Bill C-206 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (pension and benefits)

This enactment amends the Canada Pension Plan to prohibit the payment of a survivor’s pension, orphan’s benefit or death benefit to a survivor, child or orphan of a deceased contributor if the survivor, child or orphan has been convicted of the murder or manslaughter of the deceased contributor.

Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to join with my colleagues in putting our laws in order.

We are talking here about closing a glaring loophole, correcting a serious flaw and providing redress for what was previously a rather cruel reality. That is why most of us got into politics. That is why I did, in any case.

It is also a matter of recognizing that the NDP is a champion in protecting victims, families and loved ones who are grieving

The bill before us today seeks to prohibit the payment of a survivor’s pension, death benefit or orphan’s benefit to an individual who has been convicted of first or second degree murder or manslaughter of the contributor.

I would like to speak to the members of the House regarding three important things about this bill, namely the reason why it was not passed earlier, the fact that it was amended in committee and the connection between the bill and the work of women's groups.

To begin, I would like to talk about the history that led to this bill. The NDP provides a platform for people who are grappling with unjust situations. Many of them come to meetings in our ridings to share their concerns with us.

That was the case with the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain who, in 2011, received a letter saying that a man had murdered his wife and, after being convicted of manslaughter, that individual received a survivor's pension.

A survivor's pension is typically paid to the spouse or common-law partner of a deceased contributor. I find it quite surprising that the person responsible for the death of their spouse or common-law partner can receive that pension.

That same legislative loophole applies to the death benefit or orphan’s benefit when an individual who has been convicted of first or second degree murder or manslaughter of the contributor. The law allows murderers to profit from the death of their spouse or one of their parents, which flies in the face of a well-known principle of law, namely that no offender should benefit from their crime.

However, the eligibility criteria for government benefits allow just the opposite. To fix this situation, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain introduced a bill in June 2011.

Why did the Conservatives wait so long before addressing this flaw? The member for Chatham-Kent—Essex, who sponsored the bill, even admitted that this loophole has been around for a very long time.

The NDP has been calling for these changes for a long time. We are very pleased that we brought this issue to the attention of the government and the House, and in particular the need for legislative amendments.

Furthermore, I must mention the work that was done in the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Since I started my term in 2011, it has been rare to see the government accept amendments to bills. In the version sent to the committee, the bill dealt only with individuals found guilty of first or second degree murder.

Some witnesses pointed out that excluding manslaughter from the bill was a significant flaw. However, as I mentioned earlier, this bill is designed to fix a flaw and not to create more. The NDP's private member's bill, which inspired this bill, also included manslaughter.

According to Heidi Illingworth, the executive director of the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, a great number of family-related homicides and spousal murders result in a plea bargain to reduce the charge to manslaughter.

That is why the NDP wanted to include manslaughter in Bill C-591. The Conservative member for Chatham-Kent—Essex acknowledged that this measure had been proposed earlier by the member for Hamilton Mountain. This idea was taken into account and included in the bill we now have before us.

I also want to talk to the House about what kind of impact this bill will have on Canadians, but especially on women's groups.

I am currently the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. Previously, as members know, I had a career working with women's groups.

As the former president of the Regroupement des groupes de femmes de la région de la Capitale-Nationale in Quebec City, I was confronted with the horrors women face on a daily basis, whether it be harassment, domestic violence and spousal abuse, or sometimes even murder.

Still today, the statistics show that women are much more likely to be victims of spousal homicide. According to police data, in 2011, 81 women and 13 men were victims of spousal homicide in Canada.

Every year in Canada, women and men are murdered, and sometimes the perpetrator is a family member. Now, imagine how bitter those close to the victim are when they find out that the person responsible for their loved one's death collects money as a result.

That just adds salt to the wounds of the victim's loved ones. This bill, which is basically an NDP initiative, eliminates the possibility of a spouse receiving such benefits following a conviction. The Woman Abuse Working Group's action committee expressed its support for Bill C-206 introduced by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain, which the hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Essex reintroduced as Bill C-591.

Now that we see that the government is interested in our initiatives, in our ideas and in the bills we have already introduced, I would like to advise it to consider the bill that the member for Churchill recently introduced, which is a national action plan to deal with violence against women.

Of course, the government could also hold an inquiry into the missing and murdered aboriginal women. In closing, it is important to emphasize that the integrity of the Canada pension plan is of the utmost importance to Canadians.

Years ago, the NDP introduced a bill calling for change. When we see something break, it is important to fix it. A conviction for first or second degree murder, either voluntary or involuntary, is the punishment for a reprehensible act. The offender should not be rewarded for or benefit from the crime.

It is unfortunate that the Conservative government waited so long to introduce a bill to resolve this obvious problem. We therefore support this bill, and we are delighted to see that the Conservatives are finally recognizing the need to fix this problem.

Canada Pension Plan

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I foreshadowed in my question for the hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Essex, New Democrats say categorically that we as the official opposition will be supporting this bill. This is a bill that closes a very obvious loophole, but for reasons that I will describe, in my judgment it does not go far enough.

This bill is remarkably similar to legislation initiated and introduced in 2011, over three years ago, by my colleague, the member for Hamilton Mountain. New Democrats are pleased to see that the Conservatives are finally recognizing the need to address this issue and to close such an obvious loophole. An unfortunate failure of the current Canada pension plan legislation is that survivors' pension death benefits or orphans' benefits may be made payable to those convicted of murdering their spouse or parent. I am sure that to 100% of Canadians that will sound bizarre in the extreme. That it has taken a private member's bill and the government three years to respond to the private member's bill of my colleague from Hamilton Mountain should seem equally strange to Canadians.

When the member for Hamilton Mountain introduced a similar bill, she was responding to this letter from a constituent, which stated:

I have a relative who killed his wife, served very little time for manslaughter, and is (and has been) collecting CPP survivor benefits for over 10 years. Since 1-2 women per week die at the hands of their partners, how many more men are collecting this? How is this legal?

That is an excellent question, but, as we will see, as in many cases of this kind, the constituent was talking about manslaughter, not simply first or second degree murder, which is the sole ambit of the private member's bill before us today.

A few days ago, on CBC TV, in my part of the world, British Columbia, the following was said:

A North Delta woman, whose father killed her mother, wants the federal government to plug a loophole that allowed him to collect pension survivor benefits for 28 years until his death.

Susan Fetterkind's mother Vivienne was stabbed multiple times by her estranged husband.... [He] collected Canada Pension Plan benefits until he died last year.

She went on to say:

The government is enabling killers to profit from murdering their spouse. You're not supposed to be able to profit from murdering somebody.

That is so obviously true. Once again, the largest proportion of family-related homicides are spousal murders, and of those, a great number result in a plea bargain and a reduced conviction of manslaughter. Ms. Fetterkind is hoping that this Parliament, aware of this initiative before us today, will embrace not just first and degree murder, but also manslaughter, which I will talk about in a moment. Correcting this error and ending the ability of those convicted of murdering their spouses or parents to collect survivor or orphan benefits is obviously something that the official opposition will strongly support. That is, of course, why New Democrats introduced legislation long ago.

As my colleague from Winnipeg North alluded to a moment ago, it is quite surprising that this initiative is taking the form of a private member's bill. I say that for two reasons. The Canada pension plan and old age security are the subjects of enormous debate right now in Canada. The need for income retirement security has never been greater, yet the government is not addressing that. All it has done on OAS is to increase the age of collection until 67, and refused to act in a comprehensive way on CPP. Therefore, it is surprising that this is not part of a comprehensive reform that is so desperately required in both of those contexts.

However, equally surprising is that this is a private member's bill. The government routinely introduces—I do not know how many times now—omnibus budget bills, what we call “everything but the kitchen sink legislation”, of which this could readily be a part. Yet it is now in the form of a private member's bill. Having said all of that, I do not want the form to triumph over the substance. The substance is critical and long overdue, although it is rather strange that it is taking the form of a private member's bill.

In June 2011, the member of Parliament for Hamilton Mountain reintroduced Bill C-206, an act to amend the Canada pension plan in relation to pension and benefits. It would have amended the Canada pension plan to prohibit the payment of survivors pension, orphans benefits, or death benefits to a survivor, child, or orphan of a deceased contributor if the survivor, child, or orphan had been convicted of the murder or manslaughter of the deceased contributor. That bill quite categorically embraced the category of manslaughter, unlike the bill before us today.

As my colleague from Chatham-Kent—Essex pointed out, many would assume that the long-established principle in law would be that no one should be able to benefit from a crime and that this principle would also be enshrined in the eligibility criteria for government benefit programs, but that was not the case for CPP benefits and old age security benefits. This loophole is obvious and needs to be closed, and that is why the legislation was introduced before.

In response to what my colleague said about manslaughter, while I appreciate that he wants to keep the bill clear and easy to put into legislation, I would urge him to consider including manslaughter in the bill when it goes to committee, for a couple of important reasons.

I do not believe there is any reason a court could not, as part of the sentencing on manslaughter, take a look at the circumstances. Among the things the judge could look at is whether, in his or her judgment, CPP and OAS benefits ought to be denied to the survivor, the person who committed the murder or manslaughter, when convicted. It could readily be part of a court order. There would be no privacy concerns whatsoever, as the statement would be made in open court.

I confess I do not have statistics for it, except the experience of all criminal lawyers as they plead their client down from murder to manslaughter, but if I am right that it will be a larger category, it seems ridiculous that we would not include those convicted of manslaughter within the ambit of this legislation. In other words, to put it baldly, if a person is convicted of murder, they cannot collect these benefits, but if they manage to get plea-bargained down to manslaughter, that is just fine.

I do not believe Canadians would accept that. I do not believe the two people whose direct experience I cited earlier would accept it, because in both cases their father was convicted not of murder but of manslaughter. We are not doing the right thing by Canadians if we limit ourselves to that. Most crimes of passion would be manslaughter, not premeditated murder, so it seems to me that we are missing the boat in a massive way if we do not close that loophole as well.

I commend my colleague for bringing this measure forward to embrace the category of murder, but to not embrace manslaughter seems rather ridiculous, given that culpable spousal or partner homicide is most likely to result in manslaughter, not murder. If I am wrong on my statistics, I of course will stand to be corrected, but I believe that to be the case, just based on common sense and experience in the courts.

I think that is the only thing that would be in the way of our providing unanimous and immediate support for this measure. We should decide to make it more inclusive than it is.

In terms of validators for a position that we are taking, needless to say, it is common sense. If we asked Canadians how they would feel about someone collecting these benefits if they have been convicted of spousal homicide, obviously clearly they would agree with the bill. The Woman Abuse Working Group's action committee supported Bill C-206 and commended the member for Hamilton Mountain for bringing it forward, and I am sure that women's groups would also accept this measure as well.

In conclusion, I commend the member for bringing the bill forward. It is an overdue initiative. I just hope that at committee stage, we will be able to persuade the hon. member and the government to expand it to find a creative way to include manslaughter within the ambit of this important initiative.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-206, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (pension and benefits).

Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled to re-introduce my bill, which will finally put a legal end to the potential for people who have been convicted of spousal homicide to derive a CPP survivor benefit from their heinous crime.

I had assumed that the long-established principle in law, that no one should be able to benefit from a crime, would also be enshrined in the eligibility criteria for government benefit programs. Imagine my surprise when I received the following correspondence which states:

I have a relative who killed his wife, served very little time for manslaughter, and is (and has been) collecting CPP survivor benefits for over 10 years. Since 1-2 women per week die at the hands of their partners, how many more men are collecting this? How is this legal?

I researched the file to verify that this could really happen and learned that there was no legal prohibition that prevents people who have been convicted of spousal homicide from collecting either the death benefit or the survivor pension. Clearly, that is a loophole that must be closed.

My bill would do precisely that. It would amend the Canada pension plan to prohibit the payment of the survivors pension, orphans benefit or death benefit to a survivor or orphan of a deceased contributor if the survivor or orphan has been convicted of the murder or manslaughter of the deceased contributor.

The integrity of the Canada pension plan is enormously important to Canadians. I know that I am not alone when I say that the very thought that someone convicted of spousal homicide could derive a monetary benefit from such a heinous crime is an issue of fundamental justice.

I trust that all members of the House will feel the same way and I look forward to the speedy passage of my bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)