Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Harris, I understand it is unfair. However, I would like us to understand that there is a difference between these two things. As you know, hardened criminals have sentences that are longer than two years less a day. Those people will never be entitled to this and will never be able to claim the 104 weeks of benefits. It only applies to those serving a sentence of two years less a day.
Mr. Harris, I would like you to understand one thing through my comments and my question. The people that end up in jail are not necessarily hardened criminals. Some of them may have failed to pay their speeding tickets. Because they have no money to pay for the tickets, they spend time in jail; it could be two or three months. You have to think about those people.
Individuals serving a sentence of two years less a day are not all hardened criminals. There are many single mothers who are jailed for shoplifting. Often, they steal food. We need to be careful.
The system was established in 1959 by Progressive Conservatives. Why do away with it? Do we not want to maintain some avenue for rehabilitation?
If people fail to pay their tickets and get out of jail after three months, they may file an EI claim to get back on their feet. If you take that away from them, these people will only have social assistance benefits. Having done jail time does not look good on a CV, even if a person was incarcerated for not having paid a ticket or for having shoplifted.
I would like to know what the government gets out of this. What is the percentage? How much money is involved? How much will you save? That is what I would like to know.