Thanks for the question.
First of all, certainly I'm not suggesting that this bill would apply to hardened criminals, as you put it, who are incarcerated for a longer period of time. You talk about someone who receives a sentence of two years less a day, which would in some sense make them eligible for this preferred treatment. The fact is that they wouldn't have gone to jail and be in jail if they hadn't broken the law. It's all about choices.
If you choose to live a law-abiding life, work hard, contribute to society, and raise your family and your kids and give them good advice, you don't have to worry about things like this. But if you make a choice that you want to break the law, whether it's a small break or a bigger break, you've made a choice. The EI Act right now gives preferential treatment to people who make a choice to break the law and who then receive a prison sentence. That's simply not fair, because those special privileges are not available to someone who chooses not to break the law.
As far as how much money the bill will save is concerned, this bill wasn't started by me because of money. I don't know how much: $3 million, $4 million, or $5 million...it's not earth shattering. It's about fairness. That's the genesis of the bill.