Evidence of meeting #3 for Subcommittee on Private Members' Business in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clearly.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Committee Researcher
Bill C-591 amends the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act to prohibit the payment of a pension benefit or allowance to an individual who has been convicted of first or second degree murder of the contributor or pensioner.
The bill does not concern a question that is outside federal jurisdiction. It does not clearly violate the Constitution Act. It does not concern a question that is substantially the same as one already voted on by the House of Commons. It does not concern a question that is currently on the order paper or notice paper.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
Sorry. I may be out of order. I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who are convicted of certain crimes, but would there not be a constitutional challenge to this? It's like saying, “Sorry, Frank, you've been convicted of something so your RRSP is gone. It's all gone. We're taking it all away from you.” I would be challenging this constitutionally. I can't imagine that you haven't looked at that issue.
Analyst, Library of Parliament
It would be subject to a charter challenge for some element of discrimination or something like that.
Analyst, Library of Parliament
Exactly, and saying, “If I've paid into something, what right is there based on my status that I should not get it back”, or something like that.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
And their families rely on it. I would be a family member who would challenge it: so my husband or my wife did something wrong and I'm now disqualified from having access to the money that he might owe me through spousal or child support?
There are so many constitutional angles here. I'm sorry, I don't get this one.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
With all due respect, I think the intent of the bill is if you murder your wife, then you don't get the pension benefits.
Analyst, Library of Parliament
I think the challenge might be again what the basic parameters are here versus what would happen in the House on debate or if the bill became law, that here, while it seems like there would be constitutional issues, could it be made constitutional, could it be deemed as being justified in some way if it's more clearly delineated, or something like that, the standard, it seems here at this stage, is that it has to be such a clear violation of jurisdiction, so clearly, say, for example, within provincial jurisdiction or so clearly on its face—
Analyst, Library of Parliament
—a violation of the charter, saying all people with certain hair colour aren't allowed to do this for instance, that you wouldn't even have to ask anybody and that there could definitely not be any way to save it, so to speak. Is that the—
Committee Researcher
Yes. But the committee may feel that.... Clearly the criteria are not always easy to determine, but the committee can decide otherwise if—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
I think if you look at the bill, it's not entitled to receive the survivor's benefit. If you kill somebody you don't get the benefit as a survivor.
Conservative
Brad Butt Conservative Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
You kill your wife, you can't have her pension. That's what this would prohibit, I assume. If you kill your wife, you don't get the survivor benefits, CPP or whatever.
Conservative
Conservative
Committee Researcher
Motion M-497 calls on the government to implement an energy efficiency program to combat climate change, lower the energy bills of Canadians, create jobs, and stimulate the economy.
The motion does not concern a question that is outside federal jurisdiction. It does not clearly violate the Constitution Act. It does not concern a question that is substantially the same as ones already voted on by the House of Commons. It does not concern a question that is currently on the order paper or notice paper as an item of government business.
Liberal
Committee Researcher
Bill C-247 requires the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development to establish Service Canada as the single point of contact for federal government for all matters relating to the death of a Canadian citizen or a Canadian resident.
The bill does not concern a question that is outside federal jurisdiction. It does not clearly violate the Constitution Act. It does not concern a question that is substantially the same as one already voted on by the House of Commons. It does not concern a question that is currently on the order paper or notice paper.