Anne McLellan

[The Late Hugh Hanrahan, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the government to offer tribute to the former MP from Edmonton—Strathcona. Hugh Hanrahan was a fellow Edmontonian and someone I got to know when we were both elected for the first time to the House in 1993. In fact the points of coincidence between Mr. Hanrahan and myself do not end there.

As the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition has pointed out, the University of Alberta was in Mr. Hanrahan's riding and I had the opportunity and pleasure to teach at the University of Alberta for over 13 years before becoming a member of the House. Mr. Hanrahan and I on our frequent flights back and forth from Edmonton to Ottawa often sat beside each other. We had the opportunity to talk about our shared love and commitment and at times concern for the University of Alberta.

The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition is quite right that Mr. Hanrahan carried a very deep commitment to the University of Alberta and the research and development and intellectual life of that institution. He did all that he could to ensure that it was nourished and fostered.

As the Leader of the Official Opposition has pointed out, Mr. Hanrahan, like myself, was born in Nova Scotia. We then made our way west. Mr. Hanrahan was born in Antigonish, Nova Scotia where he earned degrees in both education and arts from St. Francis Xavier or as Mr. Hanrahan would say, St. F. X. Later he obtained a master's degree in economics from the University of Ottawa.

He did make his way west where he accepted a teaching position first in Calgary. Soon afterward he moved to Edmonton where he taught economics and earned a reputation in and out of the world of education as a man of commitment and thoughtfulness.

Mr. Hanrahan spent over 20 years teaching in the Edmonton Catholic school system. He was honoured as teacher of the year in 1998 by the Alberta Foundation for Economic Education. Many of his students have commented on how influential Mr. Hanrahan was in their lives. I thought as a former teacher myself it was very fitting that on the night of his election Mr. Hanrahan commented on how influential those students had been on his life. He acknowledged that it was through the encouragement of his students that he actually for the first time seriously considered running as a member of parliament. His lifelong advocacy of fiscal restraint and reducing the national debt provided him with a strong and obvious platform. His bid at federal politics was successful.

Among other duties he served on the industry committee where he developed an expertise on small and medium size business and research and development. Mr. Hanrahan worked diligently in the service of his constituents until ill health required his retirement from elected office.

Mr. Hanrahan was a religious man and one who found intellectual stimulation and comfort from the works of philosophy, religion, politics and history.

On behalf of the government, I am pleased to recognize the work of Mr. Hanrahan and his commitment to the public service of this country. We offer our deepest sympathy to his wife Dianne, his daughter Margaret and other family and friends.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the hon. member's comment and that of Professor Hogg, dean of Osgoode Hall Law School. There is divided jurisdiction in the area of family law and divided jurisdiction in relation to marriage. The federal government has jurisdiction over marriage and divorce. The provinces have jurisdiction over solemnisation.

That is why I moved the amendment. I wanted to clarify for everyone in the House and in the country that we as a parliament are operating within our jurisdiction. We are not arrogating to ourselves any jurisdiction that we do not have. Obviously we could not do that.

I would hope the official opposition, of all parties, would adopt the amendment and support it. It is important in this federation where we acknowledge diversity and the role of the provinces that we make clear parliament supports the motion operating within its constitutional jurisdiction, however that might ultimately be defined by the courts of the country.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I think the point I have tried to make on behalf of the government is that we do believe that the definition of marriage is clear. It is clear in the law of Canada and it was the courts that made the definition clear.

As I indicated in my comments, the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman is found in the common law of our country and the common law of our system of law. It is also found in the civil law of the country. This is clear and we are therefore able to support the motion as presented by the official opposition. If it is believed that some clarity is required around that, so be it.

We thought perhaps we could spend our time debating other issues as opposed to that on which there is clarity in the law.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the motion this morning on behalf of the Government of Canada.

Let me clearly state that the Government of Canada will be supporting the motion in the House today. The fact that we will be supporting the motion should come as a surprise to no one. I would like to thank the hon. member for tabling the motion for the consideration of the House and for giving the government the opportunity to clarify our position on this important issue.

We on this side agree that the institution of marriage is a central and important institution in the lives of many Canadians. It plays an important part in all societies worldwide, second only to the fundamental importance of family to all of us.

The institution of marriage is of great importance to large numbers of Canadians, and the definition of marriage as found in the hon. member's motion is clear in law.

As stated in the motion, the definition of marriage is already clear in law. It is not found in a statute, but then not all law exists in statutes, and the law is no less binding and no less the law because it is found in the common law instead of in a statute.

The definition of marriage, which has been consistently applied in Canada, comes from an 1866 British case which holds that marriage is “the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”. That case and that definition are considered clear law by ordinary Canadians, by academics and by the courts. The courts have upheld the constitutionality of that definition.

The Ontario court, general division, recently upheld in Layland and Beaulne the definition of marriage. In that decision a majority of the court stated the following:

—unions of persons of the same sex are not “marriages”, because of the definition of marriage. The applicants are, in effect, seeking to use s. 15 of the Charter to bring about a change in the definition of marriage. I do not think the Charter has that effect.

One may then ask why we are here today and why we are using the already limited time of the House to debate a motion, on which, I suspect, there will be no fundamental disagreement inside or outside the House.

I am aware, as are other ministers, that recent court decisions and resulting media coverage have raised concern around the issue of same sex partners. It appears that the hon. member believes that the motion is both necessary and effective as a means to keep the Government of Canada from suddenly legislating the legalization of same sex marriages. That kind of misunderstanding of the intention of the government should be corrected.

Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages. No jurisdiction worldwide defines a legal marriage as existing between same sex partners. Even those few European countries such as Denmark, Norway and Holland, which have recently passed legislation giving recognition to same sex relationships and extending some of the same benefits and responsibilities as available to married spouses, maintain a clear distinction in the law between marriage and same sex registered partnerships.

Norway's ministry published a statement in 1994 that makes this distinction clear. Although a same sex relationship may have many of the same needs, the Norwegian government clarified that it, the same sex partnership, can

—never be the same as marriage, neither socially nor from a religious point of view. (Registered partnership) does not replace or compete with heterosexual marriage—(and the) opportunity for homosexuals to register their partnerships will not lead to more people opting for homosexual relationships rather than marriage.

I fundamentally do not believe that it is necessary to change the definition of marriage in order to accommodate the equality issues around same sex partners which now face us as Canadians. The courts have ruled that some recognition must be given to the realities of unmarried cohabitation in terms of both opposite sex and same sex partners.

I strongly believe that the message to the government and to all Canadian governments from the Canadian public is a message of tolerance, fairness and respect for others.

For those who remain concerned, I would point out that recent surveys of young people indicate that marriage has not gone out of style in Canada. The majority of young people still expect to marry. The marriage rate is still similar to that of the 1920s, although a rising number are re-marriages, and that Canadian marriages still on average last longer than those in the United States.

The motion speaks of taking all necessary steps to preserve the definition of marriage in Canada. While I and the government support the motion, I feel strongly that marriage is already very clear in Canadian minds and in Canadian law, and that there is little that the House must do as a necessary step to in any way add to the clarity of the law.

Marriage has fundamental value and importance to Canadians and we do not believe on this side of the House that importance and value is in any way threatened or undermined by others seeking to have their long term relationships recognized. I support the motion for maintaining the clear legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

At this time I would like to move an amendment to the motion. I move:

That the motion be amended by inserting after the word “steps” the words “within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada”.

[Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 1999, June 7th, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-84, an act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies and errors and to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes of Canada and to repeal certain acts that have ceased to have effect.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Criminal Code, June 7th, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-82, an act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving and related matters).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[The Late Douglas Harkness, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer a tribute on behalf of the government to the Hon. Douglas Scott Harkness who served his country with integrity and conviction both in the military arena of World War II and in the political arena of the House of Commons between 1945 and 1972.

As a member from Alberta, I am particularly honoured to recognize the political and military contributions of Mr. Harkness.

Douglas Harkness distinguished himself at war through his courage. Indeed he was awarded the George Medal for bravery for his actions in helping to evacuate troops when a flagship he was aboard was torpedoed. He earned the respect of his superiors and was promoted to lieutenant colonel and served as a commander during the invasion of Normandy.

Upon his return from the war Douglas Harkness demonstrated his leadership qualities by helping to shape the political landscape of his country. First elected as MP for the riding of Calgary East in 1945, he was returned after the redistribution of seats as the MP for Calgary North.

Under Prime Minister Diefenbaker, Douglas Harkness served in a variety of portfolios, including Minister of Northern Affairs and Natural Resources, Minister of Agriculture and Minister of National Defence. For a time he was Alberta's only representative in cabinet.

One of his legacies as Minister of Agriculture was to bring a degree of stability to agriculture by establishing the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. He maintained his attachment to the land and was very proud of it. In fact, even as he represented his constituents in Ottawa, he continued to file his income tax as a proud farmer.

Of course that for which he will be most remembered politically is his stand as Minister of National Defence on the issue of nuclear arms. At odds with then Prime Minister Diefenbaker as to whether Canada should arm its Bomarc missiles with nuclear warheads, Douglas Harkness tendered his resignation. In his statement to the House on February 4, 1963, he stated:

I resigned as a matter of principle. The point was finally reached when I considered that my honour and integrity required that I take that step.

It was a division, a stand which would lead to the defeat of the Diefenbaker government. For only the second time in Canadian history a government was overthrown by a vote of non-confidence in the House of Commons.

Teacher, farmer, soldier, legislator, Douglas Harkness exemplified the ability to both serve and lead. Having left an indelible mark on the military and political landscape of the country, he was inducted as an Officer of the Order of Canada in 1978.

On behalf of the government I would like to ask all colleagues to take the time to reflect on the contributions of a former politician, a man of principle, a fellow Albertan, who made a real difference in the country's history.

[Gun Control, May 31st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, let me share with the hon. member some statistics that were provided recently to me by the registration program. In the first six months of operation 275 applicants were refused licences for public safety reasons. We have revoked 191 other licences for public safety reasons. Of 13,000 checks conducted as a result of sales, more than 10% were rejected for failing background checks. That is more than 1,300 potentially dangerous gun sales blocked to date.

That is what safety is about. That is what developing a culture of safety and responsibility is about. I would ask—

[Gun Control, May 31st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that there are only a few people, obviously the hon. member is included, who think that our firearms control program is nonsense.

Over 80% of the people who live in Canada support gun control. In addition to that, they support gun registration.

I would hope that these people in light of some of the tragic events that have happened recently in this country and elsewhere would get behind gun control and responsible gun owners.

[Justice, May 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify for the hon. member that the Supreme Court of Canada in Stone as I understand it did not deal with the defence of provocation. However the hon. member is right that we are consulting on the defence of provocation as well as the defence of self-defence. I hope to be able to release the results of those consultations and proposals for changes to the law in the coming months.