Human Resources Committee on Feb. 1st, 2012

[Gregory Thomas, Federal and Ontario Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Gregory Thomas. I'm the federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. We are Canada's largest and oldest taxpayers advocacy group. We've been around for over 20 years.

We have over 70,000 supporters across Canada. Periodically you may get e-mails or phone calls from some of our supporters on different issues. I can't think of any that come to mind this week, but our supporters are very active.

We appreciate the invitation to discuss Bill C-316. We appreciate the committee taking up this issue, because we believe the EI program is one of those things about Canada that drives just about all Canadians crazy.

I don't know if you have seen the study from the Mowat Centre, the graduate school of public policy at the University of Toronto, entitled Postal Code Lottery, or their more positive piece on EI, entitled Making it Work. We don't endorse some of the big spending ideas in the Mowat Centre's work, but they illustrate how two people working side by side in the same plant and losing their jobs on the same day can actually have vastly different outcomes on their EI, depending on where they drive home to at night. If they happen to be on the wrong side of the tracks or in the wrong postal code area, they get hooped.

Also, regionally, it's very clear that in the last recession the workers in the province of Ontario got sideswiped by the recession and got massively hooped. It was very difficult. Fewer than half of Ontarians managed to benefit from the EI program, whereas in other parts of the country there is huge participation in the EI program, with whole economies operating around how to extract maximum EI from the central government.

This bill seeks to address one very small element. There have been estimates that it's a million bucks. I think it's $186 million just in administering EI, in sending out the cheques and what have you, but this situation deals with the fact that convicted criminals are put in a category with disabled people and lactating mothers and are getting a special benefit that relates to their EI.

To the extent that a program is so complicated, convoluted, and bizarre that it does drive ordinary Canadians crazy, I think it befits Parliament to tackle it and fix it. You have 58 separate EI districts. You have these “pilot programs” that have been going on year in and year out, year after year, and it just speaks of massive unfairness.

If you look at the plight that victims of crime face and at any situation where it seems like the crown, the government, parliamentarians, and the law treat criminals better than victims, you know that these are people who very often are in desperate situations, who have been injured, who have lost a loved one, who are suffering, and who are trying to deal with an injustice. Every injustice brings despair and discouragement to the most vulnerable and the most victimized in society, so we appreciate the intent of the legislation.

We're worried about unintended side effects. Some of these labour agreements that the federal government has had with the provinces in the past bar the door for training to people who are not eligible to receive EI or collecting EI. So if you're not in the EI program, you can't get trained, for example. If all these criminals doing provincial time on short sentences, who are in remand or whatever, lose EI eligibility, does that mean they lose training eligibility, and do you make it trickier and tougher for them to go straight? That's a question you probably need to address.

The other issue is that I think it would be worthwhile for the government to order up a study of just who these characters are who manage to qualify for a year's EI while living sketchy enough lives that they manage to get convicted of something and sent away. By all accounts it's a very rare group of people. Maybe they're fraudsters operating in sketchy occupations and EI is being defrauded, or maybe these are people who are actually struggling to make a straight life for themselves.

In any case, they are such a small population that I think one thing the committee can do is find out more about them. You know, they held down a job and they paid into EI, and they're part of a very small, select part of the prisoner population who did that.

So take away those benefits, restore the fairness, yes, but find out more about who these people are and what makes them so unusual.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you for your presentation and comments.

We're going to go to a number of rounds of questioning.

We'll start with Monsieur Patry.

[Claude Patry, NDP, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome.

Indeed, there is a cost associated with all of this. We live in a society, with rule of law, where we also advocate for social reintegration and rehabilitation. We have some good programs that ensure this happens successfully. I would like to state to my colleagues that, further to the comments we have heard, the programs are offered in penitentiaries, and not just in provincial jails where people are more or less left to their own devices when they're released.

I would like to go back to the 104-week reference period you mentioned. I am going to talk about the Quebec example. In Quebec, a woman whose maternity leave is over and who goes back to work only to find out that her position has been eliminated is not entitled to employment insurance benefits. I would like her to be entitled to this 104-week reference period, because she could requalify and receive benefits. Obviously, this is unfair. Are we going to replace one wrong with another? We need change in this area. That is my opinion.

I would like some clarification. How do you see the money and cash inflows? In your opinion, what is the impact of the amounts associated with this?

[Gregory Thomas]

Bill C-316 is a private member's bill, standing in the name of Mr. Harris, with government support.

My studies on the subject demonstrate that the maternal support system certainly has a better reputation in the developed world than the employment insurance system does. I was unaware that mothers were not entitled to receive benefits, as you stated. I will have to study the issue more closely.

Our organization strongly believes that the entire employment insurance system is in great need of an overhaul and improvement. This will certainly be a priority over the next 18 to 24 months.

As for—

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

I might just caution the witness that of course we're not examining the Employment Insurance Act but dealing specifically with this private member's bill. I know you've strayed into some further concepts that you may have as an organization, but if you could just narrow your comments directly, or at least associate them with the bill as it is, we would appreciate it.

[Gregory Thomas]

Yes.

In practical terms, it sounds as if we're going to save the federal government about a million dollars in employment insurance benefits. As you've mentioned, the provinces are not well equipped to provide training or income support for these individuals when they get out. By the same token,

individuals who are in the correctional system, we must remember that they have the same opinions as the victims. Justice has to be clear, both for the victim and the criminal. There are relatively substantial arguments to eliminate employment insurance benefits for this limited number of cases, but this is a very small category of people.

[Claude Patry, NDP, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Mr. Thomas, you are aware that 80% of female inmates are incarcerated for crimes related to poverty. I do not want to go overboard in taking the side of the prisoners, but I want to ensure that these people, once they get back into society, have some money, find jobs and are supervised. If we take this away from them and they become welfare recipients, we will lose them, in the long run, and that too will be a heavy cost for the state.

I would like to hear your thoughts on the matter.

[Gregory Thomas]

That is true, but we feel that the women are not in the correctional system just because they're poor. There are other causes, notably drug and substance abuse. We also have systemic issues in our prisons. That is a fact. We all know very well, for instance, that the aboriginal population is quite high and that aboriginal women are part of this group.

These people are going to be coming out of jail, and if they aren't getting EI benefits then they'll probably be getting social assistance benefits. It is going to fall to the provinces, and the federal government is going to be involved through transfers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

You're well over your time there, but I'll let you conclude if you could.

Are you done?

Okay. We'll then move to Mr. Daniel.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you witnesses for being here.

This is for Mrs. Rosenfeldt. We've heard from Mr. Harris, who put forward this bill, that there are probably over $400 million worth of services provided to rehabilitate people who have been incarcerated. I was really hoping that you could perhaps explain to us, from your background with victims, what is available for victims in terms of their rehabilitation.

[Sharon Rosenfeldt]

Thank you for asking that.

There is very little. There is nothing, really, for rehabilitation. The way it stands for victims of crime in Canada right now is we take money, the 15% surcharges that are levied on various fines in each province across Canada. That 15% surcharge is federally regulated, but it is left up to the provinces to administer the funds in the manner they see fit.

Right now across Canada there is a disparity of services. If a crime happens to you in Ontario, you may get very good treatment, depending on where you are in Ontario. There is no such thing as rehabilitation, and that's what a number of victims in the last number of years have been talking about.

I'd like to make it clear, though, that victims do not want to take away any type of rehabilitation or rehabilitation funds that are going to individuals who are incarcerated right now, because it is known that there are definitely some people who can be rehabilitated. As a group for victims of crime, we definitely support the rehabilitation model.

However, this is not about rehabilitation. When someone comes out and has to go onto social services, that's a provincial matter, not a federal one.

As far as our organization is concerned, it's clear that there are limitations to what any federal government—I don't care which federal government is in power—can do for the needs of people. In my presentation I mentioned victims. It doesn't have to be victims. It can be other individuals as well. There are all kinds of different scenarios that can come up for which it would be nice to be able to have the benefit of the 104 weeks. However, that's not really realistic. That's not possible, and having said that, it has to come down to limitations.

I do not know the cost, and/or the number of individuals that repealing this portion of the Employment Insurance Act would affect. I would agree it's probably not that many, but I think it's about what we're saying to Canadians. We're comparing law-abiding citizens and the problems they have to people who have chosen to commit a crime. Whether they are male or female really doesn't matter. Not all females who are in prison—trust me—are there because of poverty.

I can go on and on about what victims of crime have to go through on the other side in relation to—I mean, there are bankruptcies.... We can cry a blue streak if we want to, but that doesn't fix the problem.

The reason I'm here today is to say that this is unfair. Our organization did not know about it. Throughout the many years I've been involved—over the past 30 years—there have been many instances of different provisions favouring the criminal that have come to light. This is one of them. We did not know about this, and we've had occasions since I was made aware of this to speak with different people. Canadians are very good people. They're very fair people, but I think any Canadian would say that this provision is unfair.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

To follow up on that, what sort of response did you get from some of the people you spoke to?

[Sharon Rosenfeldt]

The response I get is, “What? Are you kidding? I didn't know about that.”

Not many Canadians know about this.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

They don't know about it.

[Sharon Rosenfeldt]

In particular, if you ask victims, of course, then what you get is, “Well, when this crime happened to me”, and they go on and on.

I know all of that. I don't have time to tell you every situation today, but I can tell you that it is definitely not fair. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out what we as Canadians value, and whether there are limitations that governments have to make. This really is not fair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you, Mr. Daniel. Your time is up.

We will move back to Mr. Patry.

[Claude Patry, NDP, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Madam, I understand, but I find it rather annoying to hear you say the provinces would be inheriting these bills and this problem. I do not agree. When one is a member of society, one makes choices.

It is my opinion that we need to reform this act. Not all people coming out of prison are hardened criminals. In this case we're talking about a sentence of two years less a day, so people who haven't paid their fines or who have stolen food to be able to eat. These are people who have committed minor infractions, not gangsters or members of the mafia. They shouldn't be thrown back into the street the next morning and not have any support. People who are applying for employment insurance have to communicate each week with an employer in order to try to find a job. This is how we can help people to work and reintegrate society, to be a part of society like anyone else, as Canadians.

If we take away this possibility from them simply because they have been unlucky once or twice, we are also taking away yet another opportunity for them to integrate back into society like anyone else. We are not talking about hardened criminals here. These are not the ones we are defending. We are talking about people, men or women, who have simply been unlucky.

You claim that when they come out of prison, they will become welfare recipients and that provinces will have to foot the bill, but I don't agree. We've created a certain society and we want to rehabilitate these people so they have a chance to build a better life. The way that you've explained your point of view is cause for some concern.

Could you please tell me, madam, how you would apply this law.

[Sharon Rosenfeldt]

Well, sir, it's either the provinces or the federal government. It's one of the two; take your pick. You're a federal member of Parliament. It's either one or the other.

No matter what, in a lot of cases the provinces do pay by way of social assistance. I would say that anybody who builds up a number of fines that they have not paid does not deserve to have benefits, such as having the benefit of applying for 104 weeks. I think people have to be accountable, and I think there have been many excuses over many years.

Actually, a member of our board was an offender for many years, and his last sentence was a 10-year sentence. It was a robbery. He said, “There came a time in my life when I had to stop doing what I was doing.” It has been 35 years now and he's been out of prison, but he was in and out. His sentence was 10 years, and Corrections wanted him to take early parole, and he refused. He said, “If 10 years is what my penalty is, then I will serve my full 10 years.” He actually had to fight to stay in prison for 10 years.

There are a lot of people who really can change. We're talking about people who are incarcerated for less than a year. I understand that, but like I said, the money has to come from someplace, and it's either the provincial government or the federal government.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

I'll intervene here for just a second because you say it's the federal government or the provincial government, but what you're failing to recognize is that it is the people who have actually worked—the employee has actually paid into this pot. It is federal money.

What you're saying to the provinces is that you will have to take money from a different pot to help this guy go find a job or whatever. That, to me, is wrong. It is the employee's money, and that's why the federal government has it there. It's not our taxpayers' money; it is the employee's money.

[Sharon Rosenfeldt]

Maybe what we have to do is start giving more people better benefits—

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

I think I'll agree with you there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Let her finish.

[Sharon Rosenfeldt]

—such as 104 weeks, rather than criminals. That's the decision that this committee has to make.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Just on that note—because I've worked for probation and parole services for many years—there are people who turn their lives around. If they didn't pay their fines, often it's because of the fact that they were poor and couldn't do it. They had maybe a very low income.

The other piece that is very important here is that.... When I sat on the health committee, over and over again we heard that people need better benefits when they get sick or when they have caregivers. I think that's where the focus should be, and not on the very small percentage that this legislative change will actually impact.

I really sympathize with victims. Like I said, I worked in probation and parole for 13 years. I think what we need to do is, instead of saying this is all about the criminals, we have to realize that if we want the criminals to get rehabilitated, they need to access to their dollars.

[Sharon Rosenfeldt]

I think it's all about the criminal because that is what is stated in the actual act. That is what we are here today to talk about. It isn't just about everything about the criminal; I understand that there a lot of good things happening in relation to criminals and that.

But that is why we are here, and I don't feel you should chastise me because I'm talking about criminals. That is what this piece is about—repealing it.