Dave Van Kesteren

[Julian Belanger, September 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, after my election in 2006, the first person to join my team was Julian Belanger. It was not really a surprise that I asked him to come on board. He was smart, tech-savvy, and bilingual, and had a great grasp of current affairs and politics. In January 2006, Julian opened the Chatham office and ran it in a pleasant and professional manner.

People loved Julian. There is no telling how many he helped; it could be in the thousands. They would also come in just to visit, and even if the issue was not federal, Julian always took the time to help. His memory was profound and his dedication to the job was exemplary. Everyone liked Julian.

On Monday, September 8, 2014, we were shocked to hear of his passing.

To his wife Andrea and his three children Zara, Quincy, and Daphne, his parents Pat and Jean-Maurice, and to the rest of his family, we offer our most sincere sympathy and regrets.

We hold on to his memory, and we will always remember our extraordinary and gifted friend.

[Canada Pension Plan, June 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to thank the Liberal Party for its support of the bill, but the member should focus on the bill itself. The current subject that he is debating is really not a part of the bill. I would ask the member to focus on the important dialogue of discussing the bill.

[Canada Pension Plan, June 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member across the way for keeping this discussion on the bill. I recognize the temptation. I appreciate his question. It is a good question.

Due to privacy laws, the exact number is impossible to know. We have suggested, and I have suggested in my bill, that we put a program in place where the minister can inform the public where there are cases that this is taking place. It would be retroactive, in which cases they would then cease.

As to the number, the member is right, as I stated in my speech, I spoke about approximately 30 people who could be affected. It would not apply to all of those. However, as to the number who would cease to receive the benefit, if the minister is notified, it would be all of them.

[Canada Pension Plan, June 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the question of manslaughter is indeed an area that has been discussed. I understand it was presented in a similar bill by the member for Hamilton Mountain.

I feel that the legislation would have more strength if we restrict it to first and second degree murder. As I stated in my speech, the courts have said that in the cases of manslaughter, this would possibly cause problems and could be thrown out of court. What I am trying to do today is to present a bill that is solid, that would be able to make passage.

However, as the member said, the bill will go before committee, and these are the things that we need to discuss further.

I thank the member for his statements. I thank him for his kind words. I look forward to the passage of the bill. I am also very thankful to hear that the members opposite also support this as something that needs to be done.

[Canada Pension Plan, June 9th, 2014]

moved 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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present my first private member's bill, Bill C-591, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act.

It is an honour to have the opportunity as a member of Parliament, representing my constituents of Chatham-Kent—Essex, to make a positive impact on this great country, helping to make it a better place for us and our children. Bill C-591 is such an attempt. This bill would close a long-standing loophole that enables someone in Canada today, convicted of killing their spouse or their parent, from receiving their victim's CPP benefit or CPP orphan benefit.

This bill is consistent with a long-standing common law principle, known as ex turpi causa, that criminals should not benefit from their crimes. This bill would restore fairness to the victims and their families by ensuring that those convicted of first- and second-degree murder would not be entitled to their victims' benefits.

The bill would apply to those convicted of first- and second-degree murder, which by definition is murder involving deliberate acts with intent to kill. The bill would not include those charged with manslaughter, since manslaughter, by definition, is death resulting from unintentional actions, such as accidents, provocation, or history of abuse. I will address this issue later in my speech.

A conviction of first- and second-degree murder must be within the meaning of section 231 of the Criminal Code of Canada or its equivalent in a foreign country, provided that the minister is satisfied that the procedures were fair and unbiased.

One cannot imagine the horror of having a loved one murdered, yet every year in Canada we read of tragic cases where someone loses their life by an act of murder. Sadly, this is done, at times, at the hands of a family member.

In an article posted in The Sun on Saturday, December 21, 2013, the headline reads, “Murder cases close to home — 2013 sees deadly rise in family related slayings in Calgary”.

Of the tragedy in our first nations communities faced by our aboriginal women, the Native Women's Association of Canada reports in their fact sheet of missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls that of the murder cases in the NWAC's database where someone has been charged, 23% are committed by a current or former partner of the victim.

John F. Conway writes in The Canadian Family in Crisis, fifth edition, “About 40% of homicides in Canada involve victims and suspects in a domestic relationship...”

These are shocking statistics. I am not suggesting that all of these tragic events would be affected by my bill but what I am saying is, today, in Canada, approximately 30 cases a year involving murder of a spouse, common-law partner, or child could be affected by this legislation.

How terrible a thing to suffer the horror of family violence, how much more the horror of murder, but to have the added pain of witnessing someone profit from their crime, a clear violation to the long-standing common law principle of ex turpi causa, by way of collecting the victim's survivor benefit, is not fair to the families of the murder victim, and it is an injustice that cannot be allowed to happen.

I will first define who would not be eligible by providing an explanation of the CPP death benefit package, followed by the procedure to be put in place, the role of the minister, consideration of appeals, burial payments, explanation of first- and second-degree murder, and then a wrap-up.

First, I will talk about those to whom the bill is targeted by way of examination of CPP death benefits and OAS survivor benefits.

The Canadian Pension Plan is a social insurance plan that provides contributors and their families with a modest income replacement upon retirement, disability, or death of a contributor. It is this last provision, death of a contributor that is the essence of Bill C-591. At the death of CPP recipient, the survivors are eligible for these benefits: the monthly survivor pension paid to the spouse or common-law partner; the monthly orphan's benefit for dependent children; and a one-time lump sum death benefit.

As well, under the old age security program, the annual allowance for survivors, ALWS, is provided to low-income survivors aged 60-64 who meet the residence requirements and have not entered a new relationship.

These are the benefits that are provided through the Canada pension plan and old age security to the survivor of someone who is receiving CPP or contributing to CPP upon death.

The bill would make changes to the act that defines these benefits so that no one who has been convicted of first- or second-degree murder and who would normally be entitled to receive the survivor benefits would ever collect the victim's pension or survivor benefits.

Allow me to define the role of the minister. When the minister is informed and satisfied than an individual has been convicted of first- or second-degree murder, the payment would immediately cease. In cases of death benefits paid, when CPP monthly survivor pension, monthly orphan benefit, or one-time lump sum, the individual convicted would be determined never to have been eligible for the benefit and as such it would be considered an overpayment. All or any CPP and/or OAS benefit payment would be deemed repayable.

However, what if the disentitled individual were found innocent upon repeal or is subject to a new trial? If the disentitled individual appealed the conviction or were granted a new trial, the decision to cancel the benefit as a result of the original conviction would remain in effect pending the final outcome of the judicial process. If the individual were subsequently convicted of a lesser crime or acquitted, the benefit would be reinstated upon the department being notified. The individual would be entitled to payments dating back to the first day of eligibility.

The CPP would not be amended for orphans under the age of 18. In Canada, children under age 18 are considered minors and as such those charged with care and custody of a minor would receive the CPP orphan's benefit.

However, the orphan's benefit that normally is paid directly to someone between the ages of 18 and 25 who retain their eligibility by attending school would not be available to a child who has been convicted of murdering a parent when he or she turns 18. This approach recognizes the guardian's expenses undertaken to care for the child and the fact that the guardian, in some cases the surviving spouse, has not committed the crime.

Let me now address the death benefit. As stated, the CPP would be amended to ensure that any individual convicted of murdering his or her spouse would not be eligible to collect the CPP death benefit. However, the death benefit would continue to be paid to the estate of the deceased to help with the funeral costs or if there were no estate, the person who paid for the funeral costs might be eligible to receive the costs.

While the legislation would not permit the death benefit to go to the murderer, even if she or he paid these expenses, it is important to note that the funeral expenses would already have been paid by the time the person was convicted of murder. If the murderer received the death benefit before being convicted, he or she would lose eligibility for the death benefit and would have to reimburse the department at that point.

Next, let me explain why the bill would only apply to first- and second-degree murder. As stated earlier, the amendments made by Bill C-591 are based on a common-law principle that individuals should not benefit from their crimes. This principle of ex turpi causa clearly applies to conviction of first- and second-degree murder. The principle does not apply as clearly or uniformly to cases of manslaughter and other offences since they do not necessarily involve the intent to kill and can involve abuse, provocation, or accident. 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.

Further to the role of the minister, it would be impossible for the minister to proactively identify murderers nor would it be feasible to implement a tracking system due to major obstacles such as provincial and territorial privacy laws. Creating the legal obligation for the minister to proactively detect who is subject to this provision would set an obligation upon the minister that is impossible to fulfill.

Therefore, there must be engagement with victims organizations to increase awareness of these amendments. This can be done by calling the department, by writing, or by visiting a Service Canada office. The department can then verify ineligibility due to murder by first and second degree through a copy of an official document confirming the conviction.

As stated, it is estimated that approximately 30 individuals per year would be affected by this legislative amendment. Of those, roughly half would apply for CPP survivors' benefits, roughly one-third would be OAS allowance recipients, and less than 10% would relate to CPP orphan benefits.

Familial homicides are not all committed by spouses, children, or common-law partners, and not all cases are charged with murder, convicted, nor have all victims sufficiently contributed to the CPP or possible recipients of the allowance for survivors.

The intent of the legislation would not be to punish families. The focus would be on preventing murderers from benefiting from their crimes. An individual convicted of murdering his or her spouse would be ineligible for survivor pension. However, if there are children, the orphans' benefit would still be applied.

The proposed approach is feasible, cost-effective, and consistent with privacy laws. It respects areas of provincial and territorial jurisdiction, ensuring that the minister would be able to fulfill obligations.

In closing, nothing can take away the pain and suffering experienced by the survivors of a murder victim. No law can ever bring back those whose lives have been taken by such a cruel act of violence.

However, this bill would restore fairness to victims and their families. This bill would ensure that those convicted of first and second degree murder would not be entitled to their victims' benefits. None of us wants to see those who suffer the loss of a loved one suffer the added insult of seeing the one responsible for their death by first or second degree murder collecting the victim's benefits as well.

I hope that the bill is supported by all members of this House and sees swift passage after a thorough debate.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, June 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised, with all the talk we have had this morning, there has been no talk about jobs. It is a fact that Canada has had the strongest job record of the G7. In fact, a million jobs have been created.

People in my riding of Chatham-Kent—Essex are concerned about well-paying jobs in the private sector.

Could parliamentary, I mean the Minister of State for Finance please inform the House how Bill C-31 would affect jobs and create quality jobs for my constituents and other Canadians as well?

[Highbury Canco Corporation, May 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, on May 20 I received news that the H.J. Heinz Company had completed a business deal with the Highbury Canco Corporation to purchase the Heinz Company facility in Leamington.

It only makes sense to have a co-packer in Canada, as Leamington is the tomato capital of Canada and our American counterparts are looking to the Canadian market for tomato juice.

Effective June 27, Highbury Canco will take over all aspects of the operation at the Leamington factory and will continue to manufacture some of Canada's favourite products, including Heinz Tomato juice, Heinz beans and Heinz canned pastas.

Highbury Canco will keep the Leamington plant globally competitive and also looks to build the business by seeking out new opportunities to create or pack new products. Already, approximately 10 farmers have signed on to grow tomatoes for Highbury Canco, and it plans to hire 250 employees before resuming operations in June.

I take this opportunity to congratulate Highbury Canco and wish it every success in this endeavour. It is great for Canada and it is great for Leamington.

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, I wonder if I could possibly give the minister a break and switch over to the Minister of State for Finance.

There has been a lot of talk about the increase of premiums on CPP. I wonder if he could tell the House why that is a bad idea and why it is something that businesses cannot afford at this time.

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, we have heard today about our government's outstanding record of achievement with respect to creating jobs and economic growth. I would like to dedicate my time in exploring in more detail how we are building on these results by helping to connect Canadians with available jobs.

Despite our excellent employment performance, our government is constantly looking for ways to make it better. We find it unacceptable that many Canadians are still out of work, or underutilized, at a time when skills and labour shortages are emerging in certain sectors and regions.

As long as there are Canadians looking for work, we as a government cannot sit on our laurels and must take action. Indeed, many employers agree with us and continue to identify the shortage of skilled labour as an impediment to growth. In fact, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce list skills and shortages as the number one barrier to Canada's competitiveness.

Faced with this challenge, we have taken effective and concrete action to support the development of a skilled, mobile and productive workforce.

In the last fiscal year, 2013-14 alone, our government has transferred $2.7 billion to support labour market programming with $1.95 billion to provinces and territories, through labour market development agreements; $500 million to provinces and territories through labour market agreements included in budget 2007; and $218 million to provinces through labour market agreements for persons with disabilities.

What is more, we are investing over $10 billion annually in support of post-secondary education, which includes providing students with financial assistance through Canada student loans and Canada student grants, and specific programming targeted to first nations and Inuit students.

Since 2006, our Conservative government has provided support for skills training for youth through the youth employment strategy, with investments of over $340 million per year.

On the other end of the spectrum, our government has also taken action to support the labour market participation of older Canadians who wish to remain in the workforce. Budget 2011 extended the targeted initiative for older workers, a federal-provincial-territorial employment programs, providing assistance and offering activities to provide the employability of unemployed workers aged 55 and over.

Finally, we are supporting opportunities for aboriginal peoples through annual investments of $438 million, including support for post-secondary education, as well as project-specific training that responds to the demands of the Canadian labour market.

These are all important measures, but the real game change in our efforts to connect Canadians with available jobs has to be the introduction of a Canada jobs grant. By ensuring that federal funding responds to the higher needs of employers and by giving them the opportunity to participate meaningfully as partners in skills training, this initiative is transforming skills training in Canada.

The Canada jobs grant could provide up to $15,000 per person for training costs, including tuition and training material, which include up to $10,000 in federal contribution with employers contributing on average one-third of the cost of the training.

After consulting extensively with employers and provinces on the design of the grant, Canadians will be able to take advantage of it by July 1, offering them real support toward improved employment and earning prospects.

As important as this milestone is, economic action plan 2014 went one step further by creating the Canada apprentice loan to help registered apprentices with the costs of their training. It will do so by expanding the Canada student loans program to provide apprentices registered in Red Seal trades with access to over $100 million in interest-free loans each year.

Economic action plant 2014 also introduces the flexibility and innovation in the apprenticeship technical training pilot project to expand the use of innovation approaches to apprentice technical training.

With this initiative, we are continuing to work with provinces and territories to harmonize apprenticeship systems and reduce barriers to certification in the skilled trades, so apprentices can more easily work and train where the jobs are.

To further support apprentices, economic action plan 2014 takes steps to increase awareness of the existing financial supports available to apprentices through the employment insurance program while they are technical training.

It also announced that our Conservative government would improve the youth employment strategy to align it with evolving realities of the job market, and to ensure federal investments in youth employment would provide young Canadians with real life work experience in high-demand fields, such as science, technology, engineering, mathematics and the skilled trades.

Although Canada boasts high levels of post-secondary achievement, the transition to a first job can be challenging. This is why economic action plan 2014 also dedicates $40 million toward the supporting of up to 3,000 apprenticeships across the country in these high-demand fields.

The Prime Minister Harper recently announced the details of the initiative at Fanshawe College, a great institute near my riding of Chatham-Kent—Essex. Lasting between 6 and 12 months, these internships will give the participants the opportunity to gain the real life work experience and skills necessary to succeed in the workplace now and in the future.

To facilitate the linkages between the small and medium-sized employers and youth, we are reallocating $15 million annually within the youth employment strategy to support up to 1,000 full-time internships for recent post-secondary graduates and small and medium-sized enterprises.

Last but not least, economic action plan 2014 will invest $11.8 million over two years and $3.3 million per year ongoing to launch an enhanced job matching service to ensure Canadians are given the first chance at available jobs that match their skills in the local area.

The enhanced job match service will provide job seekers with modern and reliable tools to find jobs that match their skills and provide employers with better tools to look for qualified Canadians. Through a secure authenticated process, registered job seekers and employers will be automatically matched on the basis of skills, knowledge and experience.

Before I conclude, I would like to address one issue that is a concern to our government and all Canadians, and that is the abuse of the temporary foreign worker program. This is something we cannot tolerate, and any allegations of abuse of the program will be vigorously investigated.

Our message to employers is clear and unequivocal: Canadians must always be first in line for available jobs. As we announced in economic action plan 2014, our government will continue to pursue significant reforms to the temporary foreign worker program to ensure that employers make greater efforts to recruit and train Canadians, and that it is only used as a last and limited resort when Canadians are not available.

These are just some of the central initiatives that will continue to drive our government's jobs and growth agenda, and connect Canadians with available jobs.

I am proud of this record, and would like to thank the hon. members for offering the opportunity to discuss it today. By helping Canadians acquire the skills that will get them hired or help them get better jobs, we are investing directly and effectively in our country's greatest asset, our people. The return on this investment is not just helping individuals, but also supporting their families, communities and our whole community.

Would the Minister of Finance take some time to tell the House what concrete action the government is taking to help connect Canadians with available jobs?

[Business of Supply, May 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it has to be understood that this is a request that the service provider can reject.

I want to mention one thing. I have served in the House for eight years, and I think in the first four years we struggled with this issue with PIPEDA. During the course of evaluating PIPEDA, it was obvious that there had to be clarification. Bill S-4 basically looks after those flaws within PIPEDA that make it impossible for police to make the request, and not only for police, but the clarity in the law so that subscribers know whether or not they are allowed to give it. This clears the air in a lot of those areas that were so important to fix.