Despite Ontario’s and British Columbia’s efforts to redefine parenthood, the biblical design for the family is simple.  

In Genesis 1:27-28, “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.’” Thus in the very first chapter of Genesis, God’s good design is that children would be born to married parents: one mother and one father.  

But the fall into sin has broken, shattered, and complicated the structure of families and even the very roles of motherhood and fatherhood. Death, divorce, and abandonment deprive children of a present father or mother. Adoption and remarriage – although positive actions that try to alleviate the harms of sin – lead to children having more than two parents (e.g. two biological parents plus a step-dad). Parentage has become less straightforward after the Fall. 

The Disruption of Assisted Reproduction 

The growing practice of assisted reproduction only adds to the confusion. Assisted reproduction can occur in all sorts of ways: artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, traditional and gestational surrogacy, and sperm donation by sexual intercourse. While assisted reproduction often uses the gametes – the sperm and the egg – from a husband and a wife to help them conceive a child, donated sperm, eggs, and embryos are common. The very nature of assisted reproduction introduces at least one more person into the wondrous process of begetting a child.  

There are two possible purposes for assisted reproduction. First, it can be used to overcome one effect of the fall: infertility. For example, consider a couple where a wife’s eggs were all destroyed because of chemotherapy that successfully treated cancer. The couple might use the husband’s sperm and another woman’s egg to create an embryo through in vitro fertilization. That embryo could be implanted into the wife’s womb, and she would give birth to the child.  

Second, assisted reproduction can be used to overcome our created limitations. Consider a same-sex couple. They, of course, have no chance of having a child themselves. While they both may have healthy sperm, they have no egg. A doctor could use the sperm of one of the men in a gay marriage to inseminate a third-party surrogate. That surrogate mother gestates the child, gives birth to the child, and surrenders the child to the gay couple. 

But assisted human reproduction raises all sorts of questions of who should count as the parents of a child. Is the genetic father (the man who donated the sperm) or the intended father (the man who wanted the child) the “real” father? Is the genetic mother, the surrogate mother, or the intended mother the “real” mother? Or should all parties be counted as parents?  

Returning to God’s Original Design 

All of these questions can be answered when we return to God’s original design for the family. All people and all institutions of society should aim for children to be conceived by married parents, born to married parents, and raised by married parents. Biblically, God designed one father and one mother for each child. And to apply the biblical injunction to a new area of family life, “what God has joined together, let no man separate.” As much as possible, laws should steer would-be parents in this direction. Christians should stridently object to many facets of assisted reproduction (see our policy reports on IVF and surrogacy). 

And yet, assisted reproduction happens. And it is becoming increasingly common. So, when it does happen, who should be counted as the parents? 

When these unavoidable gray areas arise, the law should base parenthood upon genetics. This best accords with a reading of God’s wonderful book of general revelation. Children might be conceived within or outside of the bonds of marriage. Children may be conceived intentionally or unintentionally. Children might now be conceived in a petri dish and gestated in a surrogate. But a child can’t be conceived without a sperm and an egg. Thus, marriage, intention, and gestation are all unstable grounds upon which to build a definition of parentage in a post-fall world. Genetics – the man who provided the sperm and the woman who provided the egg – is the only consistent foundation for parenthood. 

Redefining parenthood prioritizes the desires of adults over the interests of children 

One of the overriding (though unstated) issues of the proposal is that this overhaul of British Columbia’s Family Law Act prioritizes the desires of adults over the best interests of children. It puts “us” adults before “them” children. 

According to Katy Faust & Stacy Manning in their book Them Before Us, this is a backwards way of viewing the family. Adults should put the interests of children above their own wants. The academic literature is fairly unanimous in the finding that children thrive best when they are conceived by, born to, and raised by their married mother and father (all other things being equal). That is the gold standard for child well-being (which, unsurprisingly, is God’s pattern for families).  

But the proposed changes in BC’s Family Law Act depart further from this gold standard.  Preconception agreements allow people with no biological connection to the child to become parents. That’s putting the desires of people to become parents above the best interests of children. Allowing “sperm donation through sexual intercourse”? That endorses family abandonment by the father. Defining parenthood along the lines of intention to parent rather than biological connection? While that may seem to put the interests of children first (you’d expect someone who intended to become a parent to care more for the child than someone who did not intend to become a parent), it still puts the desires of adults first and foremost in the equation by intentionally cutting off children from their natural parents.  

Basing parenthood on intention above all else is also the logic that has justified the killing of millions of pre-born children. Abortion is the ultimate example of putting the desire of adults above the best interests of children. 

Redefining parenthood commodifies children 

Another fundamental problem with British Columbia’s family law – both as it exists right now and the proposed updates – is that it commodifies children. 

Consider the following argument from our policy report on surrogacy: 

All children possess human dignity and are worthy of love, respect, and care, because they are made in God’s image.[61] Canadian public policy rightly recognizes that the commodification of human life is abhorrent, as reflected in the prohibition of commercial surrogacy in the Assisted Human Reproduction Act. As the Baird Commission Report stated: “Commodifying human beings and their bodies for commercial gain is unacceptable because this instrumentalization is injurious to human dignity and ultimately dehumanizing.”[62] This principle needs to be better reflected in Canadian policy and its enforcement. 

Supporters of commercial surrogacy argue that those seeking to be parents through surrogacy are not paying for a child or for parental rights, but that they are contracting for gestational services.[63] This objection does not withstand scrutiny, however. If the intending parents are only paying for the surrogate mother’s services and the child is not a term or commodity of the contract, they could not require the mother to relinquish the child after birth.[64] But that is the very object of the agreement – the transfer of a child to paying clients, the intended parents. 

According to article 2(a) of the “Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children” of which Canada is a signatory, “Sale of children means any act or transaction whereby a child is transferred by any person or group of persons to another for remuneration or any other consideration.”[65] A plain reading of this definition demonstrates that any commercial surrogacy arrangement amounts to the sale of a child contrary to the protocol. In fact, the reference to “any other consideration” in article 2(a) may also include reimbursement of expenses and all forms of surrogacy violate the rights affirmed in the Convention.[66] 

One child born through traditional surrogacy explained his concerns with the practice: “It looks to me like I was bought and sold … The fact is that someone has contracted you to make a child, give up your parental rights and hand over your flesh and blood child … When you exchange [something] for [m]oney it is called a commodity. Babies are not commodities. Babies are human beings.”[67] It is immensely damaging for children to grow up feeling both abandoned by their birth mother and purchased by their legal parents. These emotions are a natural consequence of the commodification of babies. 

Even if no money is exchanged through agreements and contracts around the conception of children, children are still commodified. God’s intention for children is not that they would be a commodity produced through some impersonal contract by two or more random people. Children are to be conceived in the intimate, conventional relationship of marriage. If not seen as something to be avoided entirely, children have been reduced to the level of objects rather than persons. 

Conclusion 

God’s design for the family is for children to be conceived by, born to, and raised by one father and one mother, united in the conventional bond of marriage. Unsurprisingly, when families follow this formula, children tend to thrive. But when they abandon this formula – as family law in British Columbia enables them to do – children’s outcomes tend to be worse. Many studies confirm this across a wide variety of factors. The charts from this study easily demonstrate how, from educational attainment to sexual abuse to criminal activity, children in intact families have better outcomes than in any other family structure.  

God’s plan for the family is good. It is good morally. But it is also empirically good. 

And it is this goodness of the natural family that we must stand to defend. 

What is a parent?  

In recent decades, society has been asking questions whose answers should be self-evident. What is marriage? What is a woman? These questions are being asked because our society doesn’t want to accept God’s created designs for humanity. Instead, they want to create their own standards and their own definitions. 

This humanist endeavour is continuing with British Columbia’s announcement that it will be updating the definition of parentage in its Family Law Act. Among other things, the proposed changes would allow all children (not just those born through assisted reproduction) to have up to four parents, define parentage based on “intent” rather than biology, permit “sperm donation through sexual intercourse” (e.g. Tinder for reproduction), and expunge all gendered language from the law.  

In 2016, we raised the alarm bells when Ontario made similar changes in its All Families are Equal Act. The British Columbia Family Law Act is already bad enough and in need of reform. But rather than reforming the law to better harmonize with God’s pattern for parenthood, this new British Columbia proposal is the province’s equivalent of the All Families are Equal Act.  

But before we get to the proposal itself, what does British Columbia’s family law say right now? 

Current BC Family Law

British Columbia’s current Family Law Act starts well. The law clearly states that for “the birth of a child not born as a result of assisted reproduction, the child’s parents are the birth mother and the child’s biological father.” This presumption of parentage would cover the vast majority of children. So far, so good. Biology rules. 

But of course, assisted reproduction complicates this. In fact, British Columbia’s 2011 Family Law Act comprehensively addressed new forms of assisted reproduction. The Family Law Act clearly states that sperm, egg, and embryo donors are not automatically parents of a child born through assisted reproduction unless they expressly consent to be a parent prior to conception. Generally speaking, the birth mother and her spouse are considered the legal parents.  

However, if a surrogate mother is impregnated and gives birth to a child, she may “surrender” the child to an intended parent or intended parents. She forfeits her claim to be the legal parent of that child. With low barriers to surrogacy, a British Columbia Law Institute report commissioned by the government as a basis for the update of the parentage law, suggested that British Columbia is “the most ‘surrogacy-friendly’” province in Canada.  

Further complicating matters, before a child is conceived through assisted reproduction, an intended parent or intended parents may enter a written agreement with a potential birth mother and her spouse and/or the genetic mother and genetic father so that up to all six can be recognized as parents of the agreed-upon child. Thus, BC’s current family law allows for a child born through assisted reproduction to have up to six parents: up to three mothers and three fathers. 

This family law regime tears parenthood apart. Fatherhood is trifurcated into intended fatherhood, step-fatherhood (the spouse of the birth mother), and genetic fatherhood. Motherhood is further divided into intended mother, birth mother, and genetic mother.  

Intended Changes to BC Family Law 

But British Columbia is proposing to undermine the family unit even more. In their Intentions Paper for the Family Law Act, the province lists various misguided changes to parentage rules. 

First of all, the paper recommends “removing legislative inconsistencies for children conceived through sexual intercourse and children conceived using assisted reproduction.” Apparently, recognizing more parents of children conceived through assisted reproduction than natural reproduction is discriminatory. Why should a child born through assisted reproduction have up to six parents, but a child born through sexual intercourse only two parents? Never mind the creational fact that it is not good for fatherhood and motherhood to be bifurcated and even trifurcated through assisted reproduction. Now the government is proposing that children conceived naturally also have shattered parents. If all four parties sign a written agreement before the child is conceived, a naturally conceived child can have four parents: a genetic mother, a genetic father, an intended mother, and an intended father. 

One of the justifications for this change is the shifting social and even legal perceptions of parenthood. The British Columbia Law Institute report describes a recent legal case involving a polyamorous triad. 

The parties conceived a child through sexual intercourse. This resulted in two biological parents, and a non-biological parent. Due to the restrictions outlined above, the parties were forced to make a court application to have the non-biological party named a parent. In reviewing the Family Law Act in this case, the court stated:  

there is a gap in the FLA with regard to children conceived through sexual intercourse who have more than two parents. The evidence indicates that the legislature did not foresee the possibility a child might be conceived through sexual intercourse and have more than two parents. Put bluntly, the legislature did not contemplate polyamorous families. This oversight is perhaps a reflection of changing social conditions and attitudes . . . or perhaps is simply a misstep by the legislature. Regardless, the FLA does not adequately provide for polyamorous families in the context of parentage. 

But of course, the legislature didn’t contemplate polyamorous families! Polygamy – the recognition of a marriage between more than two people – is illegal. The federal government, which has jurisdiction over the definition of marriage, has clearly stated that marriage is only between two people, to the exclusion of all else. Why would the government legally recognize all members of a polyamorous relationship as parents when it doesn’t recognize polygamy itself? (As an aside, this is exactly the avenue taken in the legalization of same-sex marriage. Governments began recognizing same-sex couples as parents of children that were not their own. After this recognition, the argument essentially was that if you recognize a same-sex couple as parents of a child, why shouldn’t the government recognize the same-sex marriage itself.) 

Second, the policy intentions paper suggests “considering parentage when a child is conceived using assisted reproduction from the lens of ‘intention to parent’ rather than genetic connection.” In other words, the creational pattern that parenthood is defined by biology is fully severed. Like so many other areas of public policy in the modern day, only intention and consent now matter. Sperm donors, egg donors, or surrogate mothers are simply tools to get the job done. They are usually denied parenthood status. (Unless, of course, the intended parents want these reproductive actors to be parents as well. Then they do get to become parents.) 

Third, the paper counsels that family law permit “sperm donation by sexual intercourse.” Currently, British Columbia requires assisted reproduction to use procedures such as in vitro fertilization – where a sperm fertilizes an egg in a petri dish –  or artificial insemination – where a turkey baster-like device deposits the sperm into a woman. “Sperm donation by sexual intercourse” is more natural… but far more immoral. It requires a man to have sex with a woman who is not his wife and who may already be married, so that she becomes pregnant.  

Imagine (or don’t imagine) a husband and wife of many years, Jack and Jane. They are unable to have children, so they invite Bob to sleep with Jane so that she becomes pregnant. But since pregnancy often doesn’t happen “on the first try,” Bob may have to have sex with Jane many times before Jack and Jane get what they want: a child. Genetically speaking, Bob would be the genetic parent of the child. But as long as he signs a pre-conception agreement with Jack and Jane that he doesn’t want to be the father, he won’t be legally recognized as the father. Unless, of course, Jack and Jane and Bob want him to be a third parent. All of this is, in the words of the report, so that families “have more reproductive choice.” 

Thankfully, the report rejected a recommendation from the British Columbia Law Institute that suggested that children should be able to have an unlimited number of parents. The committee writing the report was “concerned that any number set out in legislation would be arbitrary and would have the effect of cutting out some families… in the committee’s view, the law shouldn’t be looking for ways to keep them out of forming families. It should aim to treat everyone with dignity and on the same footing.” 

The committee is right that any number would be arbitrary. Any number, of course, but two. The genetic mother and the genetic father. 

Finally, the report advises that the Family Law Act replace gendered language with language that is more inclusive, “regardless of family members’ gender, gender identity, sex, or sexual orientation.” So, no more mention of fathers or mothers. “He” and “she” pronouns will be deleted. The gender-neutral term “parents” will remain in the legislation, but people will be described as the “person who provides the egg” or the “person who provides the sperm.” The cumbersome terms “the person’s” or the grammatically ambiguous “their” will likely be used in place of pronouns. All in an attempt to erase the sex binary from the legislation. 

Conclusion 

There is no definitive timetable for when legislation to make these changes will be proposed. The Policy Intentions Paper states, “The Paper allows the Ministry to share its intentions for policy change before the legislative amendments are drafted and introduced to Cabinet.” In the government’s press release, “the proposed policy changes will inform amendments to the FLA, which will be introduced to the legislature for consideration as soon as is feasible.” The legislature reconvenes on October 6 for the better part of two months, making that the first day that we could see new legislation tabled. 

Should Canadian parents be allowed to physically discipline their children or should the government criminalize the practice? As ARPA Canada noted in a recent article, two Canadian politicians have introduced bills which would ban corporal discipline.

Status of Bills

Bill C-273, introduced by MP Peter Julian, is titled An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Corinne’s Quest and the Protection of Children). The name comes from a federal government lawyer named Corinne Robertshaw who, as MP Julian notes, “saw first-hand the results of allowing physical punishment of children and the death and injury of children throughout the 1970s and 1980s.” Bill C-273 has not yet reached 2^nd reading in the House of Commons.

In the Senate, Senator Stan Kutcher introduced Bill S-251, An Act to Repeal Section 43 of the Criminal Code (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s call to action number 6). Both bills would remove a criminal code provision that permits limited physical discipline of children. Bill S-251 has passed 2^nd reading in the Senate and is being studied by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. ARPA Canada recently submitted a brief to that committee to urge them to respect parents’ responsibility to discipline their children. ARPA Canada recommends either leaving the law unchanged or simply making clarifying amendments. You can read ARPA Canada’s brief here.

Evidence

Physical abuse is illegal. Canada’s Criminal Code only allows parents to use force for the purpose of correction that “does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.”

In 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Criminal Code provision permitting reasonable corrective force did not violate children’s rights under the Charter. The Court also clarified what is and is not permitted. For example, force may not be used on a teenager or a child under the age of 2, must address actual behaviour, and may not involve the use of objects such as rulers or belts.

Proponents of bans argue that corporal discipline is ineffective in correcting behaviour and harms children. They also point out that several developed nations have banned the practice.

However, the purported evidence against corporal discipline confuses the cause-and-effect relationship between discipline and children’s outcomes. Research that appropriately considers the different factors involved in discipline of children suggests that mild conditional discipline is as good as, or better than, other forms of discipline, and reduces anti-social behaviour and noncompliance in children.

Sweden was the first country to ban corporal discipline in 1979 and is often heralded as an example to emulate. However, evidence from Sweden indicates that criminalizing mild corporal discipline has resulted in profound negative consequences for children and families, and that allowing parents to use physical corrective force (as Canada currently does) may prevent other negative outcomes in children.

Ultimately, this evidence reinforces the foundational principle that parents, not the civil government, are in the best position to raise children. The Canadian government ought to respect the institution of the family and the role of parents and not interfere except in cases of serious abuse or neglect. As such, Canada must respect parental discretion to discipline children within existing legal limits.

How Can You Get Involved?

The Canadian public and politicians continue to debate whether parents should be permitted to use corporal discipline. Maybe it’s also a discussion you’ve had with your spouse or with friends. ARPA Canada has just published a revised and updated Respectfully Submitted policy report on corporal discipline. In this report, we consider evidence and arguments for and against corporal discipline, ultimately concluding that Canada should not enact further restrictions. This report was first published in 2013 and updated in 2016. The recently updated version (2023) reflects new research on the issue.

Canadian MPs and Senators are actively considering what they should do about corporal discipline. We encourage you to read through the report and connect with your representatives to encourage them to read it as well. You can also send an EasyMail on this topic at easymail.staging.arpacanada.ca. At this point, the focus of the EasyMail is on Bill S-251, since the Senate bill has advanced further than the House of Commons Bill. Please contact us at [email protected] if you have any feedback, suggestions for improvement, or other questions on the report.

We have a new Family Law Policy Report which you can view here: https://staging.arpacanada.ca/publications