Homosexuals Aided By Immigration Proposals

REAL Women has, over the years, read and analysed many government reports and documents.

Never before, however, have we come across such a blatantly biased report as that of the Advisory Group's Report on Immigration. This three-member Panel was established by the Hon. Mme Lucienne Robillard in 1997 to examine all aspects of Canada's immigration policy. The conclusions of this Panel, released in January 1998, are deeply troubling and especially so in regard to its recommendation affecting family class admissions.

The Panel has recommended that same-sex partners be admitted to Canada as spouses and that their sexual relationship need only be of a one-year duration. It reached this conclusion on the approach taken by one dissenting judge, Madame Justice L'Heureux-Dubé, of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1993 in Mossop vs Canada . The Panel, however, completely ignored the majority decision in that case, and also ignored the more recent decision in 1995 of the Supreme Court of Canada in Nesbit and Egan vs Canada. These two cases are the law of the land, which are binding on all Canadians, and they completely contradict the position taken by the Panel on the issue of same-sex partners.

That is, since same-sex couples are not legally recognized as families in Canada, why has the Panel made exceptions for those coming here from other countries? Further, to specify that an intimate relationship of only one year's duration is sufficient to constitute such a partnership is unreasonable and impractical.

In this regard, the Panel was clearly incorrect when it stated, at page 43 of its report, that the concept underlying the word spouse "has been evolving in both Canadian society and Canadian family law". In the Mossop case, the Supreme Court held that homosexual partners do NOT constitute a family. In Nesbit and Egan, the Court held that since the heterosexual relationship is unique in its capacity to procreate, generally, to care for children's upbringing, it is the social unit fundamental to the stability and well-being of society. That Court also concluded that Parliament, quite properly, could give special support and recognition to the heterosexual relationship since its critical task of producing and raising children is of benefit to all society. The Court did refer to the fact that, on occasion, other couples adopt or rear children, but stated that this situation is the exception, which in no way affects the general picture.

As stated by Mr. Justice LaForest on behalf of the majority of judges in the Nesbit and Egan case:

p. 536 ... suffice it to say that marriage has from time to time been firmly grounded in our legal tradition, one that is in itself, a reflection of longstanding, philosophical and religious traditions, but its ultimate raison d'etre transcends all of these. It is firmly anchored in the biological and social reality that heterosexual couples have a unique ability to procreate, that most children are the product of these relationships, and that they are generally cared for and nurtured by those who live in that relationship.

p. 538 ... viewed in the larger context, then, there is nothing arbitrary about the distinction supporting of heterosexual family units. It is the social unit that uniquely has the capacity to procreate children and generally cares for their upbringing, and as such warrants support by Parliament to meet its needs. This is the only unit in society that expends resources to care for children on a routine and sustained basis. ... whether the mother or the father leaves the paid work force or whether both parents are paying after-tax dollars for daycare, this is the unit in society that fundamentally anchors other social relationships and other aspects of society.

Further, the Immigration Panel stated (p. 43):

In various times and places, societies have had modes of creating and dissolving intimate unions at odds with the practice of the current Immigration Act, which describes marriage as a 'legal' marriage, and a 'spouse' as someone of the opposite sex

However, American, English and European law and the UN treaties all recognize that the legal status of married and spousal relationships apply exclusively to heterosexual couples, contrary to the Panel's statement.

The Religious Context

Moreover, all of the world's major religions recognize that the concept of marriage and spouse should involve only the union of man and woman. This is a basic tenet of all the major religious communities which make up the multicultural heritage of Canada.

Finally, the Panel argued that the "family" should be determined by a "functional" interpretation and "emotional dependency". However, this particular interpretation of family was specifically rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Mossop and Egan cases.

The recommendation by the Panel that same-sex partners be admitted to Canada as "spouses" on the same basis as legally married couples constitutes a fundamental and profound change in an institution that is deeply rooted in the legal, moral, religious, sociological and historical traditions on which our society is based.

It should be noted too, that such a fundamental change was neither sought by nor acceptable to the Canadian public. According to a Gallup Poll (May, 1992), 61% of Canadians opposed legal recognition of same-sex unions. Further, according to a nation-wide Angus Reid survey of 2,051 individuals, conducted in April/May 1994, the recognition of same-sex partners and related benefits were unacceptable to 60% of Canadians.

In short, to attempt to define same-sex partners as "spouses" under the Immigration Act, as recommended by the review Panel, is arbitrary and elitist and signifies a personal bias by the Panel, rather than a well researched, in-depth analysis of the issue.

If the same-sex as spouses recommendation was not sufficient to raise the concerns of Canadians -- the Advisory Group made yet another recommendation in regard to family class admission in Canada. It recommended that the sponsors themselves should define the "family" for immigration purposes and that "emotional bonds" to a sponsor will be sufficient to admit an individual to Canada.

In an editorial on March 5, 1998, the Globe and Mail described this preposterous proposal of expanding the family class immigration as "ridiculous". According to the Globe editorial:

... a far sounder immigration policy will be built on welcoming people who want to come to Canada as independents, just as many of our parents and grandparents did."

To permit sponsorship based on "emotional bonds" will open the door wide to immigrants without any other merits except alleged "emotional bonds" to the sponsor. It will provide an opportunity for financial pay-offs to sponsors for doing so and will enable immigration rackets to prosper.

Moreover, this provision is so broad and open-ended it renders irrelevant the provisions of the Immigration Act itself, which have heretofore been put in place to protect Canadians from individuals who wish to take the advantage of Canada without accepting their responsibilities to this country. In short, why even bother with an Immigration Act when a sponsor of an immigrant only has to claim is that he/she is "emotionally bonded" to anyone, anywhere -- and he/she may then enter Canada to obtain landed status and citizenship here.

Please write to:

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS