Civil Marriage of Non-residents Act

An Act to amend the Civil Marriage Act (divorce and corollary relief)

This bill is from the 41st Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2013.

Sponsor

Randall Garrison  NDP

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 June 15, 2012
(This bill did not become law.)

Similar bills

C-435 (41st Parliament, 2nd Session) Civil Marriage of Non-residents Act
C-32 (41st Parliament, 1st Session) Law Civil Marriage of Non-residents Act

Elsewhere

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

Civil Marriage ActRoutine Proceedings

June 15th, 2012 / 12:15 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-435, An Act to amend the Civil Marriage Act (divorce and corollary relief).

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce a private member's bill entitled an act to amend the Civil Marriage Act (divorce and corollary relief).

Members will know that on February 17 the government introduced a similarly titled bill which has as its main purpose to guarantee the validity of all same-sex marriages entered into in Canada, something we on this side of the House have never questioned.

My bill aims to provide the same legal guarantee but has two additional provisions. The most important is to add a clause to allow Canadian courts, if asked, to assume jurisdiction for corollary remedies. This would allow them in non-resident same-sex divorce cases to deal with important matters like child custody and division of property. Without this provision, which is not in the government's bill, non-resident same-sex couples would be able to get a divorce, but they would have no way of dealing with outstanding legal questions connected with that divorce, including child custody.

The other provision would correct a technical flaw in the government's bill that would require one member of a same-sex couple seeking a divorce, where the other was missing or unreasonably withholding consent, to get a declaration stating this from a court in the home jurisdiction. This is obviously impossible if the same-sex marriage is not recognized in that jurisdiction.

Since creating the furor over the question of validity of same-sex marriages, the government has not proceeded beyond introducing its bill. Today I call on the Conservatives to either proceed with their bill, and I will offer them the amendments from mine, or if they prefer, as of today we could proceed with my bill.

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