Thank you.
Madam Chair, this is the same problem as the one we had with clauses 15, 4 and 29. There is a lack of legal clarity between Bill S-2 and the Civil Code of Québec. This is how clause 35 reads:
On application by an executor of a will or an administrator of an estate, a court may, by order, vary the amount owed to the survivor under section 34 if the spouses or common-law partners had previously resolved the consequences of the breakdown of the conjugal relationship by agreement or judicial decision, or if that amount would be unconscionable, having regard to, among other things, the fact that any children of the deceased individual would not be adequately provided for.
As several witnesses have indicated, in Quebec specifically, common-law spouses do not have the same rights as married ones. What about those 40% of Quebec women who are in a common-law relationship?
Given the way in which the Civil Code of Québec is applied, there is a striking difference between the status of a married woman and one living in a common-law relationship. Rights and obligations are often different, especially in terms of household expenses, the consolidation of debts, the family home, family assets, the rights of children, and so on. As one of the witnesses mentioned, an Aboriginal woman in a common-law relationship could find herself with her access to the family home blocked.
There must be better harmonization between Bill S-2 and the Civil Code of Québec.
Thank you.