Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on Bill C-235, and act to amend the Divorce Act, requiring marriage counselling before a divorce is granted.
I commend the member for Mississauga South for this initiative and for his ongoing commitment and concern for family issues. He has acquitted himself admirably in pursuit of issues to strengthen the family and his contribution to issues surrounding the welfare of children.
The family is the foundation of this nation. A strong family makes a strong community. A strong community makes a strong nation.
The bill before us is hardly one that should cause objection. It is a straightforward and direct attempt to achieve reconciliation in cases of potential marriage breakdown and subsequent divorce. On this side of the House we would have preferred to see a caveat in the bill that covered the aspect of children and the requirement for counselling. Perhaps the member for Mississauga South will have some afterthoughts that he will want to add to this debate.
Divorce wreaks havoc on the spouses concerned and has been likened to the death of a mini civilization. The repercussions are devastating, particularly, as I said previously, when children are involved.
Premarriage counselling is mandatory in some faiths, such as the Mormon faith. In certain faiths couples will not be joined in matrimony until they have completed a marriage preparation course. I believe that is true in certain U.S. states. As I understand it, the success rate of marriages where couples have participated in the course is very good. In today's world, with all of its stresses, diversions and temptations, why not equip those thinking of marriage with all the possible tools to handle the difficulties and stresses that marriage brings. Similarly, why not attempt to salvage a marriage that is on shaky ground by way of counselling before a final decree is registered granting divorce. This seems to me to be the least that society should do to prevent another divorce.
Last December a joint Senate and House of Commons committee tabled a report on child custody and access entitled “For the Sake of the Children”. The report was greeted in most circles as a compelling and cognitive effort to come to grips with the realities of what divorce means, in particular what it means to children and other family members left in the wake of marriage breakdown. As I said before, divorce has been characterized as the death of a mini civilization.
The joint report contained some 48 logical and progressive recommendations and received all party support, with some refinements and additions by the Reform Party.
Members of the joint committee, the hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, the hon. member for Cariboo—Chilcotin and the hon. member for Calgary Centre, who is the Reform Party's critic for family affairs, did a marvellous job in putting facts together for the sake of children, families and this nation.
A number of members of the Reform Party took the time and effort to work on the special joint committee. We on this side of the House care a great deal about families and children because, as I said earlier, the institution of the family is the foundation of this great country. A strong family makes a strong nation.
The justice minister will again study this issue. She is slow in bringing the provinces along in order to reach a consensus on what we can do for families, and children in particular. We can strengthen our families, but the Liberal justice minister's idea of doing things in a timely fashion is to drag her feet.
We have watched her do this with the youth criminal justice system. We saw the government drag its feet. In fact it tried to dig in its heels, while the opposition humiliated it into compensating the victims of government controlled tainted blood. I hope that the justice minister will listen to a member of her own party on this issue.
Overall this report was endorsed and applauded as a realistic approach to deal with marriage breakdown when children are involved. Recommendation 29 of the report called upon the federal government to extend financial support to programs run by community groups for couples wanting to avoid separation and divorce or seeking to strengthen their marital relationship.
My understanding is that this recommendation stemmed from the fact that the committee wanted to support troubled couples, particularly couples who had children and wanted to avoid separation.
The initiative before us today is a further refinement and a more direct attempt to salvage a marriage. It puts emphasis on the lawyers and the courts to ensure that a marriage counsellor is involved in the process before any decree of divorce is granted. It calls for more than the perfunctory questions which divorce lawyers are responsible to ask before they proceed with divorce papers. This is a very good thing.
I am pleased that the bill recognizes the lack of benefit and perhaps harm that can be caused if the parties to a potential divorce are in a situation involving physical or mental cruelty. I agree that there would be no benefit in putting those parties in any further situations where further harm to either party may ensue. There is obviously a point of no return, as sad as that may be.
I again commend the member for his sense of realism and compassion in this regard. This approach and attempt to provide spouses contemplating divorce with some form of reconciliation is sensible, but there is little use in forcing a situation. Again, I wonder if there is some way of augmenting this marriage counselling undertaking to give it more impact and force when children are involved. Perhaps there is not a way to achieve this.
In response to the comprehensive work undertaken and delivered by the joint committee in the report I spoke of earlier, regrettably we will see no further movement on the issue of divorce law changes for perhaps three years.
The Minister of Justice has responded to 16 of the recommendations in the report and has stated that she will now undertake further study and consultation on the issue, as she usually does.
It is again regrettable that she cannot accept that the issues of divorce and child custody have received comprehensive study and cogent recommendations.
The official opposition is pleased to see a member of the government, an hon. member of the House who contributed to the work and deliberations of the joint committee, step forward with this bill today to begin the process of divorce law changes in Canada. It is a start and it will be a fundamental part of any 21st century approach to a tragic and growing situation in Canada.
All provinces should be involved. I understand that the province of Alberta has produced a video for couples. Similar things should be done by other provinces.
I encourage the member for Mississauga South to continue to carry this flashlight for the government, particularly the Minister of Justice, so that the 47,000 children a year who are subject to custody decisions under the Divorce Act will get relief and the institution of the family will be strengthened to make Canada a stronger nation.
