Good afternoon.
The Barreau du Québec welcomes the inclusion of family violence in the bill. It is indeed a sensitive subject, but one that must be taken into account when considering the best interests of the child.
However, we believe that the legislator must specify that the prohibition, for instance, of killing or injuring an animal does not apply when it is done in the context of hunting and fishing recreational activities. In addition, the prohibition against damaging property must be limited to situations where there was intent to cause damage.
We think these clarifications are necessary to avoid absurd situations in which normal behaviour would be considered family violence. Moreover, this behaviour could be raised by either party as a criticism in a divorce case, should things already be acrimonious.
Another factor that raises questions for us is the obligation for the legal advisor to inform the client of the possibilities for reconciliation.
Although clause 7.7 of the bill repeats clause 9 of the current act, with the exception of replacing the term “lawyer” with “legal advisor”, we believe it is important to add to clause 7.7(1)(b) the phrase “if necessary”. The Barreau du Québec is indeed concerned about the possibility that a legal advisor may put pressure on the parties to reconcile, mistakenly believing that they are fulfilling an obligation under the act. We also believe that it should be clear that it is at the discretion of the legal advisor to determine, based on the facts of the case, whether a discussion on reconciliation would be beneficial to the client. There may be situations in which a discussion on potential reconciliation would be inappropriate. This is the case when acts of family violence have occurred between the spouses.
Lastly, the Barreau du Québec raises two problems regarding section 22 of the current act, which refers to foreign divorces.
First, the provision states that a divorce granted by a competent authority would be recognized within the meaning of the act. However, it should be noted that in some countries, such as France, the parties may, when the conditions are met, sign an amicable agreement and file it with a notary instead of going to court. As a result, we think Canadian law must allow for the recognition of all divorces that respect public order and Canadian values, even if they are not granted by a judicial authority.
Second, we note that a constitutional conflict could arise between this provision and article 3167 of the Civil Code of Quebec concerning the jurisdiction of foreign authorities in divorce matters.
In closing, we would like to thank you once again for allowing us to share our thoughts on Bill C-78. We hope these in turn will be helpful in your considerations. We are available to answer any questions you may have.