After more than 40 years of waiting, the Minister of Justice, Simon Jolin-Barrette, tabled Bill 56 last week regulating de facto unions during a separation. Quebec is the place in the world with the most de facto spouses, but these unions are not recognized in the Civil Code upon a breakdown, although they are for tax and employment purposes. social benefits.
We must salute the determination of Minister Jolin-Barrette to successfully complete his reform of family law. No other political party wanted to address the subject of the economic consequences of the breakdown of de facto unions. He claims to have been guided by the protection of children in his political choices. The separation of parents, married or not, should not have economic consequences on the children, he says.
However, the bill does not fulfill its promises. First, it does not protect all children, since it allows de facto spouses with common children to opt out of sharing “parental union assets”.
This bill thus creates four categories of children:
— those whose parents are married and who are subject to the division of family assets upon breakdown;
— those whose parents are not married and live in a common-law relationship and who, with the new bill, will be subject to a sharing of a smaller family patrimony (if these parents do not exclude themselves from this sharing) ;
— those whose parents are not married and live in a common-law relationship and who have excluded themselves from the smaller family patrimony proposed by Bill 56;
— those whose parents are not married and living in a common-law relationship and who are not covered by Bill 56 because these children were born before the bill came into force in June 2025.
It should be noted here that the new “parental union assets” is a lighter version of the “family assets” to which married spouses are subject. This new “parental union heritage” contains the family residence, the furniture adorning this residence and the family’s cars. These assets will be divided equally upon marital breakdown. This patrimony does not contain retirement plans and RRSPs accumulated during the union, unlike the family patrimony of married couples.
Why offer de facto couples (with a common child) less advantageous assets than married couples? Why did you remove pension plans and RRSPs? Why allow people to exclude themselves from the application of this heritage? These political choices do not protect children.
In fact, Bill 56 treats married and common-law spouses differently upon breakdown, as does the children of these couples. Married spouses get greater protection. The legislator cannot discriminate against spouses because of their marital choices. The minister’s argument defending the protection of children does not hold water. Do some children deserve to be more protected than others?
The invisible work of women
Additionally, the bill ignores common-law women. Because behind the children, there are mothers. Motherhood impoverishes women through their invisible work; all the statistics show it. Quebec mothers are certainly very active in the job market – and more and more often benefit from a retirement fund – but their salary remains lower than that of men; their retirement fund is therefore also lower!
In Bill 56, retirement funds and RRSPs are not part of the assets to be shared upon breakdown. For what ? How can we justify this choice? Minister Jolin-Barrette raises the argument of contractual freedom: couples can marry for better protection. But to get married, you still need two people! Moreover, couples who decide to get married cannot exclude themselves from sharing family assets.
And let’s talk about contractual freedom: we cannot talk about this freedom to negotiate and to marry (or not) outside of concrete reality. Do spouses know their rights? Will they want to discuss financial questions that are still taboo in their relationship? Can you negotiate with a spouse who does not want to negotiate? Better to preserve marital peace… They lived happily and had many children?
The bill also ignores de facto spouses without children but who accompany their husbands in their work abroad or who take care of aging in-laws or other children of the spouse.
By ignoring women, Bill 56 assumes that they have achieved real equality, which is not the case.
The Minister of Justice says he is proposing a fair balance between economic security for children and free choice for couples. Who then does this bill protect if it does not protect children or women?