Bill C-591 (Historical)

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

This enactment amends the Canada Pension Plan 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. It also amends the Old Age Security Act to prohibit the payment of a survivor’s allowance to an individual who has been convicted of first or second degree murder or manslaughter of the individual's spouse or common-law partner.

Canada Pension Plan

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

The House resumed from June 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-591, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act (pension and benefits), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour has three minutes left to conclude her remarks.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I will be shifting a little, but in many ways these two are linked in how we as a government believe that people who commit violent offences such as murder are very much linked with the missing and murdered aboriginal women's piece too. However, we are talking about Bill C-591, introduced by my hon. colleague. From the comments by the opposition, it appears that all parties will support this.

The bill would amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act and deny CPP survivor benefits and the OAS allowance to people convicted of murdering their spouse, common-law partner or parent. As the member for Chatham-Kent—Essex and others have pointed out, no one wants to see spouse killers receive taxpayer-funded financial benefits for their heinous act. It truly would be an insult to the taxpayer. It is an insult to the families of the victims as well as an insult 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.

Currently, when someone murders their spouse for whatever reason, he or she stand to gain those benefits. Thankfully we are speaking of a very rare situation. Death at the hands of family members is not that common and the convicted murderers are not always eligible for these benefits anyway.

However, each year between 2003 and 2012, an average of 21 individuals in all age categories were accused of killing their parent or step-parent. Among them were approximately 5 to 6 persons accused who were between the ages of 18 and 25 and 3 of the accused were under the age of 18. That is absolutely appalling.

It is important to remember that many people accused of killing a spouse or parent are not found guilty of murder and among those convicted of murder, some do not qualify for these benefits in any case. Of these people, roughly half would be rendered ineligible for the CPP survivor pension and death benefit, one-third for the OAS allowance for the survivor and less than one-tenth for the surviving child benefit.

I will emphasize that fewer than 30 people each year would be affected in the context of a public pension system in which the CPP alone gives coverage to 13 million contributors per year. Again, it is a very small number.

We are proceeding carefully with the bill because we want to be fair.

It is important to note the legislation will only apply to people who have been convicted of murder rather than all those who are charged with murder. That is a basic principle of common law, that a person accused of crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to participate in the discussion of private member's Bill C-591, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act (pension and benefits).

I have listened with great interest to the rhetorical flourishes of the Conservative members who have debated this bill so far. The member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley said his government “always puts victims first”.

Not to be outdone, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo said:

It is clear that our Conservative government continues to stand up for the rights of victims and that Canadians can count on us to deliver results.

Quite the chest-thumping by a party that is trying desperately to persuade Canadians that it is only party that is tough on crime.

The only problem is that this bill did not actually originate with them. This is decidedly not a Conservative bill. On the contrary, it is a watered-down version of a bill that was first introduced in this House as far back as June 2010, and which was then reintroduced in this current Parliament on June 9, 2011.

How can I be so certain of that chronology? It is because, in fact, it is my bill. I suppose imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and as New Democrats we are certainly used to governments stealing our ideas and implementing them. However, when the Liberals did it with respect to medicare and pensions, they at least did not have the audacity to claim these ideas as their own. That is why everyone knows it was J. S. Woodsworth who gave Canadians their old age pensions and Tommy Douglas who brought us medicare.

However, the Conservatives have made this place so hyperpartisan that they cannot even acknowledge in passing that this bill had its genesis across the aisle. It is mind-boggling, unless of course they were fearful that by referencing my bill, they would draw attention to the differences between our two legislative initiatives and that theirs would then be found to come up short, and indeed it would. Let me explain.

At the heart of both my bill and the bill now being put forward by the member for Chatham-Kent—Essex is the principle that criminals should not be able to profit from their crimes.

I had assumed that this principle would be firmly enshrined in the eligibility criteria for government benefit programs. Members may imagine my surprise then when I received the following correspondence.

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 is 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 set out to do precisely that. It would have amended the Canada pension plan to prohibit the payment of a survivor's pension, orphan's 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.

Now I want to draw attention to that last line. My bill would have prohibited anyone from benefiting from both murder and manslaughter. That is something the Conservative bill we are debating here today does not do. Yes, if someone is convicted of first or second degree murder, that person will no longer be entitled to collect survivor pension benefits; however, if someone commits manslaughter, that person can merrily continue to collect.

Really? How is that fair? How is that putting victims first? I cannot imagine that this would pass the nod test for anyone who is watching this debate, either here in the House today or on their TVs.

It sure does not pass the nod test for Susan Fetterkind. Susan is a woman from British Columbia whose father killed her mother. He stabbed her multiple times and then went on to collect pension survivor benefits for 28 years, until his death.

I have been on numerous radio and TV shows with Susan, and she has just one message:

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

Ostensibly, the Conservative MPs want people to believe that they agree, so we would think that Susan would be happy with the legislation that is before this House today. We would be wrong.

Here is what she had to say about the bill being brought forward by the member for Chatham-Kent—Essex:

His bill mentions first and second degree murder but it does not mention manslaughter. My father did a plea bargain and he was convicted of manslaughter.

Therein lies the rub. Whereas my bill covers first and second degree murder as well as manslaughter, Bill C-591 does not include manslaughter as a reason for revoking pension entitlements.

This creates a huge policy gap, especially when we consider that the largest proportion of family-related homicides are spousal murders and that a great number of those result in a plea bargain to reduce conviction of manslaughter.

Do we really want to legislate a system wherein a person who is convicted of murder cannot collect pension benefits, but if he manages to have the charge plea bargained down to manslaughter then it is fine for him to collect? This is a loophole that must be closed. This is an area that my NDP colleagues and I are determined to redress when the bill gets to committee.

I know that more than one person will have picked up on the fact that I said “he” can still collect after committing manslaughter. I know that will generate some heated feedback from those who think I am promoting sexist stereotypes. Let me be clear: all violence is unacceptable. However, here is the reality. About half, 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 intimate partners. That is why this issue is of critical importance to women's groups from across our country, and why I was proud to get support for my bill from the Woman Abuse Working Group's action committee in my hometown of Hamilton.

All of us in the women's movement, and in the NDP caucus, would prefer if instead of just dealing with the consequences of violence against women, we turned our attention in a systemic way to preventing intimate partner violence in the first place. It is not like we do not know what needs to be done. There have been gazillions of studies, with detailed recommendations, about how to reduce the rates of violence against women and how to protect vulnerable women. However, appallingly, we have a Conservative government that simply refuses to act.

All of the evidence shows that violence against women and children increases during times of economic crisis, which should suggest the need for an urgent increase in services. Instead, we have a federal government that has been single-minded in its purposeful gutting of financial resources for the most meaningful community supports. Cuts to social services, housing, child care, social assistance, shelters, and legal aid all contribute to diminishing the independence of women and making them more vulnerable to violence. It does not need to be that way, and it should not be that way. But when a government is intent on being tough on crime instead of being smart on crime, we end up dealing only with the symptoms and never the cause.

My NDP colleagues and I are committed to dealing with both. We will support the bill that is before us today, Bill C-591, and we will work to improve it in committee, by making sure it does not just cover first and second degree murder but manslaughter as well.

We will also fight to eradicate the root causes of domestic violence and continue to push for the passage of our Motion No. M-444, which calls on the federal government to establish a coordinated national action plan to address violence against women. The Conservatives have happily adopted my bill as its own. I would encourage them to steal Motion No. M-444 too.

New Democrats are secure in the knowledge that ours are still the only policies worth stealing. If the Conservatives need to be able to claim those ideas as their own in order for them to take action, then I say to my colleagues on the other side of the House, by all means, fill your boots. I have a number of other private member's bills on the order paper. Let us work together to get them passed too. I can assure members opposite that they are as meritorious as the one they stole here today.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to first thank the member for Hamilton Mountain for that speech. The speech that I am about to give is going to sound quite familiar, although I can assure her that I did not have an advanced copy. Until she said that all good ideas emanate from her caucus, I agreed with almost everything she said.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on Bill C-591, an act to amend the Canada pension plan and the Old Age Security Act, proposed in its latest iteration by the member for Chatham-Kent—Essex. I understand that this is the member's first private member's bill, so I would like to take a moment to congratulate him on the introduction into the House of Commons of the bill back in June.

Interestingly, my first motion in the House as a member of Parliament for Charlottetown was also concerning old age security. My motion sought to reaffirm the government's support of old age security and asked for a commitment to keep the qualifying age at 65 instead of 67. Of course, we in the Liberal Party know that the motion to protect old age security did not receive the support of the Conservative government benches.

As the justice critic for the Liberal Party, I appreciate the fact that the member for Chatham-Kent—Essex has put forward a solution to an existing loophole in the CPP and OAS legislation as opposed to haphazardly amending the Criminal Code, as so many of his colleagues want to do.

Bill C-591 seeks to amend the Canada pension plan and the Old Age Security Act to ensure that someone who has been convicted of murdering his or her spouse or parent will be ineligible for the CPP victim's benefit, the CPP orphan benefit, and the OAS annual allowance for survivors. As my colleague across the way explained in his initial speech in June, the bill is consistent with the legal principle of ex turpi causa, which means that one should not benefit from his or her own misconduct.

The member for Markham—Unionville has said the Liberal Party will be supporting the bill. We believe this is, in essence, a sensible bill that seeks to close an existing loophole in the CPP and OAS Act. While the Library of Parliament has confirmed that the intent of the bill is currently the existing departmental policy within government, it is not yet law and we agree in principle that the bill is a positive step for the families of murder victims.

However, we have some concerns that we would like to see addressed at committee and many of them we heard from the previous speaker. We also heard earlier in debate from the NDP member for Nanaimo—Cowichan that there seems to be a loophole in the very bill that is designed to close a loophole. The bill seeks to withhold respective benefits from those who are convicted of first or second degree murder of a spouse or parent, although someone who is convicted of manslaughter will still be eligible.

The member for Chatham-Kent—Essex has indicated that in cases of manslaughter, the principle of ex turpi causa does not always apply as clearly as it does in cases of first and second degree murder convictions. In his speech last June, he 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.

While it is heartening to hear a defence of judicial discretion from the Conservative benches, this exclusion for manslaughter must be given considerable thought. It presents an issue that deserves more attention and discussion at committee stage. The possibility exists that someone could kill a spouse in circumstances that would otherwise give rise to a conviction of first or second degree murder but be convicted of manslaughter as part of a plea bargain and, as the bill currently reads, be eligible for benefits he or she should not be receiving. Ultimately, this is a bill that the Liberal Party will support because it deserves its time at committee.

I am mildly encouraged by the bill and the solution it proposes. As the Liberal justice critic, I would recommend that the government consider taking further fiscal and legislative measures to address the issue of domestic violence and intimate partner abuse before it results in the death of a spouse or parent.

Intimate partner abuse is a serious issue in Canada, particularly for Canadian women. I would not be doing this topic justice if I failed to mention that it is Canadian women who are overwhelmingly the victims in cases of intimate partner abuse. This is also true in cases of spousal homicide.

I am supportive of the bill and will be voting to send it to committee.

Please allow me to offer some other observations on the approach taken by the hon. member with respect to this legislation, and let me begin by quoting the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development. This is an excerpt from the speech on the bill when it was introduced in June of this year. He said:

The Department of Employment and Social Development already has administrative procedures, based on common law principles, that prohibit a spouse, common law partner, or child from receiving survivor benefits if the department is informed that the person has been convicted of the murder of an individual and is the survivor and consequently the primary beneficiary. The problem is that there is no provision in the law to prevent these provisions from actually being paid. What C-591 would do is give clear authority, raise the visibility, and increase transparency to ensure that no one could benefit financially from murdering a spouse.

I draw attention to this excerpt because it highlights how straightforward the amendments in this specific bill are.

Since 2006, the Conservative government has routinely bundled hundreds of amendments into monstrous omnibus bills. It has used these omnibus bills to alter everything from employment insurance to environmental regulations, fisheries regulations, legislation related to justice and public safety portfolios and, yes, even the Old Age Security Act, so it is entirely fair, and not at all irrelevant to this debate, to ask this question: why is this bill presented as a private member's bill instead of being included in an omnibus bill?

By asking this question, I run the risk of confusing my Conservative colleagues, as difficult as that may be. Let me clear. I am in no way supportive of the Conservative government's reliance on a poisonous combination of simultaneously introducing omnibus bills and time allocation motions to push through bad legislation that has not been properly vetted by parliamentarians.

While the Liberal Party is glad to have Bill C-591 headed to committee for further review, I am genuinely interested as to why, or maybe how, these amendments escaped the pull of an omnibus bill. This fairly straightforward bill is a perfect example of the value in not relying on omnibus legislation. This bill is straightforward, yes, but it could always be better.

The issue around manslaughter convictions as a result of plea bargains that I raised earlier, as did the member for Hamilton Mountain, is just one piece of this bill that should be further clarified. Presenting this bill as a private member's bill provides the time for scrutiny that hundreds of pieces of omnibus legislation never get at committee before they are passed into law.

In the Liberal Party, we believe that giving parliamentarians from all parties the chance to discuss potential issues before bills become law is a sound method of developing balanced, effective public policy the first time around. For this reason, I am glad that this bill, straightforward as it may be, was given the time for debate in the House of Commons. I will vote in support of sending it to committee for further study.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to say a few words about Bill C-591, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act (pension and benefits).

I would first like to thank my colleague and hard-working member for Chatham-Kent—Essex for bringing forward this important piece of legislation. It is a perfect example of what a private member's bill can do. It focuses on closing some loopholes within existing legislation.

To begin with, this bill delivers on commitments the government made in the 2013 throne speech, namely to support victims of crime and to strengthen Canada's justice system.

The bill would enshrine administrative procedures in the legislation of the Canada pension plan or the Old Age Security Act based on the well-established common-law principle that an individual should not benefit from his or her crime. These procedures would make spouses, common-law partners, or adult children ineligible to receive Canada pension plan survivor benefits or the old age security allowance for the survivor when he or she was convicted of first- or second-degree murder of the very person whose death enabled eligibility for those benefits. By legislating the principle that an individual shall not benefit from his or her crime by becoming eligible for CPP or OAS benefits as a result of committing murder, Parliament would be sending a strong signal of support for victims of crime.

The CPP benefits we are talking about are the monthly survivor's pension paid to the spouse or common-law partner of the deceased contributor. The monthly children's benefit for dependent children up to the age of 18, or to age 25 if they are full-time students, in a lump sum death benefit is usually paid to the contributor's estate.

For a spouse or a common-law partner or a child to be eligible for Canada pension plan survivor benefits, the deceased contributor must have made sufficient contributions to the Canada pension plan to generate such a benefit. This bill also applies to the old age security program allowance for the survivor provided to low-income survivors aged 60 to 64.

Here is how the bill would work. If the survivor of the deceased individual would normally be eligible to receive these benefits, the survivor benefits could initially be paid to an individual charged with murdering a spouse, common-law partner, or parent. This eligibility would be immediately revoked when Employment and Social Development Canada was informed that the claimant survivor had been convicted of murdering the person in whose name the benefit was being paid. At this point, the claimant would be determined to have never been eligible for the benefit. An overpayment would then be established for all Canada pension plan or old age security benefits the individual received as a result of the death, and steps would immediately be taken to recover any overpayment in those circumstances.

In cases where a person was convicted of murder but was subsequently found to be not guilty, as a result of an appeal, for example, that person would be entitled to the full benefit once the Department of Employment and Social Development was notified. This would include payments retroactive to the first day of eligibility resulting from the death of the spouse, common-law partner, or parent.

With respect to the Canada pension plan, in cases where a person under the age of 18 was convicted of murdering a parent, the surviving child benefit could be paid until the child reached the age of 18. That is because when the child is under 18, the children's benefit is not paid to the child but to the parent or guardian to help with the costs of caring for that child.

I agree with the member that we do not want to create a scenario where the surviving parent of the child convicted of murdering the other parent is forced to repay the children's benefit they received. This would be punishing a victim who had committed absolutely no crime.

The Canada pension plan would be amended to ensure that under no circumstances could an individual known by the minister to have been convicted of murdering his or her spouse, common-law partner or parent be eligible for a Canada pension plan death benefit resulting from that death. This would not affect the estate of a person who has been murdered. The Canada pension plan benefit could still be paid to the estate of the deceased.

The bill is consistent with, among others, the policy of the United States Social Security Administration, which makes individuals convicted of felonious and intentional homicide in the death of an insured wage earner ineligible for survivor benefits. The United Kingdom also has legislation to prevent individuals who have unlawfully killed their spouses, partners or parents from receiving benefits resulting from those deaths.

In order to better enforce these new legislative procedures, the government would engage directly with victims' advocacy and stakeholder groups so they can easily notify the department when someone has been convicted of murder, and the death of his or her victim would normally entitle them to a benefit.

These amendments underscore and emphasize our government's commitment to maintaining a key principle of justice: that a person convicted of a crime should not be able to profit from that crime. It is a fundamental principle that is espoused by Canadians in our great country from coast to coast to coast.

The legislation would reinforce that the government puts the rights of victims ahead of the rights of convicted murderers. I look forward to the bill being debated at committee and to considering potential amendments that could make the bill even stronger than it already is.

What is crystal clear is that the murderer of a spouse, parent or partner will not benefit from his or her crime by gaining access to benefits from the Canada pension plan or old age security. I know that is something that all members of the House will find is amenable and in line with what their constituents would like them to do.

I look forward to the bill being debated in committee and coming back to the House, and to its speedy and expeditious passage as we fix this loophole in the legislation and continue to make our streets and communities safe.

I appreciate this opportunity to share these few thoughts with hon. colleagues in this great chamber.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I am rising to speak to Bill C-591, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act with respect to pension and benefits.

I am pleased that the hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Essex thought it worthwhile to introduce a bill similar to the one previously introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain. She is an authority on pensions, old age security and the status of women.

I am proud to see that the Conservatives saw fit to bring back her bill, which was originally introduced in June 2010 as Bill C-527. It died on the order paper when the election was called in May 2011. The hon. member introduced her bill again, during the 41st Parliament, and now we have before us Conservative Bill C-591, which is strangely similar.

Compared to the bill introduced by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain, this one has some flaws. We hope that these will be reviewed in committee. My colleagues spoke about manslaughter because the bill is also intended to eliminate recurring problems in the Canada pension plan legislation and regulations that for years have allowed certain criminals to collect their victims' benefits. Everyone in the House agrees that that is terrible. We could take a look at that and strengthen the bill.

As absurd as this may seem, the bill proposes amending the Canada pension plan to prohibit the payment of the survivor's pension, orphan's benefit or death benefit to a survivor or orphan of a deceased contributor if the survivor or orphan had been convicted of the murder or manslaughter of the deceased contributor.

Clearly, we can all agree how terrible and absurd it is that this has not already been dealt with. It was my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain, who first introduced this bill following a disclosure from a concerned citizen. That individual informed the member's office that a family member who had killed his wife and served a very short sentence for manslaughter had nevertheless been receiving CPP survivor benefits for over 10 years.

If one or two women are murdered by their spouse each week, how many men are receiving these benefits? How can such a thing be legal? After conducting some research, my colleague learned that, legally, nothing prevented people who had been convicted of spousal homicide from receiving death or survivor benefits.

Not only are women more vulnerable after they retire because, in general, they earn only about 70% of what men do, but they also live longer. Women are therefore much less financially secure over the course of their lifetime. They are not able to set aside as much for their retirement and they also tend to be victims of crime more often. Thus, the existing legislation deals them a double whammy.

It is imperative that this flaw be corrected. That is why my colleague introduced this particular bill. Much of the credit goes to her and the individual who made her aware of this problem.

In the House, the bulk of our work involves solving problems that arise in our riding offices and dealing with problems in our ridings caused by laws. In our riding offices, we can really do a lot of good and change things for people.

The integrity of pension plans is of great importance to Canadians. Lately, it has been coming up on the news almost every day. The fact that a person who has been convicted of spousal homicide can benefit from such a horrendous crime shows that there is a problem of fundamental justice that must be corrected quickly.

That is extremely appalling, and I am disappointed that the government chose not to work with us over the past three years, after this bill was introduced, to put an end to this problem. However, better late than never. I therefore support my Conservative colleague's initiative.

However, I think that the measures included in this bill should have been taken much earlier. Instead, the government chose to go after workers by lowering the age of eligibility for pension and old age security benefits. It made cuts to government services for seniors. The government made it harder to access services by putting them all online. The services are longer available in paper form. Furthermore, it did not index the guaranteed income supplement. The government left seniors to struggle with a lack of housing and assistance to break their isolation. A number of things could have been done to help seniors, but no action has been taken since this government took power. It has done nothing but hurt seniors.

We know that two-thirds of workers will not have enough savings to retire in basic comfort—above the poverty line, that is—but the government is letting murderers receive these same benefits. Murderers are living off the money they receive from the government, when they killed their spouse. That is really something that all members of the House should find atrocious.

I would like to use this opportunity to say that we should enact every possible legislative measure and make every possible systemic change to reduce the incidence of violence against women, especially domestic violence. We really have to work on this. We have to take positive measures to help women become more independent; that includes pay equity. We have to take steps to ensure that women have access to the job market and can become independent.

Lastly, I am disappointed that the government had the opportunity to introduce this bill in the past but waited so long to do so. It was not drafted in consultation with the House, and it is not a government bill, which it should have been.

In closing, as several of my colleagues have pointed out here, criminals should not benefit from their crimes. That is a common law principle. That is what we are doing today. Pensions and old age security are crucial elements of the Canadian retirement system. We have to protect them. It is our duty as legislators to take every available opportunity to improve them and provide better benefits to the people who need them.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There being no other members rising, I will go back to the hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Essex for his five minute right of reply.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has been quite obvious that, as my first private member's bill, it is something that most members agree on as I did not see too much disagreement.

I want to especially thank the members for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, Hamilton Mountain, Charlottetown, Richmond Hill, and just now, the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel for their remarks. Certainly everyone seems to be in agreement that this is an injustice in today's society must be remedied.

The purpose of the second reading of the bill is to decide whether the it should go on to committee. I think the greatest area of dissension may be some disagreement as to whether manslaughter should be added to the bill. That is why we do these things. That is why this is a House of debate and why we consider bills. It is to introduce and suggest some possible improvement.

In my opening remarks and in my answers, I mentioned why it was my intent to not include manslaughter, but it is something we will talk about in committee and consider.

I again want to thank all those who participated in and have helped with the bill. I hope the result of all of this effort in the House will make Canada a better and more just place in which to live.

It is an honour to be part of the kind of system, government and country in which we live.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It being 2:11 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:11 p.m.)