Human Resources Committee on Feb. 6th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

I'll rule on this point, and I expect my ruling to be respected.

There is the point that if you don't give the entitlement for the extension to some who would otherwise be entitled to employment insurance benefits, that would result in their not having those benefits when they leave the point of incarceration. That might impinge upon their rehabilitation or their ability to reintegrate into society. So in that fashion, there is some basis for questioning along that specific line. But this questioning is beyond that, and to that extent it would be out of order.

If you want to narrow it to what I have indicated, then you can go forward. If not, I would rule the question out of order.

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

Okay, I guess I will shorten it.

Based on the fact that people won't have access to employment insurance, would you consider the recidivism rate to be higher?

[Catherine Latimer]

I would consider the absence of employment insurance--something that people feel they have paid into and previously would have had access to and now don't--would be another hurdle to cross in terms of cultivating a belief in pro-social attitudes, a belief that people can be redeemed, have gainful employment, and not recommit offences. Yes, I think it will make it more difficult.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Okay, your time is up.

Ms. Pate, if you have a comment you want to make in that regard, go ahead.

[Kim Pate]

I would underscore that. One of the challenges we have with people coming out of prison is the incentive to continue on and believe they can make it. We certainly see that with women coming out, especially if they're single moms wondering how they're going to manage. To rack up more and more disincentives makes it a much more difficult path.

We also want people to respect the law. There's a presumption that people who have broken the law don't respect the law. That's certainly not true from where we sit. Yet if we have more and more measures like this, where someone has paid into an insurance scheme and then is disentitled after paying his or her debt to society, it will not encourage a faith that the justice system is fair and there is any interest in people being able to get out and move on.

I think there are many reasons why the rest of the public should be extremely concerned about this as well. We want young people who are learning about this, and all of us, to respect that the system is going to be fair. I know it has been suggested that perhaps this will assist victims. There will be very few victims who would say this would assist them.

Certainly when you're in the throes of dealing with an offence, as many of us know—just because we do the work we do doesn't mean we haven't experienced other things—often you do get very angry. Laws are made by people to have a sober reflection on the law, not to be taking a vengeful response. This seems like a vengeful response, and I think most people hearing it hear it as a vengeful response.

Some might support that for all kinds of reasons, but certainly that's not the fundamental basis of our criminal law.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you, Ms. Pate. We've gone well over the time.

We'll move now to the next questioner, Mr. Daniel.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for being here. I appreciate your thoughts.

Let me follow up on some of the things you've said with regard to fairness.

The employment insurance system is basically there to support you if you lose your job, whatever it is, and the loss is beyond your control. Clearly criminals who have actually been convicted have offended by choice. Is it your position that convicted felons should have a greater access to employment insurance than law-abiding Canadians?

In fact there are some $400 million worth of services provided for people who are in the prisons, who are already in the system, etc.

[Kim Pate]

Not in the provincial and territorial systems. There are very few programs in the provincial and territorial systems.

I certainly would like to hear where it says you have to be seen as deserving of the benefit. There are people who are—

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

I didn't say “deserving”; I said “that is out of your control”.

[Kim Pate]

Where does it say that it's out of your control, even? I don't believe that's in the legislation.

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

It's in the qualifying criteria.

[Kim Pate]

But people who have injured themselves because they have been negligent or not worn safety equipment are not necessarily disentitled, and some would argue that would be a similar situation to someone who—

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

I think you're mixing federal and provincial on that one, but certainly if people take time off to re-educate themselves, they don't get employment insurance after the period that's defined in the Employment Insurance Act.

[Kim Pate]

No, but there are other benefits they are entitled to, such as student loans and grants, and some of those are federally--

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

That's no different from any person who has been convicted, I would suggest.

[Kim Pate]

That's right.

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

So there's no difference from that, but the fairness and the equity of somebody who has by choice committed a crime and been convicted to have an entitlement beyond that of people who are not normally in that situation seems somewhat unfair.

[Catherine Latimer]

You raise a very interesting point. I think the position of the John Howard Society is that people who have paid into the scheme should stand as equals to one another. If someone else has done something that disentitles them to get to work or incapacitates them to get to work, whether by their choice or not by their choice, then they should stand equal to the offender who has committed an offence.

I can guarantee you that he would prefer being at work to being behind bars, so his decision, his volition, is not connected to not wanting to be at work. It's not squarely connected with the basis for employment or employment insurance.

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

I think it is, because the employment insurance is based on your reasonableness in terms of being fired or something like that out of your control. If you actually resign, then the rules are different.

[Catherine Latimer]

These people are not interested in resigning. They would prefer to be at work, but they're facing an incapacity in the same way that somebody who has a broken leg--

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

I'm trying to explain to you what the actual employment insurance rules say. That isn't debatable, in a sense. Regular law-abiding Canadians--

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

I think you asked the question. Give the witness an opportunity to answer it, and then ask another question. If the answer is particularly long, you can interrupt. I think we need to have one person talking at a time if we can help it. I appreciate that's not always possible.

Go ahead and ask your question, and give the witness an opportunity to answer your question.

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

I will ask my question again.

Is it your position that convicted felons should have greater access to employment insurance than should law-abiding Canadians?

[Catherine Latimer]

My answer was that convicted felons should have the same entitlements to employment insurance as others have.

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

That's what this law advocates, that they not get it, just as any other Canadian.