Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 32 - Evidence - April 22, 2015
OTTAWA, Wednesday, April 22, 2015
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 4:38 p.m. to study Bill C-247, Main Point of Contact with the Government of Canada in case of Death Act, and Bill C-591, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act (pension and benefits).
Senator Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
[English]
I am Kelvin Ogilvie from Nova Scotia, and I'm going to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Eggleton: Art Eggleton, senator from Toronto and deputy chair of the committee.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: Maria Chaput from Manitoba.
[English]
Senator Frum: Linda Frum, Ontario.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Nancy Ruth, Ontario.
Senator Wallace: John Wallace, New Brunswick.
Senator Enverga: Tobias Enverga, Ontario.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Carolyn Stewart Olsen, New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Demers: Jacques Demers from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman, Montreal, Quebec.
The Chair: Thank you very much, colleagues. Our agenda today calls for us to consider whether we wish to move to clause-by-clause consideration of two bills.
The first one that I will put before you is clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-247, An Act to provide that the Department of Employment and Social Development is the main point of contact with the Government of Canada in respect of the death of a Canadian citizen or resident.
I need to put the question to you in the following manner: Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-247?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: That's agreed.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the short title in clause 1 stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: That's carried.
Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: That's carried.
Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: That's carried.
Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: That's carried.
Shall the preamble carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: That's carried.
Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: That's carried.
Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: That's carried.
Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Hearing none, the committee will not append observations to the report.
Is it agreed that I report this bill to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: That's agreed. Thank you very much.
Colleagues, tomorrow I will be tabling the result of our decision today, and Senator Wallace will, when the Speaker asks, "When shall this bill be considered," deal with the script and will read that into the record.
Senator Wallace, the clerk will provide you with the script, even though I know you are quite familiar with it.
That takes us to the second item on our agenda, which is clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-591, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act (pension and benefits).
Senator Eggleton: I have a few comments I want to make generally on it. I'm happy to go to clause by clause. I could do it now, or I could do it after.
The Chair: Your preference.
Senator Eggleton: Why don't I do it now, just before you get into that?
The Chair: Colleagues, before we start, Senator Eggleton has some remarks to make with regard to this bill.
Senator Eggleton: The general intent, I think —
The Chair: Let me interrupt. The reason that Senator Wallace was looking at me as if I had lost a marble is because I had, and, in fact, I put the marble in the wrong box.
I apologize, Senator Demers. It will be you who will do the thing on that particular bill. The documents will come to you from the clerk, and we can touch base tomorrow at the beginning of the Senate.
Senator Demers: Thanks, sir. I know you're a Montreal Canadiens fan. They're winning 3-0; don't panic, sir.
The Chair: Oh, I wasn't panicking.
I apologize, Senator Wallace.
Senator Wallace: I can deal with that.
Senator Eggleton: I just want to make a few comments about this. I think we all support the intent of the bill. We don't believe that people should get away with benefiting from their crime in terms of the money that would be forthcoming from the estate of the person they committed the crime against. We all agree with that.
It's also something that has in fact been ingrained in our law for a long period of time and happens ex turpi causa. I won't go through the whole Latin phrase; I don't remember it all. In any event, one could wonder why we would even need to do this at this point in time, but I guess the proponent of it wants to give it greater certainty and points out that there are some people who would qualify for the survivor benefits. We should perhaps make sure we're shutting that down.
The department, when it was here — Employment and Social Development — indicated that there is probably only one or two of these a year, so it's not a very significant number. However, again, he wanted to proceed with this for greater certainty.
The only two things that were raised in our discussion about this were, one, the fact that it expanded to manslaughter because the proponent of the bill had not originally proposed that. It was made in an amendment at the House of Commons committee. He, in fact, is noted as having expressed some concern about that. However, they then seem to have rectified that situation by saying that where there are suspended sentences on a manslaughter case, it wouldn't apply, because there are going to be circumstances. For example, a woman who has been subject to abuse ends up killing her partner, but the circumstances, when taken into consideration by the court, may well lead to manslaughter and a suspended sentence, or it could be something that's one or two years, which is under the five-year severe criminal level of penalty. But, as I said, the provision for the suspended sentence appears to cover those kinds of circumstances.
But also, even if you think of that same case, if you look at the retroactivity provisions here, they could be going a little bit too far on that. I generally don't like retroactive legislation, but there could be circumstances that may warrant that not being done.
So I'm going to support it. I have a bit of mixed feelings about it, as I've just expressed. But I am going to vote against, on division, subclause 4, which is the retroactive subclause of the bill.
The Chair: Thank you.
Are there any other comments?
I will put the following question to you: Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-591?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: That's agreed.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Thank you.
Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Eggleton: I guess clause 1 includes subclause (4). I'm just saying nay to subclause (4).
The Chair: Clause 1 is to be carried, on division. Is that your wish?
Senator Eggleton: I don't have any problem with the rest of the clause; it's just subclause (4).
The Chair: But how do you wish the minutes to show it? Carried, on division?
Senator Eggleton: Just show that clause 1(4) was on division.
The Chair: Subclause 1(4), exactly. It is understood by the committee?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: That's carried.
Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report? Hearing none, the answer is no.
Is it agreed that I report this bill to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: That's agreed.
Now, Senator Wallace, I won't repeat it since I know you have total recall, but the —
Senator Wallace: I will do what you wished me to do with the other bill.
The Chair: Not what you thought you might like to do with it.
Senator Wallace: No. Just because you ask, I'll do it.
The Chair: The script will come to you from the clerk.
Senator Wallace: Great; thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, is there any other business to be discussed? Hearing none, I declare the meeting adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)