Mr. Speaker, we are debating Bill C-235. For the benefit of those who may have tuned in to CPAC, I will take the time to read the very short summary of that bill. It reads as follows:
This enactment amends the Divorce Act to require spouses to attend marriage counselling before a divorce is granted. This requirement does not apply where the grounds are physical or mental cruelty—
Lucky for us. My colleague from Mississauga South was elected to the House in 1993. In fact, I have known him since that date. Someone looking at the bill would be very surprised to learn that the sponsor belongs to the government majority because his approach to the harsh reality of divorce is more conservative than liberal in nature.
The bill is not a votable item, but if it were, we could not vote for it. Let me outline some of the reasons why we would oppose it.
We would oppose it because we believe that, when a couple is seriously contemplating divorce, it is useless to force them to see a marriage counsellor in the hope to make them change their minds. It is very rare that a couple decides to divorce on impulse. That decision usually arises out of a long series of events. To “require” individuals to do something totally disregards the freedom of those concerned, their right to see things their own way. Note that this is not the first time we see something not make sense.
This morning, the government came up with a draft bill designed, for all intents and purposes, to force Quebec to remain part of Canada. This no longer makes sense.
Divorce is a federal jurisdiction. When the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access tabled its report in 1998, the Bloc Quebecois presented a dissenting opinion to recognize and stress that the responsibility for family, education and social services comes under the provinces, and that it is an anachronism to have the Divorce Act still under federal jurisdiction.
I will quote what Senator Beaudoin, an eminent constitutional expert recognized as such by just about everyone, wrote in 1990 about the Divorce Act, and what he said is interesting:
One may wonder why the constituent of 1867 granted to parliament exclusive jurisdiction over marriage and divorce. It seems that it was for religious reasons. Under section 185 of Lower Canada's civil code, marriage could only be dissolved by the natural death of one of the spouses. That principle was accepted by the overwhelming majority of Catholic Quebecers—
I might add “practising” Catholic Quebecers.
—Protestants wanted the opposite, namely to allow the Canadian parliament to legislate divorce.
Even at the time, there was a clear difference between Quebec and the rest of Canada.
Hence section 91.26 of the Constitution Act of 1867, which gives exclusive jurisdiction to the Parliament of Canada over marriage and divorce.
What may have been appropriate back in 1867 no longer is. Religion does not have as much importance as it used to, and our legislation should reflect this reality.
Let me quote again Senator Beaudoin's remarks:
The question begs to be asked: Should the jurisdiction over marriage and divorce be given to the provinces, so that Quebec could have more control over its family law, an important part of its private law which is different from that of other provinces?
That is another difference that should be considered.
Some experts see advantages in leaving this jurisdiction under section 91. Decentralization here would be a paradox, in their view, while our neighbours to the south appear to be moving toward centralization. Americans are not alone. Our friends in the west would also like to centralize.
Concerning centralization and standardization of divorce laws, they may be forgetting—and the prime minister should also be reminded of this—that we have to different legal systems in Canada, and the arguments supporting their position may be a little less convincing in Canada. That is what Senator Beaudoin was saying back in 1990.
The Bloc Quebecois did participate in this joint committee, because the problem of children in family with relational difficulties is indeed a serious issue. But our opinion is that the whole jurisdiction over divorce should be given back to the provinces. Quebec's family law reflects its own circumstances and meets the needs of its citizens. Counselling has been available to couples for a long time. Spouses freely choose to use these services. In this area just like in so many others, things can change only if people really want them to change.
I am sorry to inform the House that Bill C-235 will not be supported by my colleagues or by the Bloc Quebecois.