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.