Human Resources Committee on Oct. 21st, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome. This is meeting number 32 of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Today is Tuesday, October 21, 2014. We are here to study 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).

We have a three-part meeting today. For our first half-hour we are joined by the mover of Bill C-591, Mr. David Van Kesteren, member of Parliament for Chatham-Kent—Essex.

Before we pass it over to you, Mr. Van Kesteren, I do have two brief announcements to make. It's with a little bit of sadness but also some joy that I announce that Caroline Bosc, our clerk, will be moving on to a new role in the future. We will have a new clerk. I was informed of this yesterday. Caroline's going to the journals branch, as I understand it. It's an exciting new role for her, but we certainly will miss her. Her service to this committee has been exemplary, in my opinion.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Jinny.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

I would like to take a minute just to add my appreciation for the work that you've done for this committee. I've really appreciated all your contributions and the very professional way you've dealt with all of us at times. We're not an easy group when we get in this room, to say the least, but we wish you the very, very best in your new venture—although I do think the chair should use his power to veto or block this. I do wish you, on behalf of the rest of us, joy in your new venture.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Caroline Bosc]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Now I will mention that Caroline will be here with us probably until we get through these two private members' bills. That's the tentative plan at this point, anyway, unless something changes in the interim.

While we do this transition I'd like to welcome Philippe Méla, who is here helping out with the transition. He's a legislative clerk from the committees' legislative services part of the library. We welcome Philippe. You have a wonderful name, by the way—first name, that is.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Mr. Armstrong, would you like to say something?

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

I would just like to second what Jinny said. We've experienced a very professional, well-established, and terrific clerk over the last several months. We're very sorry to see you go but we wish you all the best. I know your parents would be very, very proud of you. Maybe someday they'll be calling you boss.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Mr. Van Kesteren, this was not meant to upstage you at all with your private member's bill. Now we will move to you for your ten-minute presentation, sir.

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

Thank you, Chair. I might add that it's great to be upstaged in this particular circumstance. As well, I wish you the best in your new endeavours.

But that's not the reason I'm here, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to be here to speak to my member's bill, Bill C-591. It's truly an honour to have the opportunity to bring forward this bill. This bill is about restoring fairness in the pension system to ensure that murderers cannot benefit from their crimes. I believe all parties will support my proposal to amend the Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security Act to deny survivor benefits to people convicted of murdering their spouse, common-law partner or parent. It's a terrible thing to suffer the horror of family violence, especially murder, but to have the added pain of seeing that murderer profit from their crime by collecting survivor benefits left by the victim is grossly unfair to grieving family, and repugnant to all Canadians. It was for this reason that I tabled Bill C-591 to prohibit people who murder their spouses or parents from being able to collect survivor benefits. These benefits include the OAS program's survivor's allowance and CPP's death benefit, child benefit, and survivor pension. The bill will render convicted murderers ineligible for these benefits. It would clearly set out the terms under which this policy will be applied. I have been informed that this bill will need some changes made to it to ensure that it's in sync with the rest of CPP and OAS legislation. The government will be proposing some technical amendments in this regard and I am supportive of those amendments.

I was honoured by the support from all sides in the House in debate of this bill at second reading. It was clear that we are all in agreement with regard to the basic intent of Bill C-591. However, during the debate a number of members voiced some legitimate concerns that this bill would not apply to individuals who are convicted of manslaughter. Members raised the case of a man who stabbed his spouse to death, was convicted of manslaughter on a plea bargain and subsequently collected CPP survivor benefits for 28 years. Mr. Chairman, this is not right and not within the intent of my original proposal. I indicated at the time that these concerns would be considered in committee and I'm pleased that this is happening today. At first I was reluctant to include manslaughter in the bill due to the fact that manslaughter includes a wide range of cases. Unlike first and second degree murder, there is no clear intent to kill with manslaughter. I don't think it's right to dis-entitle all individuals convicted of manslaughter in the death of a spouse or parent without exception. I think there's another way, a compromise approach, that is both consistent with the legitimate concerns members opposite raised and my original intention with this bill. Here's what I propose.

Manslaughter convictions would result in ineligibility in all cases except in those very rare instances when the courts decide that the circumstances of the crime do not warrant a punitive sentence or, in other words, when someone is convicted of manslaughter but does not receive jail time. Judges are qualified and equipped to assess the circumstances of these cases. A suspended sentence for manslaughter would signal an exceptional case in which the accused would retain their eligibility for survivor benefits. An example of an extreme case where a suspended sentence would be handed out is the situation in which the individual convicted of manslaughter had suffered a history of violent abuse from the victim and was considered by the judge to pose no continuing danger to society. The government will propose amendments in keeping with this compromise to include manslaughter in the bill. I hope this approach will address the concerns expressed by a number of members.

Fortunately, what we are dealing with in Bill C-591 is very rare. Death at the hand of family members is not common and those convicted are not always eligible for survivor benefits to begin with. In total, from 2002 to 2011, there were close to 700 spousal homicides or 70 victims a year throughout the country. The victims tend to be young women. Eighty per cent of victims were female versus 20 per cent male.

I am proceeding carefully, as is the government, to ensure that this bill is fair. I won't go over the details of the bill. They were covered in the House debate and are well known. But I will say that this bill will apply only to people who have been convicted rather than those who are charged with a crime.

I expect that victims organizations and family members will notify Employment and Social Development Canada of the need to disentitle a person to ensure that murderers are not able to benefit from their crimes. To help facilitate this, the government will engage directly with victims advocacy and stakeholder groups in regard to this issue.

The government has assured me that they can easily notify the department when someone has been convicted of first- or second-degree murder or manslaughter of someone whose death would otherwise entitle them to CPP or OAS benefit. The minister has assured me that he will write to provincial justice ministers to ask them to notify the department whenever these convictions occur, to ensure that no one is profiting from their crime.

Mr. Chairman, this bill underscores our government's commitment to maintaining strong judicial principles. This proposed legislation will assure Canadians that we are taking strong action against criminals while continuing strengthening our justice system.

This concludes my remarks, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Thank you, Mr. Van Kesteren.

Now we will move on to five-minute rounds.

Madam Sims.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you very much.

I want to thank David, my colleague across the way, for his presentation. I also want to thank him for keeping it brief, because I think we have a lot of agreement on this legislation.

But I do want to note, and I think all of us are aware of this, that this legislation, or legislation very similar to this, was first introduced by the NDP's Chris Charlton, who did a lot of work on this and is very passionate about this legislation. As we also know, her iteration of the bill included manslaughter as well. I just wanted to put that on the record.

Let me tell you that ending the ability of those who are convicted of murdering their spouse or parent to collect survivor benefits is something that we as New Democrats feel very strongly about and will very, very strongly support. That is why we had legislation calling for this change over three years ago. To us it is completely unacceptable that someone who is convicted of the murder or manslaughter of their spouse can profit in any way from that crime.

It actually doesn't even pass the “nod” test that we have out in our communities. I've actually had an opportunity to talk to a few people in my riding, where we've had a few heinous—I would say that's the only way to describe it—murders of women. In one of them, not only was she murdered but her remains were burned. It took quite a while, and at the end of it all it was the husband. I do remember that being the big topic of conversation, that he was going to now get benefits as a result of that.

The integrity of the Canada Pension Plan is enormously important to Canadians. We all know that. The very thought that someone convicted of spousal homicide, manslaughter, could derive a monetary benefit from such a heinous crime speaks to an issue of fundamental justice. There should be no reward, monetary or otherwise, for committing such crimes, absolutely none.

You as a sitting government have had the opportunity to introduce legislative changes at any time, so it is concerning for me—I have to put this on the record, particularly for those who are directly affected—that the Conservatives did not prioritize this issue and make these changes sooner. You knew you had our support. This isn't one of those where there was going to be a lot of opposition from people. My only regret is that I wish we had dealt with this three years ago, two years ago, so that we weren't having this conversation today.

First, Mr. Van Kesteren, why didn't the Conservatives prioritize this legislation? Why wasn't it included on your legislative agenda?

By the way, I'm not encouraging this, but I know how fond your government has been of omnibus bills that have many, many things in them that you love. Why, after three years from when this bill was first introduced by Chris Charlton, has it taken this long?

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

Thank you to the honourable member for the questions.

Let me address, first of all, her remark that this bill was previously presented by the member for Hamilton Mountain, Chris Charlton. She's absolutely right. That was the case. It was tabled. However, no one has taken upon themselves to make this bill a reality. I chose to do that.

As to the reasoning for the government not taking up this bill, that's a very legitimate question and one she could legitimately bring up with the government. I'm not on record as speaking for the government, but I would suspect that, as is often the case, there is much legislation the government is occupied with.

Secondly, when I read the history of the CPP and OAS, it's a long, excellent history and a process that we're all very proud of as Canadians. However, for some reason we missed this very important point, and I'm glad that I'm able to bring it to the foreground and that we have consensus, that we all agree this is something that has to take place.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Thank you very much.

We'll move on now to Mr. Armstrong, from the government.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First off, I'd like to thank my colleague from Chatham-Kent—Essex for introducing this legislation and a common sense amendment to this piece of legislation. If you don't mind, I do have a couple of questions about the background to the bill.

You mentioned in your previous answer to the opposition member's question background to CPP and OAS and what the evolution of this legislation is. Could you expand a little bit on that and talk about the background of the OAS, and how it came about that you chose this bill and chose to make this the emphasis of your private member's legislation.

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

Thank you for the question. I want to thank the member also for his interest in the history of OAS and GIS and Canada Pension Plan. I too am very passionate about those institutions.

Our forefathers just after the war recognized that there was a huge need to look after those people who had moved out of the workforce. If we look at the history, and we think about what the circumstances were then, we had moved from an agricultural society heavily into manufacturing during the world war. After that time there was a change in culture, where on the farm it was expected and normal that parents were to be looked after by their children. However, that became increasingly difficult after that time.

So the government introduced OAS in 1952. There was a call for more, because originally it became very obvious that it was inadequate and that many people didn't have the opportunity to save for retirement.

In the sixties—I believe it was 1962—the next phase was introduced, and of course that was the CPP. CPP has evolved and has changed. GIS was introduced as the guaranteed income supplement in 1967. We've made a number of other changes—I believe we had some changes in 1987—and correctly noted at the end of the nineties that we had to make some more adjustments because of the demographics. There were more people retiring than entering the workforce—or that it would become the case at some point. We recognized that we had to make some more changes.

At that time the government of the day put into effect some provisions that would ensure that the system would continue. Then, of course, our government recognized that other changes needed to be made, and those changes were made, I believe, in 2009.

The point being is this: we have a system in place that is enviable, and within the world today it ranks among the top. I think we're number two. I don't suggest we need to stop; I think we need to continue to evolve. We need to continue to correct and make things better.

But as I said earlier in response to the last question, there was an omission made. It became evident through cases that there were benefits for those, when they were receiving those benefits, were passed on to their spouse or their children. Of course, the whole essence of this bill is to stop that ever happening in a case where there was a crime committed—murder, first-degree, second. We're hoping we can change that as well to manslaughter, so that would never be the case.

I hope that answers the honourable member's questions.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Just to follow up, you talked about the history of the OAS, the CPP, and the GIS. Would you think that this was overlooked at the time? Maybe people didn't realize, of course, that we have situations in the country where people do murder their spouses, do murder their family members. Do you think it was more an oversight than an actual omission?

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

Thank you for the question.

I think that's the case. We were so focused on the need. We were so focused on the work ahead, which was to prepare and to help those who are retiring, who were moving out of the workforce, it was just, as you said, an oversight. There was the possibility of a tremendous injustice if this weren't corrected.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

We will go on to Mr. Cuzner for five minutes.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Rodger Cuzner]

Thanks very much, Chair. I don't think I'll need all five minutes.

Dave, I want to commend and congratulate you for bringing this forward, but I think it's valid that the question be asked, especially in the wake of Chris Charlton's bringing forward her bill four years ago. I'm sure anybody who was paying attention at that time would have seen it as a bit of a Homer Simpson moment as to how this could continue. I think you probably answered it before, that you don't answer on behalf of the government, but I'm just trying to get my head around why the government wouldn't have seized that opportunity to bring legislation forward.

I'll just throw that out to you.

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

Thanks, Mr. Cuzner.

It's a legitimate question. I want to point out—and I did mention this to the honourable member from the NDP side—that I acknowledged the fact that it was brought up by the member for Hamilton Mountain, in my remarks and in the House and in my closing remarks. It's not something that is hidden. I think this bill is a consensus bill. That's why I was so intrigued and excited about taking it because I wanted to do something that we could collectively agree on. I'm somewhat reluctant to bring this up but I think it is important to say this as well. Although you're right that the government did miss this—and I think that, basically, in the fervour and the excitement of government, it was just a little point that was missed—I might add that it was on the docket so anybody could have grabbed this bill. I would say to that, the member could have taken this bill when her opportunity arose. For whatever reason, she didn't. It was there for anybody else to take and originally, when this bill was first introduced by me, there were some changes made. I'd made some changes, but we're very close to what we're saying.

The answer to the question is that yes, you're right, the government could have taken this but it's also true that anyone could have taken this. If anybody wanted a bill that would go through and have consensus and have the experience of having everybody working together, it was there for the taking.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Rodger Cuzner]

Could you give us some kind of indication as to how many children of murdered parents or spouses would have benefited from receiving those benefits over the last number of years. Are we able to calculate that?

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

I thank the member for the question.

It's a tough one to calculate because of privacy issues. It's not something that will show up statistically. It's something we have to deduce. We do know it has happened. We do know that there are cases—and the honourable member mentioned, of course, the one in B.C.—where this injustice has taken place. Statistically, if I were to put a number on it, possibly two or three a year could benefit from this, and I use those words very carefully. Even if there's one, it's too many.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Rodger Cuzner]

I'm going to miss the clerk too. I'll go ditto in wishing the clerk all the best in all her future endeavours. She's been a tremendous asset to the committee. I know she's going to have a great career ahead of her.

Now we'll go back to Mr. Armstrong for five minutes.