Evidence of meeting #32 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was benefit.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee  Ms. Caroline Bosc
Dominique La Salle  Director General, Seniors and Pensions Policy Secretariat, Department of Employment and Social Development
Marianna Giordano  Director, CPP Policy and Legislation, Department of Employment and Social Development
Heidi Illingworth  Executive Director, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime
Lenore Lukasik-Foss  President, Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres; Director, Sexual Assault Centre (Hamilton and Area)

Noon

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Phil McColeman

Welcome back to the final portion of our meeting today. We're continuing with our review of Bill C-591 and have another panel of witnesses joining us for our final hour. It will actually be less than an hour because of the interruption.

From the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, we have executive director Ms. Heidi Illingworth, and we have Ms. Lenore Lukasik-Foss, director of the Sexual Assault Centre (Hamilton and Area) and president of the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres.

Welcome, witnesses. Each of you will have up to 10 minutes to present to the committee. Which one of you would like to go first?

Ms. Illingworth, you're first.

Noon

Heidi Illingworth Executive Director, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime

Thank you so much for inviting the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime to appear before you.

We have come here today to voice the support of our board of directors for the amendments proposed in Bill C-591. It is our understanding that this bill will amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act to deny CPP survivor benefits and the OAS allowance to people convicted of murdering their spouse, common-law partner, or parent. We support this legislation so that persons convicted of first and second-degree murder can no longer benefit from their crimes in Canada. We believe the majority of Canadians would agree and support this bill.

Where we would like to see an amendment to the legislation is to include manslaughter as a reason for revoking pension entitlements. We understand that in cases of manslaughter the principle of ex turpi causa does not always clearly apply as it does in the cases of first and second-degree murder convictions, since they do not necessarily involve the intent to kill and can involve abuse, provocation, or accident. In his speech last June the member from Chatham-Kent-Essex stated:

Courts have said that the principle of ex turpi causa should not be applied automatically to manslaughter and other offences involving responsibility for a death without examining the specific circumstances of each case.

We feel that not including manslaughter in the bill does create a huge policy gap, especially when we consider that the largest portion of family-related homicides are spousal murders and that a great number of those result in a plea bargain to reduce the conviction of manslaughter.

If we are amending the law to ensure that no one convicted of murder can collect pension benefits, we must also address the case where charges are plea bargained down to manslaughter. We feel it is not acceptable for a killer to collect pension benefits in either case, especially if there is a history of violence towards the victim. Plea bargains are often also a reflection of an overburdened court system, which is a loophole that we must close. Intimate partner abuse is a very serious issue in Canada, particularly for Canadian women. Women are overwhelmingly the victims. This is also true in the case of spousal homicide. We know from Stats Canada data that about half, or 49%, of all female murder victims in Canada were killed by a former or current intimate partner. In contrast, only 7% of male murder victims were killed by an intimate partner. No one wants to see killers benefit from their heinous act. It is an insult to the families of the victims, to taxpayers, as well as to the principles of justice. Certainly, no person who pays taxes and personally contributes to an insurance plan wants to see murderers receive a benefit for killing someone. Thankfully, this is a rare situation in Canada.

I understand from the debates in the House and the last witnesses who were just here that an average of 48 people a year have been charged with spousal murder. Most of these were young men charged with killing their wives or female partners. Then, again, between 2003 and 2012 an average of 21 individuals in all age categories were accused of killing a parent or step-parent.

We agree that no one wants to see those who suffer the murder of a loved one also suffer the added insult of seeing the one responsible for that death collecting the victim's benefits as well. We look forward to the passage of this legislation and ask that you consider an amendment to include manslaughter convictions where the circumstances of the case warrant pension benefits being denied.

Thank you.

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Phil McColeman

Thank you, Ms. Illingworth.

We'll now move to the next witness, Ms. Lukasik-Foss.

12:10 p.m.

Lenore Lukasik-Foss President, Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres; Director, Sexual Assault Centre (Hamilton and Area)

Good afternoon, honourable members, staff and guests. Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee on Bill C-591. Today I'm speaking on behalf of the Sexual Assault Centre (Hamilton and Area) and the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres, also known as the OCRCC.

OCRCC is a network of 26 sexual assault centres from across Ontario. We offer counselling, information, and support services to survivors. The Sexual Assault Centre and OCRCC agree with most of the proposed components of Bill C-591 and recommend that it be accepted, with the addition of manslaughter as grounds for which to revoke benefit eligibility.

Our thoughts are as follows. It is critical to apply a gendered lens to Bill C-591. Lethal incidences of violence perpetrated by known offenders, particularly spouses, ex-partners, and family members, continue to impact women differently than men. Domestic violence is a social issue that affects a large number of Canadian women. Further, the link between domestic violence, lethality, and women's victimization is consistent. The most recent annual report by the domestic violence death review committee, issued in February of this year, notes that women are most commonly the victims of lethal domestic violence in Canada, similar to what my esteemed colleague has mentioned. In 2012, 20 reviewed cases included 14 homicides and six homicide-suicides resulting in 32 deaths. Of the 26 victims, 77% were female and 90% of the perpetrators were male. These findings are consistent with earlier domestic violence death review committee reports, which found overall that 73% of all lethal cases reviewed from 2003 to 2012 involved a couple where there was a history of domestic violence and that the majority of victims were female.

It is important to note that a woman is most likely to be harmed, including lethally harmed, by an offender that is well-known and close to her. A recent Canadian report notes that when it comes to women's experiences of violence, overall men were responsible for 83% of police-reported violent crime committed against women. Most commonly it was her intimate partner. This contrasts with violent crimes against men where intimate partners were among the least common perpetrators, at only 12%. Certainly, these examples of gender-based crimes mean that particular types of violence continue to impact women and their extended families disproportionately than men. Women's vulnerability to domestic and sexual violence by spouses and partners in particular means that women's experiences of these crimes are different from those of other populations.

We imagine, for example, based on the above statistics, that it is very likely that women's extended families have been largely impacted by the current gap in the CPP and OAS acts. For this reason, we contend that any discussion on Bill C-591 must included a gendered analysis of lethal violence in Canada. We also ask that manslaughter be added as grounds to revoke eligibility for pension and benefits. There are cases where a spouse or a parent, through plea-bargaining process, is convicted of manslaughter as opposed to first or second degree murder. Although the overall number may be small, it is unconscionable to allow anyone to collect pensions or benefits after a conviction of this nature. We firmly believe that the spirit of Bill C-591 is fully realized when this loophole is closed.

The amendments to C-591 indicate our government's increasing awareness of the broad implications of gender-based violent crimes in Canada. This includes the financial implications of violence for women and their families.

In recent years Justice Canada studies have examined the economic cost of crime in Canada. Gun crimes in 2008, for example, were found to cost $3.1 billion. Spousal violence measured in 2009 cost $7.4 billion. Financial impacts can include healthcare costs, lost wages to victims and her support persons, public spending on justice systems and social services.

We do not wish to see more costs and dollars misdirected. The Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security Act can better support the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law for women through the changes proposed by Bill C-591. Certainly, Canada's courts, systems and social policies, including CPP and OAS, have an important role in supporting victims of crime.

Bill C-591 is one example of the needs of women facing violence and those of their loved ones gaining recognition.

Lastly, the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres and the Sexual Assault Centre (Hamilton and Area) recommend that the government consider taking further fiscal and legislative measures to address the serious issue of domestic violence before it results in the death of a spouse or parent. Bill C-591, while important, impacts a small number of Canadians, while domestic and sexual violence impact numerous people across our country, particularly women. Repeated studies and reports have shown us what is truly needed to address the issues facing victims of domestic and sexual crimes. We know that much can be done to prevent all forms of gender-based violence. We urge you to undertake the necessary systemic and comprehensive work required to end all forms of violence against women in Canada.

ln closing, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today and for giving recognition to the expertise and work being done by sexual assault centres in Ontario. The Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres has a 30-year history of working in Ontario and Canada to address and end sexual and other forms of gender-based violence in our communities. The Sexual Assault Centre in Hamilton has been serving our community since 1975.

Thank you very much.

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Phil McColeman

We thank you for your presentations.

We now go on to questioning, starting with Madam Groguhé.

October 21st, 2014 / 12:15 p.m.

NDP

Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for their very insightful remarks today.

A general consensus exists around Bill C-591. We, in the NDP, support the principle that no one should be able to benefit from their crime. But we have pointed out that the bill does not go far enough. And that speaks precisely to what you said about the bill including not just first-and second-degree murder, but also manslaughter.

We believe that manslaughter should be included because, in the course of the judicial process, the accused could receive a plea bargain deal of manslaughter, and as a result, perpetrators of violence against women could collect survivor benefits, as you pointed out.

Ms. Lukasik-Foss, I have a question regarding your statistics. Of the 77% of female victims, what percentage of the crimes involved manslaughter?

12:15 p.m.

President, Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres; Director, Sexual Assault Centre (Hamilton and Area)

Lenore Lukasik-Foss

I'm sorry, I didn't hear any of the translation. It wasn't in my headpiece, so I don't know what was said.

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Phil McColeman

We didn't have translation going on there.

12:20 p.m.

NDP

Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC

Oh, you have to do it all over again.

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Phil McColeman

Was it not working? The translation was not working for you?

12:20 p.m.

President, Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres; Director, Sexual Assault Centre (Hamilton and Area)

Lenore Lukasik-Foss

No, I didn't hear the English. I'm so sorry.

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Phil McColeman

Could we have some assistance for that?

12:20 p.m.

President, Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres; Director, Sexual Assault Centre (Hamilton and Area)

Lenore Lukasik-Foss

I have it on, I could hear other people.

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Phil McColeman

We're going to restart your time, and so you have to repeat what you just said.

12:20 p.m.

NDP

Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC

I will try to be a bit more concise.

As far as the principle that no one should be able to benefit from a crime they have committed is concerned, the NDP strongly supports the bill. We want to underscore an important caveat, however: the bill does not include manslaughter, as you indicated in your remarks.

You mentioned the importance of a gendered lens, stating that 77% of victims were female. What percentage of those cases involved manslaughter?

12:20 p.m.

President, Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres; Director, Sexual Assault Centre (Hamilton and Area)

Lenore Lukasik-Foss

I'm sorry, I didn't bring a copy of the research. I'm sure it's easy to find out, and I have noted in my notes where I got the study. I don't know what percentage were manslaughter, but I agree that I think it's an issue not having manslaughter included, since for many of the cases that we followed, the plea-bargaining process resulted in manslaughter.

12:20 p.m.

NDP

Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC

Thank you.

Do you think you could get a hold of that figure and forward it to the committee?

12:20 p.m.

President, Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres; Director, Sexual Assault Centre (Hamilton and Area)

Lenore Lukasik-Foss

It would be a few days, but I would get them to you, yes.

12:20 p.m.

NDP

Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC

I think that's a very beneficial and important point.

During the debate in the House, it was mentioned that victims' advocacy groups could advise the department of situations where a murder victim's death would ordinarily make the individual convicted of the murder eligible to collect benefits.

Do you think it would be possible to put in place a system whereby that information could be communicated to the department? What players might have a hand in relaying that type of information?

12:20 p.m.

Executive Director, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime

Heidi Illingworth

I think I did read in the debates of the House that the government was going to be encouraging groups to come forward if they had information to share with the federal programs responsible for giving benefits. I think that's something we could do. Locally, for example, groups like the Sexual Assault Centre in Hamilton, if they're tracking cases locally, could ensure that they sent a follow-up message to CPP and OAS, and things like that—and the same with groups like mine. We're a national organization, but we do track cases where we can, especially high-profile cases of homicide of women by their partners. We have an interest in that area, so I think that probably the department already receives some of that information from family members or groups. I think I saw something about that, but I don't know if they would need to have a formal line, a toll-free line or something like that potentially added to their services.

12:25 p.m.

NDP

Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC

Since this important bill is moving forward, I thought that, perhaps, an oversight mechanism could be set up to relay the information to the department automatically or in some systematic way.

Does that sound realistic to you?

12:25 p.m.

President, Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres; Director, Sexual Assault Centre (Hamilton and Area)

12:25 p.m.

Executive Director, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime

Heidi Illingworth

Yes, absolutely.

12:25 p.m.

NDP

Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC

I have a minute and a half left.

As I see it, manslaughter should be mentioned in the bill. Other than that, are there other issues in the bill that we should be looking at? And if so, what are they?

12:25 p.m.

Executive Director, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime

Heidi Illingworth

I don't have any others that I can address at this time.