Parliament does not have jurisdiction to change definition of marriage. (News in Brief: Canada).

Ottawa -- On April 10, constitutional lawyer David Brown presented a brief before the Houe of Commons Justice Committee hearings into marriage and same-sex unions. Brown pointed out that "Parliament does not possess the constitutional jurisdiction to change the definition of marriage in section 91(26) of the Constitution Act, 1867, to include relationships between members of the same sex.

Brown noted that the word "marriage" used in the 1867 Act "bears a distinct, constitutional meaning encompassing only a union between a man and a woman." He said also that the courts cannot use the equality provisions in the Charter of Rights to test the constitutionality of the meaning of ''marriage'' since "the Charter cannot be used to alter a provision of the Constitution Act." Thus, he said, "the courts currently considering the 'same-sex marriage' cases in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec cannot compel Parliament to change the constitutional meaning of marriage."

Brown concluded the point by saying: "Any change to the meaning of 'marriage'...can only be brought about by way of constitutional amendment" (LifeSite News, April 15/03).