Human Resources Committee on Feb. 6th, 2012

[Catherine Latimer]

That's not entirely true, because there are areas where those entitlement periods are deferred. You're just excluding this group from what had been their entitlement to a deferral. You're dropping those sections that allow those who are behind bars to defer their option. You're changing a law to take away a benefit that they now enjoy.

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

No, I don't think they enjoy it, because they should be entitled to it, whereas other Canadians who don't break the law are not entitled to it. I think that's the point of the fairness aspect.

[Catherine Latimer]

Well, if they did break the law, they would be entitled to it. It's available to anybody.

[Kim Pate]

There are other people who are entitled to it: if you're hospitalized.... There are other circumstances in which you're entitled to it. I think the bigger question is that this seems to be a punitive move, and certainly the presumption that it doesn't impact or victimize anyone else is certainly not correct. It will victimize the families of those individuals who are trying to get back to work to support themselves.

It does victimize the families, and to take it away is to presume then that the person can manage. I think one of the things that need to be looked at by this committee is who will pay for the absence of the insurance policy this person has paid into. Who will then be left with it? It will be the provinces and territories left to ante up social assistance resources if a person can't get employment when they get out.

I suggest to you that you also take that into account when you're looking at this bill and look at the notion that we're going to continually develop more and more penalties. There are places in the United States where they have gone down that path. They're now retreating from it, because they have masses of people, huge unemployment, and huge problems with the type of poverty and degradation that it has created in their cities, and that kind of philosophy is absolutely wiping out the ability of people to be civically involved in their communities.

I suggest that's not the Canada we want.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

If you have a short question, go ahead.

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

Basically you're equating people who have been injured or anything else with felons?

[Kim Pate]

No. You're putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that people who have paid into that benefit, just as other individuals who have paid into it and for other reasons can't access it, are entitled to--

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

But they paid into it to be a temporary measure while they were unemployed through no fault of their own.

Anyway, that's it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Maybe we could have a short response to that, because you're also well over your time.

[Kim Pate]

Part of the challenge, of course, is that we know who is in the system, and we know how many people get involved in the system. There are circumstances. I'm always reminded of the Anatole France quote that the rich and the poor are jailed just as frequently for stealing a loaf of bread and sleeping under bridges. Some people are more likely to be in a situation of doing something for which they could be criminalized.

Look at our aboriginal population. Look at the racialized population. Look at women. I could mention mental health issues--

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you, Ms. Pate. Perhaps you could wind up.

[Kim Pate]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Madame Perreault, go ahead.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Good afternoon. Thank you for joining us today.

My question is for Ms. Pate.

Your presentation is quite consistent with the study done by the Canadian Women's Health Network. The study shows that criminalized women are one of the most marginalized groups of society. They often come from a challenging socio-economic environment, they have unstable jobs and they are often dealing with addiction and mental health issues. As you said, a number of studies have shown that many prisoners—both men and women—with mental illness were sent to prison for minor crimes, such as shoplifting or non-violent offences.

Could you tell us about the impact of Bill C-316 on this group of people? Could you also tell us how they will be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society if they don't have a right to an extension of the qualifying or benefit period?

[Kim Pate]

It was Ms. Latimer, as well, who raised those issues, so I'll share this time with her.

And I apologize for not being able to answer in French.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

That's fine.

[Kim Pate]

We know, in fact, that the individuals coming out, particularly women.... But men also come from some of the marginalized groups. People who are in prison tend not to be the most privileged. People coming out, often our first try.... The three basic things people need to succeed, which corrections has found—our correctional services provincially, federally, and territorially—are a means of supporting themselves, a place to live, and a community of support.

Oftentimes employment can provide all of these. Obviously if you've got employment, you have the resources to be able to get accommodation, presumably. If you don't have a family, then you'd have a community of support or at least co-workers. So most people working in the system know that one of the most important things is to try to get people employed. Employment is an important issue.

In terms of those coming out, we have asked for some numbers; I understand the committee has, as well. The only number I'm aware of is that one of the reporters who did an access request received information that 1,500 people, I believe, released during one year—I believe it was 2006-2007—would have been potentially impacted by this provision.

If you consider the 1,500 people who might otherwise have been eligible for the unemployment insurance, which they paid into, while they were looking for work, it's a pretty significant cost that's going to be borne by another part somewhere. The only place we can see where it would be borne is social services. It could be by the health care system, as well. As you indicated, as we see more people coming out with fewer opportunities, the health care system, particularly the mental health care system, is overtaxed. We're seeing prisons increasingly being the default for all of these systems not working. If people have addictions—and they may be criminalized because of the impact of that on them—and if they're poor, we know that about—

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

So if these people had stable employment, then they would have more stable lives, and their rehabilitation would be much easier.

I am now going to yield the floor to Ms. Crowder.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

You have a minute and a half.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Just really quickly, it seems to me that when we hear people talking choice.... What we know is that there are some Canadians who are not eligible for an extension of either the benefit period or qualifying period because of the way the current rules are. It seems the approach has been that we've got this other population that is eligible for the extension of the qualifying period or the benefit period because of the current legislation. But the response is that rather than improving the legislation for those who currently don't have access, let's take something away for somebody who does have access.

Do you have some comment about this? You clearly articulated why it's an advantage to continue to allow that extension of either the benefit or the qualifying period for people who are incarcerated. There is a cost to society if you don't allow that extension. Is that correct?

[Kim Pate]

Yes.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Do you have any information on how this would impact people who may have been eligible for other EI programs—training for example—because they're EI-eligible? Have you looked at any of these potential impacts?

[Kim Pate]

As concerns the Elizabeth Fry Society, we haven't looked at that specifically with respect to this bill, but we certainly look at it all the time, and some of those areas have already been previously cut. Both our organizations have previously benefited from investment from unemployment insurance—as it was then called—through schemes to set up work and reintegration programs. Most of them were three-year programs, which were not funded beyond that. Most of them stopped operating, at the very least, within the past several decades. All of those programs had huge success rates. We saw people who were deemed untrainable and unable to work who benefited from those. That has been changed. But we also saw people who had come out of prison who, yes, would have had perhaps more marginal employment, received some vocational training in the federal system, who might be eligible for a program after they work for a short period, and develop some benefit entitlement while they're out.

I don't know of any specific studies that would look at that. I think that some of those cuts have occurred. Certainly our organization would agree that it would be beneficial, particularly given that we understand that the money is available within the employment insurance scheme to make them more available to more people. I can see people who have been victimized.... We have women sometimes seen as contributing to their situation, who end up responding to violence. I'm thinking of the double-charging that happens when women are in situations of violence and they call the police. They may end up charged, and they may end up ineligible through something like that. Yes, arguably, they have committed a criminal offence or they're convicted. They usually plead guilty to a criminal offence, but it doesn't mean they should be disentitled, I would think, from being able to be supported with something in the future.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you, Ms. Pate. You tend to prolong your answers and cover many areas to the question, but time has run out, for sure.

We'll move to the next questioner, who will be Mr. Shory.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses as well.

It's interesting to hear two different views today. I have heard about rehabilitation from the witnesses today. Of course we all believe in it. We all want the criminals to be rehabilitated. But before that, we like them to pay for their crime as well. That's why they are convicted.

We all know one thing: they have numerous federal rehabilitation programs during the time they are in jail, and also after they pay for their crime. But the way I look at it, the truth of the fact is that the victims of the crime sometimes have to take time off as well. Their families have to take time off to deal with the lengthy court process or some emotional issues.

When this bill was tabled, the way I looked at this issue was that the thrust of this bill is the fairness. We all talk about the fairness. If you pay EI, then you should be entitled to that, even though you make some choices you should not make, as a law-abiding Canadian. That's where I think we are going.

I believe that there is no reason—this is my belief, and that's why I support this bill—that convicted felons should receive greater latitude in EI benefits. First of all, I have to admit that, before this bill was introduced, I had no idea that we had this exception in our EI system. Then I started to share this view with my constituents. Believe me, I haven't found one single constituent so far who didn't say “You must be joking”. That's the kind of feedback I get from my constituents.

How do you feel the public views the current system? If you bring it out, would the public feel that convicted felons have greater access to employment insurance this way, whatever way we have right now? What do you think the public will say about it?

Both of you can answer, because you have been working in societies helping victims and marginalized women, and other criminals as well.