Evidence of meeting #19 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was jail.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
I want to apologize if she thinks I'm chastising her. It's just that I'm very passionate about this.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
All right. We understand you're both passionate, and that's good, but Ms. Hughes' time is up.
Did you conclude your answer? If you have a little more to add, I'll give you more time.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
You're fine? Good.
Thank you very much.
We'll now go to Mr. Devinder Shory.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Devinder Shory Conservative Calgary Northeast, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, witnesses, for coming out this afternoon.
My question is also for Ms. Rosenfeldt. Sometimes it's disappointing to hear the opposition say, on the one hand, we have sympathy for the victim, and then they talk about preferential treatment for offenders. Under the current legislation, convicted felons have greater access to employment insurance benefits than law-abiding citizens do. As I understand it, this bill will ensure that criminals are not given preferential treatment over hard-working Canadian families who work hard and play by the rules.
First of all, Ms. Rosenfeldt, I'd like to thank you very much for the fantastic work you have been doing for the victims of crime in this country. Too often it is the victims who need a voice in our justice system, and they need good people like you to speak up on their behalf. I think this bill, Bill C-316, in a way is doing just that: speaking up for the victims. Victims of crime often go through a difficult court process, which often re-victimizes them. They may have to take time off from work for emotional or other reasons. Perhaps their family members also have to take some time off work to support them.
Now, do you think it is a form of re-victimization for these victims to know that their attackers have wider access to the resources of this country in the form of EI than they do, and that the criminals who wrecked their lives can be eligible to collect EI despite a prison sentence of up to two years or so?
5:05 p.m.
President, Victims of Violence
Yes, I do. I do believe it is a slam against not only victims but other individuals who have all kinds of problems. I could go into my own set of circumstances when my husband was ill, but I'm not going to do that here today.
We have to make a choice. As I said, there are limitations in what governments can provide. I really don't want to get into whether it's more beneficial to provide them for the victim than for the offender. I guess what I would like to say is that there's a difference between a law-abiding citizen, whether a victim or not, and a criminal. It's clear that there is some benefit here for a person convicted of a crime in this country, and that is unfair.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Devinder Shory Conservative Calgary Northeast, AB
I agree with that.
Let me follow up on what my opposition member was saying. They were talking about the transfer of costs to the provinces, and there are tens of millions of dollars in rehabilitation funds. This will actually increase the uptake of rehabilitation, as individuals will be directed into these programs as opposed to relying on EI or on assistance.
I agree with you on one point, that...because this is a surprise for me also. I did not know that we had this provision in the EI program. When I talk to my constituents, everybody says to me, “You must be kidding.”
So if we tell our constituents, when we go back, that we were unable to remove this clause from the program, what do you think the reaction will be?
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
President, Victims of Violence
I'm not too sure how to project the future, but I don't think the Canadian public will take it lightly. I don't see how they can. It just doesn't make sense.
Most people don't know about it anyway. You can be rest assured, though, that if it isn't passed, we have ways and means as victims organizations. As I said, there are lots of victims services now across Canada, and I think they would be very, very upset to learn that this piece of legislation is really in favour of a person who has knowingly committed a crime—“knowingly” meaning whether they can pay a fine or not.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
Do you have a concluding remark? You're certainly welcome to make it.
5:10 p.m.
President, Victims of Violence
I was just going to say that I'm retired. I'm not on a salary from Victims of Violence. I'm on CPP and old age security, OAS, and a small pension from the provincial government. Trust me, I don't break the law by speeding because I don't have the funds to actually pay a $100 ticket or a $90 ticket. I think people have to take personal responsibility. I think no matter what, if the person has....
It's just totally unfair. It really is unfair, this piece of legislation, which I didn't know about.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
Okay. Thank you.
This would fall to Mr. Cuzner. He's not here. We have about three minutes left.
We'll go to Brad Butt.
Go ahead.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Butt Conservative Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thanks to both of you for being here.
I have a couple of quick questions that I think would also be for Ms. Rosenfeldt.
Do you believe in the principle that someone who commits a crime and is convicted of that crime loses some rights that other Canadians would have? Is that not—
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
President, Victims of Violence
It's not only that the system works that way. That is the way I believe Canadians think.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Butt Conservative Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Right. I mean, we have certain things. In Canada, you don't have the same rights as a convicted criminal that you would if you were a regular law-abiding citizen. So I don't see why it would be irrational or irresponsible of us to amend the EI Act to preclude those who are convicted of a crime from benefits under the EI system. That's essentially what this bill does. Is that not a reasonable step?
5:10 p.m.
President, Victims of Violence
I believe that's reasonable, yes. I believe this piece of legislation is protecting them. It rewards them over and above a law-abiding citizen. It just doesn't make sense to me.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Butt Conservative Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
The other thing I'd like you to comment on—this may not be the situation in all cases, but it may be in many—is that if the victim is no longer able to work because of how traumatized they've been or because they've suffered a health issue as a result of the crime perpetrated against them, they may not be eligible to collect employment insurance either.