House of Commons Hansard #150 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was safety.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Survivors of thalidomideBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

In my opinion, the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Opposition Motion—Survivors of thalidomideBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

NDP

Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is requesting that the division be deferred until Monday, December 1, 2014, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

Opposition Motion—Survivors of thalidomideBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Accordingly, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

Opposition Motion—Survivors of thalidomideBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it you will find unanimous consent to see the clock as 5:30.

Opposition Motion—Survivors of thalidomideBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Is that agreed?

Opposition Motion—Survivors of thalidomideBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—Survivors of thalidomideBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's order paper.

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.

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

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

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

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON

moved that the bill be concurred in.

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

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

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

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

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

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

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

I declare the motion carried.

When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?

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

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

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

5:15 p.m.

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.

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

5:20 p.m.

NDP

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to clarify two things.

First, he spoke about the provisions of the bill being applied retroactively. People who have previously committed murder, for example, would have to repay the survivor benefits they received. As of what year will this retroactive measure apply?

Second, he said that about 30 people would be affected, but according to the statistics I have here, approximately 81 women and 13 men are murdered every year in Canada.

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

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON

Mr. Speaker, in her first question, the member asked when this retroactive part of the bill would take place. It would take place when the bill becomes law and would apply to those who have been receiving benefits. So anyone in prison today who has been receiving benefits, for whatever period of time it has been, would have to pay the government back.

The other question was with respect to the difference in the percentages of males versus females. If I understand her question correctly, she is absolutely correct that in most cases there would be a larger percentage of males than females.

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

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Mr. Speaker, as has been said, all parties support the bill, including the Liberal Party. We are certainly in favour of it.

Just to follow-up the last question regarding retroactivity, if someone is already in prison for having murdered his wife, his future benefits would be taken away, but is the member also saying that after having received those benefits for, let us say, 10 years, he will be obliged to repay that money? What if he does not have the money? How would that work?

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

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON

Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is, yes, he would have to repay that money right back to the start.

There have been cases of hardship, as I know the hon. member is aware, which the government would of course recognize and work with. However, any accumulated money that is available would be paid back to the government.

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

5:25 p.m.

NDP

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Liberal member for following up on that question. I would like to ask him part of the question again.

I have a friend whose father murdered her mother with a rifle in 1986 or 1987. I would therefore like to know as of what year the retroactive measures will apply. Will they go back as far as the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s?

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

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON

Mr. Speaker, yes, it would. It is a terrible, tragic situation she cited. I do not know the particulars, but all those who have been receiving benefits would be obligated by law to repay those benefits. As I said in my opening remarks, there will be some, but fortunately not many, in this situation. However, the law would be retroactive.

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

5:25 p.m.

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

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Mr. Speaker, this has been a remarkable show of co-operation, which is relatively rare in the House.

I understand that all parties are in total agreement that this is a good bill, and we wish to pass it. As a consequence, I do not think I have to wax too long on something on which we all agree.

However, I also like the amendment that manslaughter would be included except in cases where the person does not go to jail, which is relatively rare. I think that is a good liberal compromise, shall we say?

Sometimes when something so self-evident is presented, one wonders why we had not done it decades ago, because for decades in this country, we have been rewarding people who kill their wife or husband by giving them old age security. One wonders why some previous Liberal or Conservative government did not fix that many years ago. Even an NDP MP could have presented a private member's bill. It did not happen, but in any event, it is happening now and I think all of us are pleased with that.

I think that is really all that one has to say.

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

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank both hon. members for their kinds words and for their succinct understanding of how we have all worked collectively. I applaud them for mentioning that.

As the member for Markham—Unionville noted so well, we can all take credit and we can all take some of the blame. However, today we are all here together and we are going to correct this problem.

As was noted, it is a rare occurrence in this House. Oftentimes, we seem to battle each other. However, every one of us recognizes that this is something that must end. I am very pleased to have been able to present this bill, and I am also very pleased to have been able to work with this House in such a cordial manner to come to an agreement.

I hope that this bill will now move quickly through the Senate and quickly become law, so that we can rectify something that was so wrong and turn it into something that is so right.

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

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

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