Report continued from volume A.

1757

Private Members’ Public Business

Marriage Amendment Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 modifiant la Loi sur le mariage

Mr. Dave Smith moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 31, An Act to amend the Marriage Act / Projet de loi 31, Loi modifiant la Loi sur le mariage.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Pursuant to standing order 100, the member has 12 minutes for their presentation.

Mr. Dave Smith: I want to extend a heartfelt thank you to all of the members for agreeing to unanimous consent on this. I think it’s a really big day for the other member, who should be standing here. I’ll let him talk about it when he has an opportunity to come back.

What’s this all about? Really, it’s one of those bills that’s not really sleek and sexy. It’s not one of those ones that’s going to make a massive difference in the things we do in the province, but it is something that, I think, when we take a step back and look at it, makes a lot of sense. The reason I say that is the purpose of the bill is to change the Marriage Act just ever so slightly, so that MPPs have the option of solemnizing a wedding.

Now, you might be saying to yourself, “Why does that make a difference? Why do we want to do this?” Well, if we look back at the history of Canada, Canada was formed in 1867, and we were a very non-secular country. When you looked at every community, there were a lot of churches. If I look at just my own community of Peterborough–Kawartha, in the city of Peterborough at one point, Peterborough had more churches per capita than any other city in Canada.

Interjection.

Mr. Dave Smith: It is true. I know, it’s hard to believe, but the city of Peterborough had more churches per capita than any other city.

In the time that I have lived in Peterborough, I can count a number of them that have closed. I think across every community, we’re seeing congregations getting smaller and smaller and congregations merging together, and the number of priests and ministers that we have has dwindled. But the population has grown.

Now, we have secular ways of having people get married as well. Just as an example: If you are part of the First Nations and Indigenous communities, then somebody assigned by the band at the First Nation, Métis or Inuit organization can perform a marriage. I already mentioned the religious bodies, as well, who could.

But on the secular side itself, if you’re not from a First Nation, if you’re not of that heritage and you don’t have that as part of your system, if you want to do something that is secular, if you’re not religious, what do we have left? There are four ways or four groups, right now, who are authorized to solemnize weddings: a federal, provincial or territorial judge, which makes sense, that you can have a judge do it; an associate judge, which again makes sense, because that goes back to being a judge and we’ve had that for quite a while; a justice of the peace—again, we go back to the court system on that, and that makes sense. The fourth group: Now, the official language is “a person designated by regulation 20.1 and 20.2 and 20.3,” but what that really comes down to is a municipal clerk or their designate.

We have 444 municipalities, so there should be lots of choices that way, but in the research for this, what we found was 39 of the 440-plus municipalities actually perform weddings. Now, the population of Canada is growing. The population of Ontario is growing. When we were first elected in 2018, the population was about 14.5 million. It’s about 16.7 million now, so we’ve seen an increase of two million. We’ve seen churches declining. We’ve seen a number of churches close. As I mentioned, there’s a number in my own riding that have closed. And we have judges, yes; we have associate judges, yes; we have justices of the peace; but not every municipality actually has a court and not every municipality solemnizes weddings.

So again, through the research—I was looking at this—how does someone go about doing that, then? What I’ve seen is a number of internet sites have popped up and you can get ordained as a minister in some of these very interesting religions that I don’t know actually exist, in order to simply marry someone. And that makes—

Interjection.

Mr. Dave Smith: Yes, to correct my language, then, for the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane: to perform the wedding, to officiate the wedding—not to get married; to perform the wedding ceremony.

It seems to me that there’s a miss. So as we were looking at that, as I was going through the research and as we were working with—isn’t that terrible? I can’t think of his riding. I just want to say “Matt Rae,” but I’m not allowed to say “Matt Rae,” so I won’t say “Matt Rae.”

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Perth–Wellington.

Mr. Dave Smith: The member for Perth–Wellington. When we were looking at this, we came down to this decision. There are 124 members. We represent every area of the province. Now, not every member is going to want to do this, and I recognize that. Some members will. At the provincial level, it is the ministry of public and business services that maintains the registry for it. It is the ministry of public and business services that authorizes those people to solemnize the wedding.

When I look at a little bit more history, we had Bill Murdoch, the former member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, who decided to do this, and he had to go to one of his municipalities and ask the clerk to set him as a designate so that the provincial government, which he was the representative for, would allow him to solemnize a wedding. And then when he left politics in 2011, his successor, Bill Walker, just assumed that because Bill Murdoch was able to do that, he should be able to do that. And he found out that no, he couldn’t.

The province, of which we are the members of provincial Parliament—we are the representative of the province back to the municipality. We’re their voice here to the province. As an MPP, it didn’t make sense to me that the power that the province gives to the municipality—I, as the representative of the province, have to go to the municipality and say, “Will you let me do this? Will you ask the province, my own government, to allow me to do something on your behalf?” To me, that just didn’t make sense. And the member from Perth–Wellington agreed it didn’t make sense. So we got together on this and we took a look at what we could do, how we could make the change.

And lo and behold, it’s a really, really simple change. All we really have to do is add one more line to section 24, subsection 1, that says, “A member of the assembly who has given written notice to the minister indicating an interest in solemnizing marriages.” And lo and behold, that’s really the only change that we would have to make to it. It becomes something, then, where the member themselves can look at their own situation to decide, “Does it make sense?”

Now, I come from a riding that has five municipalities of First Nations as well as a city, so for me, my geography—we are roughly the size of Prince Edward Island. The courthouse is in the city of Peterborough. If I wanted to get married a third time—which I don’t; I’m quite happy with my second marriage. But if I wanted to get married a third time and I didn’t want to have a church wedding, I would have to go into Peterborough to either the clerk’s office or to the county court to do this. But if I lived in North Kawartha, if I lived in in Trent Lakes, if I lived in Havelock, it’s a bit of a hike, because again, my riding is roughly the size of Prince Edward Island.

And I’m not the biggest. There are 16 other ridings that are geographically bigger than mine. When you look at it from that perspective, I have an opportunity that I can help serve more people in my riding if this is something that we’re allowed to do. Again, I come back to it: The province, the provincial government for which I am the representative, gives the power to the municipality. I would have to, as the provincial representative, ask the municipality to extend that privilege to me that the province gives to them in order for me to do it. It truly did not make sense.

So what we’re talking about doing, then, is making that minor change: Allow MPPs who so choose to do it to register directly with the ministry to do it, and it then becomes the choice for that member.

Now, again, I talked about the size of my riding, and I know that there’ll be other members who stand up whose ridings are bigger than mine, and it is a bit of an issue for them as well. I get that if I was in Toronto—and there are 25 MPPs who represent the city of Toronto; they probably don’t need to do it. And if I lived in Ottawa, there are eight MPPs or 10 MPPs—whatever it is—who represent the Ottawa area, and you’ve got lots of churches there. You’ve got lots of courts and justices of the peace and lots of different ways that you can do it. It probably doesn’t make sense. But when I look at the more rural ridings, it does make sense. It does make sense for the MPP to be able to extend that service to their constituents.

Now, one of the little twists that we’re putting into it is the MPP would continue having the ability to solemnize a wedding for up to 12 months after they stop being the MPP. And one of the things that people have said is, “Why?” You know when a judge is going to retire. You know when the clerk is going to retire. And you know that when a judge retires, another judge is put in and instantly has that ability to perform the wedding, so there is nothing lost. But as some of our former colleagues will tell you, they didn’t know that they were going to lose, and they were surprised by it, and they may have scheduled a wedding six months, eight months down the road. And is it fair, then, to that young couple to put them in a bit of a bind if you’re not extended beyond when you potentially lose? That’s why we’re doing it this way.

I really appreciate everyone on this. I hope that you’ll get behind it and vote in favour of it.

1810

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Mr. John Vanthof: Dearly beloved, we are gathered here on this wonderful Thursday afternoon, in the presence of the mace and the presiding officer, to decide whether the government and the opposition can unite to make a decision to preside over wedding ceremonies. Getting married is an incredible decision and has to be taken with the utmost—I’m missing words already. I’m practising for our new gig.

We are going to vote in favour of this. I don’t see any big pitfalls—I see a couple. I respect the bill, I really do, and our caucus is fully in favour. But in a way, it does follow a bit the way the Ford government operates, right? They create a law and then almost half—or maybe more than half—the people who are impacted by the law end up in court; in this case, divorce court. I’m not saying that’s inevitable.

I listened intently to the member speaking regarding the reasoning to extend for a year after the MPP leaves. I appreciate the reasoning. When I first read the legislation, I thought: Wow, this would be a pretty good side gig when I retire. But if it’s only for a year, by the time I get good, I won’t be able to do it anymore. But I appreciate the reasoning.

In all seriousness, for some it might be a bit of a burden, because I know in my riding—70,000 people, seven hours by five hours, and not Toronto traffic hours, but like 700 kilometres. You will have to say no to people. “Well, the MPP next door does it, why don’t you?” “Well, I can do it.” “Yes, and you did it for somebody last week.” There are some pitfalls because—and again, I’m in favour. But there will be some pitfalls because you will have to say no to some people. If it’s a service provided by an MPP, and if it’s done right, it will be widely known. You will have to say no to people. I’m just letting you know that like any service you provide, you have to at times limit it.

We already don’t have any weekends. We all know: Anybody who wants to keep this job is always busy every weekend. When are most weddings? Most of them aren’t on Thursday afternoon. We all want to go home or at least get prepared to go home, so I’m not going to take the whole 12 minutes, just to let you know, because I’m already running out of steam. I was planning to go a lot farther than “dearly beloved,” and I do know that I need a lot more practice.

It’s a good idea. I’m not panning the idea at all. I should have looked into it; for people who are really into it, I think there is a process where you can become an official officiant. After the year, you could, because I think for some people who—many MPPs, all of us, are good speakers. Despite our political differences, all are trusted in our communities, otherwise we wouldn’t be here. So I think the year gives the people who actually are into it time to actually, if they want to keep doing it, do it.

On that, I don’t want to belabour this anymore. Hopefully, at some time, I will also officiate a wedding. With that, thank you very much, Speaker, for giving me the time. Thank you for bringing the bill forward, and congratulations to the co-sponsor of the bill.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

MPP Stephanie Smyth: Thank you, Madam Speaker. “I do.” I do support this bill.

Maybe having been married once in a church, married once by a ship captain another time, I know that there are various ways you can get married. Maybe the third time’s the charm. Dr. Shamji might do it for me.

Mr. Adil Shamji: Anything for you.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: Right.

I will say that when I’ve talked about this with people, everybody gets a smile on their face. They go, “Oh, cool. Why not?” I think that all of us see marriage as a really personal and meaningful ceremony for couples across the province. For some, it’s rooted in faith, and for others, it’s a secular commitment that’s grounded in love and partnership, but in either case, the role of us is to ensure that marriage is accessible regardless of geography and regardless of all these things.

I would say that there’s probably no denying that if any of us were asked to marry someone, we would feel honoured. It’s an important moment in people’s lives, right? And it’s maybe natural that some might look to us for that ceremonial role. I think that would be really cool.

I think that you contemplate negatives. I see what the member from Nipissing was saying, that we might get inundated with requests to perform marriages, but we do it at our convenience or not.

I have to acknowledge that on a personal note, this bill would allow me to do something really special, because my daughter is engaged and getting married in June. And for some crazy reason—

Applause.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: Thanks—she actually might want me to marry her. She said that, and I’m like, “Okay. Are you ready for that?”

Interjection.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: Yes, so it would be really, really special to be there.

I want to say that I had all kinds of things written down about this, talking about accessibility and how this province has led the way in marriage in many, many ways with Indigenous communities, faith groups and all this—steps toward equality and fairness—and we have to continue that work and deal with where any gaps might exist in civil marriage services. I think regardless of where people live in Ontario, who they love or what they believe, they should be able to access marriage in a way that’s meaningful, accessible, affordable to them. That’s how we build trust, and that’s how we build strength in public institutions.

So I find this exciting, and I’m happy to support this bill. Thank you to both of the members across.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Mr. Anthony Leardi: I want to start tonight’s comments—I want to praise my colleague from Peterborough–Kawartha. As we don’t do enough of this in the House, I wanted to tell the House a little bit about my colleague. He has an MBA from the University of Fredericton, and he was previously a developer of software. I consider him to be a software development expert.

He also was the inspiration behind the Murray Whetung Community Service Award, which honours Murray Whetung, who was a First Nations war veteran.

He is also instrumental in the revival of the Legiskaters. If you are not a fan of hockey-playing, at least you could be a fan of hockey jerseys. They have a fantastic hockey jersey, and I wanted to praise my colleague, the member from Peterborough–Kawartha, for that.

Also, he is one of those extremely rare—extremely rare—individuals who actually look good in a kilt.

1820

On the topic of tonight’s private member’s bill: It is a very practical measure that could be enacted and give people more access, because, as you know, there are only a limited number of people in the province of Ontario who are designated by the government of Ontario to officiate and to provide the official stamp of approval for marriages. Those are very few and far between.

If you are from a religious community, it is far more accessible. In my faith, which is the Catholic tradition, many people believe that the priest is the person who marries you, but as a matter of fact, we consider the sacrament of marriage to be a sacrament, which is something which carries with it a holy aspect.

The people who confer the sacrament of marriage in the Catholic tradition are actually not the priests. The people who confer the sacrament of marriage in the Catholic tradition are the bride and the groom: the bride conferring the sacrament on the groom, the groom conferring the sacrament on the bride and the priest being the person officially recognized by the government to be the officiator who can sign the legal documentation and prove that it occurred. So really, the priest is only a witness, if that. It is the function of the bride and the groom to confer the sacrament on each other.

I introduce that as a little bit of a twist in order to illustrate that regardless of what tradition you come from, you need an officiator who is recognized by the government. And as a result of this bill, there will be an additional officiator who is accessible to people of all faiths, or of secular background, who can then access that service in a very meaningful way. And why should it not be a government official who is elected by the people? A government official elected by the people is an ideal person to fulfill this role.

So I commend my colleague the member from Peterborough–Kawartha and my colleague the member from Perth–Wellington. Let’s get on with it.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Mr. Steve Pinsonneault: Thank you to my esteemed colleagues MPP Rae and MPP Smith for giving me the opportunity to speak today.

Weddings are a special moment to share love, unity and lasting memories with our families, friends and communities. After doing a lot of research, we found that only one in 10 townships, municipalities or counties currently have officials authorized to perform weddings. We want to change that by amending this act to allow members of provincial Parliament the opportunity to officiate weddings without going through the municipality, to make these meaningful ceremonies more accessible across Ontario. We believe it will bring so many benefits to our community and province as a whole.

Madam Speaker, this change does not impose any cost to the Ontario government and should be amended. The government spends no dollars in making this change, yet it will be meaningful for MPPs to have the opportunity to officiate.

Furthermore, weddings are memorable events with people who they admire to be part of their big day. If MPPs are allowed to officiate weddings, it does not only bring a bond between the couple, but leaves a long-lasting and more personable memory to the couple and the community at large.

Weddings are about uniting and sharing a couple’s special day with people they respect, love and cherish. The person who officiates the wedding should be someone you choose and know personally. Someone who is respected and loved by the community, like an MPP, creates more flexibility and does not limit the choice of who can officiate the wedding.

Currently, Ontario has civil marriages than can only be performed by a limited group of authorized individuals, such as judges and some municipal clerks. In rural or remote areas, couples often face the challenge of waiting due to the small number of available officiants. If MPPs are given the authority to officiate weddings, people of Ontario will not have to travel to where it is more accessible as they now have access to more officiants.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, this amendment is simple, cost-free and deeply meaningful. It strengthens communities, empowers couples and enhances accessibility across our province.

I now yield the floor to my colleague MPP Bresee, who will speak further on the proposal.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Mr. Ric Bresee: I rise today to speak in support of Bill 31, the Marriage Amendment Act, 2025. This will allow members of this Legislature to solemnize marriages here in Ontario, if they so choose, and to continue to do so for up to 12 months after leaving office.

In my opinion, this is a fairly straightforward, common-sense amendment that reflects the reality of our role as elected representatives. We’re not just legislators; we’re also community leaders, each and every one of us. We’re invited to celebrate milestones with our constituents in a number of cases and sometimes—this would include this now—one of life’s most meaningful events: a marriage.

Right now, if someone asks their MPP to officiate their wedding, we simply don’t have the legal authority to do so. Bill 31 would change that, not by granting automatic status, but by creating an opt-in process through written notice to the minister. It’s voluntary, it’s limited and it’s responsible. It provides an additional avenue for members to support our local constituents on what is likely the happiest day of their lives.

This is about giving people more choice in who officiates their ceremony. It’s about offering a trusted voice, especially in communities where couples may not want or may not have access to a religious or a traditional officiant. It reflects a modern Ontario: diverse, respectful and community-oriented.

I’ll remind this Legislature that this is not the first time that this government has actually made an amendment to the Marriage Act to provide more options, more community or more culturally appropriate options. In 2020, this same government opened the door to allow Indigenous people to solemnize marriages, fully respecting the customs and the traditions of the true wedding celebrants: the young, happy couple.

From a governance perspective, this bill imposes no new costs, no extra bureaucracy and no unnecessary expansion of government. It’s a small and smart update—and I’m thankful for the members for bringing it forward—that makes our institutions a little more flexible and a little more connected to the people that we serve.

It’s already been spoken about, the idea of the extra year after the member leaves office. That’s an important stability factor. The last thing a young couple needs when they’re planning a wedding six, eight, 10 or 12 months in advance is to suddenly not have that member available because of a snap election or some other such activity. Having that stability is very, very important. For an MPP to commit to officiate a wedding up to a year in advance, if something could happen, that would actually be devastating to the bride and groom. This amendment is to add options, not to add risk to that bridal party.

Speaker, all of us here, everyone in the House, are public servants. For some people, Queen’s Park may seem a long way away, especially in our large and very rural ridings. This is one way that we bring the service of being a public servant closer to home. It’s not about lawmaking in this case; it’s about that public service. It’s for real life and for real people.

I urge all members to support this bill, and I’m thankful for the opportunity to speak to it today, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate? Further debate?

I return to the member for Peterborough–Kawartha, who has two minutes to reply.

Mr. Dave Smith: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to start off by saying thank you to the member for Perth–Wellington—or, rather, thank you to the wife of the member from Perth–Wellington for giving me the opportunity tonight to do this on his behalf, and also to the members from Timiskaming–Cochrane, Toronto–St. Paul’s, Essex, Hastings–Lennox and Addington and Lambton–Kent–Middlesex.

I’m going to look right into the camera and talk about this. For those of you in Peterborough, I want to clarify something: My son is not getting married in June to the daughter of the representative from Toronto–St. Paul’s. That’s not the same wedding that we’re talking about—just for clarification on that.

One of the other members said to me, “It’s kind of a feel-good story,” and it really is. It’s one of those things that we can do to give back to the community. It is optional for us. We don’t have to do it. You can make a decision based on your own schedule and what your riding is like. But it just gives us that little bit more that we can do: one thing more for those families, for our constituents, at no cost to them. And that’s something that really will make a difference for them on their wedding. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): The time provided for private members’ public business has expired.

Mr. Smith, Peterborough–Kawartha has moved second reading of Bill 31, An Act to amend the Marriage Act.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Pursuant to standing order 100(h), the bill is referred to the Committee of the Whole House, unless—

Mr. Dave Smith: General government, please.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Is the majority in favour of the bill being referred to the Standing Committee on General Government? In that case, the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on General Government.

All matters relating to private members’ public business having been completed, this House stands adjourned until Monday, October 27, 2025, at 9 a.m.

The House adjourned at 1832.