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

This bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in August 2015.

Sponsor

Dave Van Kesteren  Conservative

Introduced as a private member’s bill.

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.

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.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Votes

Dec. 3, 2014 Passed That the Bill be now read a third time and do pass.

June 18th, 2015 / 4:20 p.m.
See context

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate Chamber, His Excellency was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-247, An Act to expand the mandate of Service Canada in respect of the death of a Canadian citizen or Canadian resident—Chapter 15.

Bill C-452, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons)—Chapter 16.

Bill C-591, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act (pension and benefits)—Chapter 17.

Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act—Chapter 18.

Bill S-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act—Chapter 19.

Bill C-51, An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 20.

Bill C-46, An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act—Chapter 21.

Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act,—Chapter 22.

Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 23.

Bill C-63, An Act to give effect to the Déline Final Self-Government Agreement and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts—Chapter 24.

Bill C-66, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2016—Chapter 25.

Bill C-67, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2016—Chapter 26.

Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code and to make a related amendment and a consequential amendment to other Acts—Chapter 27.

Bill C-555, An Act respecting the Marine Mammal Regulations (seal fishery observation licence)—Chapter 28.

Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 29.

Bill C-12, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act—Chapter 30.

Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act—Chapter 31.

Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act—Chapter 32.

Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act and to make consequential amendments to the Statutory Instruments Regulations—Chapter 33.

Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security ActPrivate Members' Business

December 3rd, 2014 / 6:15 p.m.
See context

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-591.

The House resumed from November 27 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 third time and passed.

Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security ActPrivate Members' Business

November 27th, 2014 / 5:25 p.m.
See context

NDP

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 and the Old Age Security ActPrivate Members' Business

November 27th, 2014 / 5:15 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to be here this evening to talk about my private member's bill, Bill C-591, which proposes changes to the Canada pension plan and the Old Age Security Act.

When I first introduced the bill, it set out to deny Canada pension plan and old age security survivor benefits to anyone convicted of murdering their spouse, common-law partner, or parent. This would apply to the allowance of the survivor benefit, the CPP death benefit, the CPP orphan benefit, and the CPP survivor benefit.

Initially, the bill only proposed to deny benefits to those who were convicted of first- and second-degree murder. However, after listening to concerns expressed in the House and after consultations with the Canadian public, I decided to expand the bill to include those convicted of manslaughter.

First, let me explain why manslaughter was not included at the start. Unlike murder, manslaughter is an offence where the death is not intended, although there may be intent to cause harm. The crimes can range from near accidental deaths to near murder. As members can imagine, this leaves a large gray area.

Initially I was concerned that due to the wide spectrum of cases that manslaughter can present, denying survivor benefits might not be right in certain situations. Because of this, I initially left those convicted of manslaughter outside of the bill.

I was also very pleased that the government moved amendments, seconded by the NDP, to ensure that manslaughter be included. The bill now proposes that in a manslaughter case where the sentence is suspended, that is, the convicted person does not serve time in prison, they would still be eligible to receive survivor benefits. A suspended sentence tends to be given when there are exceptional circumstances surrounding the act of manslaughter and when the person is not considered a danger to society.

It is extremely rare for someone to be convicted of manslaughter and be given a suspended sentence, but it does happen. Let me give an example. Consider a woman who has suffered a history of violent abuse at the hands of her husband. If she is convicted of manslaughter but receives a suspended sentence, she would still be eligible for survivor benefits. However, I repeat that in the vast majority of cases, a person convicted of manslaughter would be denied benefits.

We all agree that murder and manslaughter are reprehensible acts. That is why I felt compelled to bring forth this serious issue to Parliament. This bill is not just important to me, but to all of those who believe that a victim's rights should come before a criminal's. It will bring the act in line with a longstanding judicial principle. That principle states that no one convicted of a crime should benefit from that crime. That is what my private member's bill aims to do.

I also want to point out that, once this bill is passed, its provisions will be applied retroactively. That means that anyone convicted of murder or manslaughter who has been receiving Canada pension plan or old age security survivor benefits will have to repay the government. Fortunately, the changes to legislation we are talking about today will affect very few people. About 30 people each year in Canada would be denied survivor benefits due to these circumstances.

I have been assured that the government will make every effort to ensure that these people are denied any survivor benefits. That is why the Department of Employment and Social Development reached out to victims advocacy groups and other stakeholders. Stakeholders have been asked to notify the Department of Employment and Social Development when a convicted murderer or person convicted of manslaughter applies for Canada pension plan or old age security benefits.

I was pleased that this bill has received unanimous support in the House and at committee by all parties, and I would also like to acknowledge my colleague from Hamilton Mountain for her advocacy on this issue. I encourage all members of this House to continue to support this piece of legislation and to pass it quickly so that it may become law as soon as possible.

This bill is about doing what is right for Canadians, and that is what all of our constituents sent us here to do.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-591, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act (pension and benefits), as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

October 27th, 2014 / 3:05 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to report, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to Bill C-591, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act, regarding pension and benefits.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

October 23rd, 2014 / noon
See context

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Phil McColeman

Colleagues and ladies and gentlemen, this is the 33rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Today is Thursday, October 23, 2014. We're here for clause-by-clause consideration of a private member's bill, Bill C-591, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act (pension and benefits).

Before we begin, I again welcome back to the committee Philippe Méla. Philippe was at our last meeting and is the legislative clerk who is going to be assisting today in the clause-by-clause consideration. I know that he has already spoken with all sides of the table about the grammatical changes in the French version of what you've seen. In a moment, I will put it to Philippe to deal with those changes if required.

Do we require any further explanation from members around the table about those grammatical changes?

October 21st, 2014 / 12:50 p.m.
See context

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

Lenore Lukasik-Foss

Wow. Thank you very much for this opportunity to share feedback beyond the scope of Bill C-591, which I also think is very important. I would love to see a national strategy on violence against women, a comprehensive strategy that would include, of course, prevention and intervention, what we do when the abuse happens. Then we need that transitional support to help strengthen the families after they leave the violence—or if they remain, how we can get supports and counselling in place to end the violence. I feel that's missing on a national scope and would like to see it.

I agree that Grade 9 is too late; they just don't let us in the doors a lot earlier.

October 21st, 2014 / 12:30 p.m.
See context

Liberal

Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS

Thanks, Chair. Thanks very much to both of you. Thank you for your presentations first, because they were informed and succinct.

Your amendment is well reasoned. It's excellent. I want to thank you for that and, as Mr. Butt said, for the work that you do. You deal with an ongoing input of tragedy, so what you do is noble and it's important. I thank you and commend you for the work that you do.

The officials have addressed this bill, and we're in support of it. Looking at Bill C-591 gives us the real lowdown, but for the benefit of the committee, could you share with us the most egregious example of where somebody you know of would have received a benefit as a result of murdering a spouse. Are you aware of those cases?

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

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?

October 21st, 2014 / 12:10 p.m.
See context

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.

October 21st, 2014 / noon
See context

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.

October 21st, 2014 / 11:40 a.m.
See context

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Phil McColeman

Welcome back to the regular meeting to consider Bill C-591. We'll carry on now with questions for our witnesses.

Mr. Mayes.

October 21st, 2014 / 11:25 a.m.
See context

Dominique La Salle Director General, Seniors and Pensions Policy Secretariat, Department of Employment and Social Development

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and distinguished members of the committee.

I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss Bill C-591, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act (pension and benefits), a private member's bill sponsored by Dave Van Kesteren, the member for Chatham-Kent—Essex.

I will also provide information on amendments that will be proposed during the clause-by-clause analysis.

Let me begin by speaking briefly about the two pension programs that would be affected by this bill.

The Canada pension plan, or CPP, is a social insurance plan that provides contributors and their families with modest income replacement upon the retirement, disability or death of a contributor. It is funded by the contributions of employers, employees and self-employed individuals, as well as by returns on CPP investments.

Old age security, or OAS, is the largest federal pension program and is funded from the general tax revenues of the Government of Canada. Together, these programs pay out approximately $85 billion per year to Canadians.

Bill C-591 applies to the survivor benefits of these two programs. This includes three different CPP survivor benefits: the monthly survivor's pension paid to the spouse or common-law partner of the deceased CPP contributor; the monthly children's benefit for dependent children of the deceased contributor; and the lump-sum death benefit, which is usually paid to a deceased contributor's estate.

The bill also affects the OAS program's allowance for the survivor, which is provided to low-income widows or widowers aged 60 to 64. To obtain the CPP and OAS benefits, an individual must apply for them and meet the eligibility requirements.

Bill C-591 has no significant cost implication, as it is generally consistent with existing administrative policy. It will affect a small number of individuals, as murder among family members is rare. In recent years, an average of 48 people were charged annually with spousal murder and an average of 21 individuals in all age categories were accused of killing their parent or step-parent. Not all those charged with murder are convicted of murder, and when there is a conviction there will frequently be no possibility of the murderer collecting the survivor benefit due to the eligibility criteria.

Let me outline the key reasons why these requirements may not be met.

Spousal homicides tend to occur among younger individuals. The number of victims is highest among those aged 15 to 34, with the number falling with age according to Statistics Canada. As a result, the deceased may not have contributed for enough years to the CPP to generate survivor benefits. It is also important to know that nearly 60% of those accused of killing their parents between 2003 and 2012 were over the age of 25 and therefore ineligible for the CPP orphan benefit. Finally, many people who murder their spouse will not meet the eligibility criteria for the OAS allowance for the survivor.

For such reasons, we estimate that as currently written, Bill C-591 would potentially affect a maximum of 30 individuals per year, and some of these people will never apply for the benefit. This is in the context of a public pension system in which the CPP and the OAS each pay benefits to more than 5 million people every year.

I will now provide you with a quick overview of how the bill would work.

A person who has been charged with the murder of a spouse, common-law partner or parent would still be eligible to receive survivor benefits under the principle of being innocent until proven guilty. When the department learns that such an individual has been convicted of murder, this person would be disqualified from receiving further survivor benefits and steps would be taken to recover the benefits already paid, which would become a debt to the Crown. If this individual were subsequently to be found innocent on appeal, the full value of their benefit would be reinstated.

The bill would not remove eligibility for the orphan benefits when minor children are convicted of murdering a parent, because children under the age of 18 don't receive the benefit directly; it is the parent or guardian who receives it on the child's behalf, and the benefit helps cover the costs of caring for the child. Bill C-591 avoids creating a situation in which the department would demand repayment from a grieving widow whose child has just been convicted of murdering her husband. This would amount to punishing the victim. Children over the age of 18, however, receive the orphan benefit directly and would be ineligible to do so if convicted of murdering a parent.

Technical amendments will be proposed to ensure that the bill applies consistently to the OAS allowance for the survivor; that the minister will be able to render individuals ineligible for the CPP death benefit; and that the eligibility for non-guilty individuals is protected. The objective of these proposed minor amendments is simply to prevent the bill from having unintended results that would undermine its effectiveness.

More substantively, amendments will be proposed to include in the bill conviction for manslaughter alongside first- and second-degree murder convictions. Manslaughter is considered unintended homicide, although there may be intent to cause harm.

Manslaughter covers a wide spectrum of cases, ranging from near accidents to near murders. The department's existing administrative policy does not apply to manslaughter convictions. The reason is that the courts have indicated that the principle of ex turpi causa—one should not benefit from his crime—should not be automatically applied to offences such as manslaughter without examining the specific circumstances of each case. ESDC officials—our department—are not qualified to make such determinations, so the administrative policy was limited to murder convictions, to which the principle of ex turpi causa always applies.

Although manslaughter indicates a lesser degree of moral culpability than murder, manslaughter convictions do require criminal intent and reasonable foreseeability of a serious risk of bodily harm. The wide range of manslaughter cases, however, raises the possibility that there will be exceptional cases in which the removal of survivor benefits would be inappropriate. For this reason, the amendment being proposed by the government would allow eligibility for survivor benefits to be retained in those rare instances in which the circumstances surrounding the offence cause the courts to give a suspended sentence to an individual convicted of manslaughter. Suspended sentences show limited intent or significant mitigating circumstances.

If Bill C-591 is amended to remove eligibility for survivor benefits in cases of manslaughter, there will be no significant cost implications for the plan. Approximately two more individuals per year would be affected, on average, for a total of fewer than 32 each year. There would be an initial surge above that number, as the proposed amendment would apply retroactively.

In summary, the government will propose some technical amendments to better reflect the intent of Bill C-591. It will also propose amendments to remove eligibility for OAS and CPP survivor benefits for individuals convicted of manslaughter.

At the same time, the amendments would recognize that there are likely to be a small number of manslaughter cases in which eligibility for these benefits should be retained due to the extraordinary circumstances of the crime.

Let me conclude by thanking you once again for this opportunity to contribute to your study of the bill.