Caroline St-Hilaire

[Divorce Act, December 8th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in this House on Bill C-218, an Act to amend the Divorce Act. The purpose of this bill is to introduce a requirement for marriage counselling before a divorce is granted, for the purpose of exploring the possibility of reconciliation.

I must admit that I find it hard to speak out against virtue, but I shall come back to that in greater detail in a few moments.

Let us start with a historical overview of the Divorce Act. It is not all that long ago that women could get a divorce if they could prove their husbands had committed incestuous adultery, rape, sodomy, bestiality, bigamy or adultery combined with cruelty or abandonment of the marital home.

Only in 1968, with the coming of the Divorce Act, were men and women both enabled to cite these reasons for divorce. The act still had its shortcomings, however. It was therefore improved in 1985 in order to reflect the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission of Canada's 1976 report on family law. The 1985 Divorce Act changed the recognized grounds to include breakdown of a marriage. This new measure made the procedure simpler by reducing the hostility with which the traditional adversarial procedure was charged. It also made it easier to find more constructive solutions to the differences that arise at the time of a divorce.

As one can see, the Divorce Act has not stopped adjusting to the new realities of society, but there is always room for improvement or, better still, for transfer of powers to the provinces. Nevertheless, a divorce is never an easy thing on the human level. When people separate, a part of their lives goes up in smoke. So, legal proceedings must be as effective as possible.

Each of us knows someone who is divorced, and the difference between someone who has gone through a bitter divorce and someone who has reached an amicable settlement is palpable. Then there are the effects on the immediate family, especially on the children, who are the main victims of a difficult divorce.

After a spectacular leap in the 1980s, the divorce rate has become relatively stable in the 1990s. The changes in 1985 permitting the failure of the marriage to be the sole grounds for divorce prompted the spectacular leap, which led, in turn, to an increase in the number of remarriages.

The latest report by Statistics Canada indicates that the divorce rate has remained relatively stable in the 1990s. Some find reassurance in the fact that, even though the risk of divorce is higher since the 1970s, two marriages out of three continue until the death of one of the spouses. This is reassuring nevertheless.

In 1987, 96,200 divorces were granted. In 1995, there were only 77,636. According to Statistics Canada, one marriage in 100 ended in 1995. It expects that 31 per cent of couples married in 1991 will divorce. If marriage counselling is really to be introduced, there is no point waiting for divorce proceedings to do something. Data indicate that the risk of divorce rises quickly in the first years of the marriage reaching its peak in the fifth year. In 1990, nearly four couples in ten divorced shortly after their fifth anniversary.

With figures like these, our concern should be to have good divorce legislation. In this respect, according to Professor Julien Payne, good divorce legislation must achieve three main goals: first, to facilitate the dissolution of marriages irredeemably doomed to failure by reducing to a minimum the pain, humiliation and hardship; second, to promote a fair distribution of the financial consequences of marriage breakdown; and finally, to ensure that reasonable provisions are made for the education of the children of the divorcing parents.

Family law is a jurisdiction that is shared between the provinces and the federal government. Under the Constitution Act, 1867, while the federal Parliament is responsible for divorce matters, legislative powers regarding property and civil rights are assigned to the provinces.

Clearly put, this means that the separation of non-married couples is a matter of provincial legislation, and divorce a matter of federal legislation. How ridiculous. Why accept such overlap of jurisdictions when the entire divorce procedure could be transferred to the provinces? The truth is that the federal government simply has no place in that area of responsibility. One could argue that, under subsection 92(13) concerning property and civil rights, the provinces are the ones that should have jurisdiction in the area of divorce.

In fact, Quebec is already prepared to take on this responsibility. An entire section of the Civil Code is devoted to this subject but it has not been implemented simply because we do not yet have jurisdiction. But I am an optimist and I hope that the day will come when we do and when the federal government will finally withdraw from this area.

The bill brings me to the whole issue of family law and, more particularly, family mediation.

Quebec has a comprehensive policy on free family mediation, and I think the sponsor of this bill was inspired by it. However, our province provides for much more than mere marriage counselling. In fact, members of this House must recognize that Quebec has become an expert on family issues.

If Canada wants to rely on our expertise, fine. It can only benefit the rest of the country if the federal government adopts some of our policies. I simply want to point out that, if the federal government is going to adopt Quebec's ideas on separation and apply them to divorce, it should instead transfer the responsibility for divorce to the provinces and make it an area of provincial jurisdiction.

In conclusion, it is high time Ottawa recognized Quebec's expertise in family law and changed its approach accordingly.

[National Day Of Remembrance And Action On Violence Against Women, December 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I must tell you how profoundly affected I am by these tragic events. Let me remind the House that the women we are taking about today are from my generation.

I thank the hon. secretary of state for her poignant statement. It is reassuring to see that the government feels concerned. In fact, I would like to see the hon. secretary of state rise in this House more often to represent the interests of women.

I would like the parents and friends of the victims at the École Polytechnique and all the other victims of violence to know that, on this National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, our warmest thoughts are with them.

This day is more than a day to remember the victims, it is a day of action. I urge each and every one of you to talk about violence against women, denounce it and help ensure that society will no longer tolerate it. There must be zero tolerance for violence against women.

My colleague mentioned earlier the progress made in the fight against violence. While I agree there has been some progress, much remains to be done. Until all women can live in total safety, the fight must go on.

My hon. colleague talked about progress and about the measures taken by her government. Yet I do not remember hearing anything about concrete measures. She mentioned an additional $7 million to fund family violence prevention initiatives, but she failed to mention that this amount is divided among seven departments. If we make the calculation, we see that this is not nearly enough. She mentioned anti-stalking legislation but failed to mention that enforcement is lacking and that the judicial system does not even have the resources required to deal with these cases with sensitivity and efficiency.

All this to say that there is still a long way to go. Actions to oppose violence against women must be taken on a daily basis. More importantly, the tragedy of violence transcends not only generations but gender. It is no longer incumbent on women and women's groups alone to act; all of us, women and men of all generations, must join forces to eradicate the scourge of violence against women.

[Violence Against Women, December 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am anxious to see the secretary of state defending women instead of her government.

A Department of Justice report indicates that the measures adopted in 1993 against stalking have had no impact. Of the 630 cases studied, 474 ended up being dismissed.

Can the secretary of state and her government commit to follow up on the recommendations in this report?

[Violence Against Women, December 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the secretary of state responsible for the status of women.

In Canada, more than 51% of women have been victims of physical assault as defined in the Criminal Code. The tragic events of the École polytechnique serve as a painful reminder of this sad reality. It is our duty to fight the societal trend toward greater tolerance of violence against women.

Will the government make a commitment to attaining the objective of zero tolerance of violence against women?

[Pay Equity, December 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, for 13 hours on December 1, 13 women held a vigil to commemorate the 13 years women in the federal public service have fought for pay equity.

On December 8, Treasury Board and the Public Service Alliance are scheduled to resume negotiations.

The government is sending a mixed message. In a note to public servants, the Treasury Board President warns them that unless they accept his reduced offer of $1.3 billion, negotiations will be long and painful. Quite a threat.

For her part, the Secretary of State for the Status of Women told us that the Treasury Board President had some leeway.

The government must put a stop to the injustice which has dragged on from one government to the next. The Liberals must take another look at what they said when they formed the official opposition. The Minister of Finance must cut the Treasury Board President enough slack to resolve this issue once and for all.

[Television And Cable Production Fund, November 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Having cut cultural funding by over half a billion dollars, the government created the television and cable production fund, which made it possible to produce high quality programs, and the cultural community says it is very satisfied with that formula.

Can the minister make a promise to this House, and keep it, that she will do everything possible to convince her finance colleague to renew this fund for several years in order to allow better planning in this sector?

[Quebec Economy, November 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the finance minister said once again that if Quebec is lagging behind economically, it is because of the political uncertainty.

We would really like the minister to explain to us, if this is the case, why the maritimes are lagging even further behind than Quebec. Yet they do not spend their time wanting to separate from the so-called best country in the world. Could there be other explanations? Could it be that the federal petrochemistry, fisheries or transportation policies have hurt industrial development in Quebec and in the maritimes?

Of course not. What separatist heresy to dare think that the federal government could harm the economy of the provinces. We know full well it is the separatists' fault.

I ask the members opposite to get their heads out of the sand for two seconds, if they can, and listen up: sovereignty is not the problem, it is the solution for Quebec.

[Matapédia Rcm, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, over 250 people from the Matapédia RCM got together at a forum on economic recovery and job creation.

I wish to congratulate Claude Jacques, the forum's president, for targeting economic problems and encouraging 13 workshop leaders to present concrete solutions to job creation.

In the Matapédia RCM, gloom is giving way to action.

The residents of the Matapédia valley have decided to rely on ingenuity, inventiveness and steadfast solidarity.

Many young entrepreneurs are urging us to focus on the year 2000, on new challenges. The future belongs to the bold.

The people of the Matapédia valley are taking the challenge.

[Goods And Services Tax, November 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the only Quebec MPs who are opposed to the proposal for independent arbitration to settle the matter of GST harmonization in Quebec and the $2 billion in compensation are the Liberal MPs.

All of the Quebec Liberal MPs in this House have spoken out against the interests of their own constituents, against a non-partisan process to settle the Ottawa-Quebec dispute, against a unanimous request by the members of the socioeconomic summit in Quebec, and against a position expressed by all of the provincial premiers at St. Andrews.

All of the federal Liberal MPs for Quebec, who are again down on all fours, have again shown how justified Quebeckers are in their massive support of the only party devoted to defending their interests in Ottawa: the Bloc Quebecois.

[Cultural Grants Acknowledgement Act, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on October 3, on pay equity, I asked the President of the Treasury Board if he intended to return to the bargaining table with the Public Service Alliance of Canada. The question arose from a response the minister had made several days previously, one of the clearest ones he has made on the subject of the decision by the tribunal of the human rights commission in the matter before us.

The minister responded, and I quote “We stand ready to apply the various judgments once they are made final”.

The minister has just now told us that he will abide by the tribunal's decision. I must confess I had doubts about the seriousness of the minister's word. In fact, following this surprising response, I wondered whether, with this statement, the President of the Treasury Board was announcing his withdrawal from the bargaining table. And I hastened to ask him if this were the case. His response, let me tell you, left me somewhat stunned.

While we all know that it was the employer who broke off negotiations, the minister told me that he was quietly waiting for the union to come back to the bargaining table, and went on about his $1.3 billion offer. The employees are not stupid. They know very well that the minister is trying to get them to settle for less.

I know that my hon. colleague will soon rise in the House to tell us proudly that bargaining resumed on October 30. I wonder whether my colleague will be honest enough, however, to admit that he is not even in a position to offer a settlement larger than $1.3 billion, when he knows full well that the Public Service Alliance is demanding close to $2 billion. I look forward to hearing him boast about his wonderfully charitable offer.

Let it be known that, with Christmas around the corner, what the government owes its employees is not charity, but simple and fair justice. And this justice presumes the payment of the money to which they are entitled. Instead of asking me to use my influence with the unions to get them to accept this second-rate offer, I suggest that the minister should instead use his influence with the Minister of Finance to obtain the necessary room to manoeuvre and finally respect public servants.

In the second half of my question of October 3, I also asked the minister if he intended to use all the legal stalling tactics at his disposal to delay a settlement in this matter. I imagine he will tell us that he certainly does not, that he would never wish to delay a settlement.

If my hon. colleague replies in this vein, I will believe him. Better yet, I will say that he wants such a rapid settlement that he is using all the stalling tactics at his disposal.

If I may, I would like to give you some examples of what seem to some to be bargaining tactics, and to others, simple bad faith. Given that the tribunal's decision will not be handed down until the spring of 1998 and that this issue has been dragging on for 10 years, it is clear that everything is in place to rush employees into accepting a second-rate offer. Let us also remember that there is still the threat of special legislation.

We honestly believed in the government's good faith when we learned of the return to the bargaining table, but the tactics being used to influence employees are shocking.

When I read an information bulletin issued to employees, which points out how the settlement process will drag on if the employer's offer is rejected, I cannot help thinking that this is a tactic intended to influence their decision.

In conclusion, I understand that bargaining must include a minimum of strategy, but the government must also understand that its employees are not its enemies. They too are taking part in the public effort. The government must work with, not against, its employees. I have only this to add: do the fair thing.