unconstitutional in excluding same-sex couples.

We would encourage this Government to urge the federal government to legislate as soon as possible to change the definition of marriage and then implement that in provincial legislation as the fourth piece in its legislation to eliminate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Thank you, and we will be happy to answer questions. Mr. Chair person: Thank you for your presen tation. The next presenter is Tim Preston. Mr. Tim Preston (Private Citizen): Good evening. I do not have a formal presentation. Thank you, once again, for the privilege of speaking to you. My name is Tim Preston. I am a lawyer.

I have been a lawyer for 21 years. I have repre sented, as have my colleagues and associates, many gay and lesbian clients who have struggled, and I have witnessed their struggles for equality because equality sometimes is a struggle. However, tonight I feel that there is cause for celebration. I wish to express my gratitude to this Government. I spoke to the committee last year, to encourage the Govern ment to include same-sex common-law relation ships in legislation. I now wish to congratulate this Government for so doing, for introducing Bill 34.

By allowing common-law partners to adopt together, by amending Manitoba statutes to

338 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 24, 2002 include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination, and by allowing common-law partners to make, for instance, health care decisions for each other, this Government is recognizing that our families are part of the fabric of this community. You are supporting, making a richer, more diverse and supportive environment for the future, and I thank you all for that. That is all I have to say tonight. * (20:40) Mr. Chair person: Thank you for your presentation. The next presenter is Donna Huen of the Rainbow Resource Centre. Please proceed. Ms.

Donna Huen (Rainbow Resource Centre): Mr. Chairperson, I would, first and foremost, like to thank you all for hearing my presentation this evening. I am representing the Rainbow Resource Centre, serving Manitoba's gay/lesbianlbisexual/transgendered and two spirited communities. We have been operating for the past 31 years, providing information, referrals and peer support to the gayllesbianlbisexual/transgendered and two spirited communities, and their families and friends.

In addition, we provide anti-homophobia training to professionals and pre-professionals in the social service, health care, and education fields, so that when members of our com munities interface with these systems, they are treated with dignity, respect and equality. I am speaking to the bill introduced by the Manitoba government, Bill 34, The Charter Compliance Act. That this bill recognizes same sex couples' need to jointly adopt children in order to provide the best possible care for their children is truly encouragi ng.

We are also encouraged by measures proposed to ensure that Manitoba's laws are consistent with federal laws, particularly income tax laws, the clarification of conflict of interest guidelines for common-law couples and that common-law partners will have the right to make health care decisions for an incapacitated partner. These are long standing issues that will finally be rectified with the passage of Bill 34. Other statutes being amended by this bill, such as The Anatomy Act and The Change of Name Act, will also have significant, positive ramifications for our communities.

These amendments and those proposed by Bill 53 will recognize and protect the status of gay and lesbian relationships to as near to full equality under the law as is possible without legal mamage. We encourage this Government to now take the remaining steps needed to ensure our full equality under the law. First and foremost, pass and enact Bills 34 and 53. Secondly, clarif y the Government's intent in the relevant statutes for a transgendered parent in the final stages of transition from one sex to the other.

Presently such parents face the imminent dissolution of their legal marriage, and consequently, the potential loss of their legal relationship to their adopted or birth children. How will the continuity of their parental rights be ensured as one of the transitions to the other sex? Thirdly, we strongly urge this Government to strongly urge the federal government to change the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, people whose sexual orientation is other than heterosexual have full equality.

This Government has done the correct thing with the introduction of Bill 34. Anti discrimination provisions are always a positive move in the right direction. Congratulations on your efforts to ensure full equality, under the law, to gay and lesbian families and their children. Thank you very much. Mr. Ch airperson: Thank you for your presen tation. The next presenter is Lloyd Fisher. Mr. Lloyd Fisher (Private Citizen): Mr.

Chairman, members of the committee, as one of two same-sex partners who have been in a committed relationship for over 40 years, I would like to express our thanks to this Government for making notable progress toward the establishment of equal rights for all Manitobans through Bill 34. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your pres entation. The next presenters are Stacy Garrioch and Sharon Hunter. Stacy Garrioch and Sharon Hunter. Please proceed.

July 24, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 339 Ms. Sharon Hunter (Private Citizen): Thank you. My name is Sharon Hunter, and this is my life partner, Stacy Garrioch. Firstly, I applaud you for your patience tonight. It has reaffirmed my commitment to never ever go into politics ever. I want to start tonight by telling you about some really amazing kids. These kids are beautiful; they are intelligent; they are extremely gifted. They might be the most amazing kids in the world. In fact, they probably are, I am sure of it.

All of these children were in foster care, and they were in foster care because of horrendous abuse in their biological families, biological families that were headed by heterosexual couples. Each of these kids in their own way is trying to overcome the pain from their past. They were placed in foster care, and then subsequently adopted b

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	37-3-la9
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	37th 3rd hansardpdf la9.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	7b57de3d4ae5a2acd562c4d92d752d80c41f4f99

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).