Marriage Act

An Act to protect the institution of marriage

This bill is from the 38th Parliament, 1st session, which ended in November 2005.

Sponsor

Dave Chatters  Conservative

Introduced as a private member’s bill. (These don’t often become law.)

Status

Outside the Order of Precedence (a private member's bill that hasn't yet won the draw that determines which private member's bills can be debated), as of Oct. 15, 2004
(This bill did not become law.)

Similar bills

C-266 (37th Parliament, 1st session) An Act to amend the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act in order to protect the legal definition of marriage by invoking section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-213s:

C-213 (2021) An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal interest rate)
C-213 (2020) Canada Pharmacare Act
C-213 (2020) Canada Pharmacare Act
C-213 (2016) An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (voting age)

Marriage ActRoutine Proceedings

October 15th, 2004 / 12:15 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Dave Chatters Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-213, an act to protect the institution of marriage.

Mr. Speaker, this particular bill is an essential step in upholding the promise that Parliament made in 1999 to protect marriage, and that the Liberals campaigned on in the 2000 election.

It provides an opportunity to revisit the tie vote that occurred in the House during the 37th Parliament as the bill does not contain the notwithstanding clause.

The law that was recently struck down in the Ontario Court of Appeal was a common law definition. It was the deliberate inaction on the part of the Liberals that allowed us to arrive at the chaotic situation in which we now find ourselves, with traditional marriage being the law of the land in most provinces but not all provinces.

Had the Liberal government appealed the Ontario decision to the Supreme Court there is every reason to believe, based on past decisions, that the Supreme Court would have found this definition constitutional.

Finally, and more importantly, the bill also notes that the provinces have the jurisdiction to provide an appropriate legal recognition to relationships outside marriage.

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