Human Resources Committee on Feb. 6th, 2012

[Catherine Latimer]

First of all, I'd like to say I don't think we are offside in terms of believing that there should be fair and proportionate accountability when there is criminal wrongdoing. I think we all would know that justice requires that fair and proportionate penalties be imposed.

I think the question is whether you can add on to what the criminal courts are imposing as a fair and proportionate penalty an enhanced civil disability that's coming through other statutes.

You're asking me whether there is a fairness issue here. I would assume that the periods with which others who are now benefiting by this provision under, for example, subsection 8(2) and are getting a deferral of the eligibility periods--that the quantum of deferral available to them is the same as the quantum of deferral that's available to offenders.

Is it not that the clock just stops ticking while this period is in place and then resumes--that the same period resumes after the clock starts ticking again? Obviously they can't be looking for jobs, and they can't be contributing to their qualifying periods when they're behind bars. The idea, if I understand this exemption correctly, is that the deferral for all of those who are eligible for a deferred period is the same, that there's no preferential treatment there among those who are eligible for deferral.

[Kim Pate]

I would add that if you are instead suggesting that we extend so that those who have been victimized who might not otherwise be institutionalized in a hospital also be eligible, we would certainly support that. That's not what's in the bill, though, and in fact it doesn't aid victims any more by providing additional supports in that manner.

The other thing I think you need to be aware of is that the federal programs wouldn't necessarily be impacted. One, I think you might want to visit some of the federal institutions to see how limited the programming is as the numbers are going up, particularly in the women's prisons, where there's massive overcrowding. But this would impact the provincial and territorial jails mostly, and there isn't the vocational training or employment training or the sorts of programs you talked about. Go into any of the provincial and territorial jails in your area, and you will not see much programming. In fact, you'll see mostly warehousing. I think you need to address that issue, and to be aware of it.

If you want to have a friendly amendment to extend this to victims who might otherwise not be eligible, we would certainly support that.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

I believe the basic difference we are making--why we are on two different pages--is because we are comparing the criminals with the law-abiding Canadians. And whereas the law-abiding Canadians will claim EI because they are unable for reasons beyond their control, here the criminal had made a choice to basically act in the way they acted.

I want to correct this also about the programs. I found that in the prisons we have living skills for men and women as well.

[Kim Pate]

In the provincial and territorial? Where?

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

I'm talking about federal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Hold on a second. We'll let Mr. Shory ask the question. I believe he asked a question.

Make it a short question, because your time is up, and I'd appreciate a very short response if you could.

Mr. Shory, did you have a question?

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Yes, please. I did not get the answer to my question when I asked for the public view of the current system, about whether the public has been made aware of it.

[Catherine Latimer]

I think the public attitudes on offenders have been harsh and are mellowing. I think they are starting to get better information about what the fiscal and economic and social costs are of a punishment agenda, as opposed to one that actually is guided by rehabilitation and reintegration. There should be accountability, for sure, but it should also include strong efforts to get people who have served time back into the communities in a constructive, safe way.

I think once the information is made available--

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you, Ms. Latimer. We'll move on to Mr. Cuzner. Perhaps you might amplify what you wanted to finish in speaking to him, but we're well over our time.

Go ahead.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for that advice to ask for some amplification. I'm willing to get a little bit more on that.

Thank you, witnesses, very much for being here today. I appreciate it and the work that you do.

It's been said that there are ample supports out there for those being released from prisons, but for the most part they focus on federal convicts, and the EI legislation only being two years out, it would really have more impact on provincial and territorial. That's what you're trying to say here, and those supports are not there.

[Kim Pate]

As someone who has been doing this work for the last 28 years, first with young people, then with men, and then with women, I have yet to see the adequacy of programs that are being described. Most people in corrections will agree. I was just in Moncton with Ashley Smith's family doing a fundraiser. A whole bunch of corrections people came up afterwards and thanked me for speaking out because they can't. There are virtually no supports and programs now. We're going to end up with more Ashleys if we don't start changing what's happening and making sure people understand what's happening.

The reality is that despite the best efforts of many people in corrections to do the best they can, both in the community and in prison, the mounting numbers and the more limited resources for actual programs and services and more for security and those sorts of measures mean there aren't as many programs, even in the federal system. There are virtually none in the provincial and territorial, and none in local lockups.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Give me the profile of the typical client you would deal with. Certainly I would think the vast majority are not hardened criminals, but persons.... Maybe it was out of their control: an abusive, estranged spouse came home and gave the kids the round of the kitchen, and they were forced into a situation that was beyond their control and they were forced to defend their kids and ended up being incarcerated.

Who are you dealing with? Are they single? Are they educated? Have some of the problems stemmed from poverty issues? If you have statistics, please share them--if not, anecdotally, please.

[Kim Pate]

We certainly have fact sheets on our website that you are welcome to use that are researched every year by the wonderful volunteers and students who work with us. Both Catherine and I teach at the law school as well, and have the benefit of law students to assist with that process, to shore up our limited resources.

For women, we are dealing predominantly with poor women. The last time statistics were looked at, about 80% of the women in prison have essentially been living in poverty and attempting to deal with that. The majority are mothers, many of them employed or underemployed, more often in seasonal or low-wage work. Before they go to prison, most of them are sole supporters of their children. In the federal system about a third are indigenous women. It ranges as high as 75% to 80% in some provinces. About half are racialized. Just last week I was with the Native Women's Association talking about the impact of residential schools on the long-term social deprivation of the number of indigenous women and girls ending up in the system.

We have a high proportion with mental health issues. With the evisceration of social programs and health care, particularly for women but also for men and young people, we've seen increasing numbers of people with mental health issues. Also, for women, the last time the federal government looked at this issue, 91% of indigenous women and 82% of women overall had histories of abuse, much of it stemming from childhood abuse, but also extending into adulthood. For many of them, the treatment they had received, if any, would involve medication. They often also will anesthetize themselves to that reality, so the issue of addictions that was raised earlier also comes up for many prisoners. My experience with men is very similar, although I'll let Ms. Latimer add to that.

[Catherine Latimer]

The profile is very similar. It draws from those who have been marginalized for various reasons: lower socio-economic status, high levels of brain injury, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, and more and more mental health issues being presented in the federal system. I'm sure you've seen that a lot. There are some significant challenges, but I will say this anecdotally. I sit with a social enterprise group at the John Howard Society of Ottawa. They are excellent workers. They are hard-working and diligent. They show up on time. They work really hard.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

I'm surprised at the rate—only 10% to 13% are able to secure employment. You had stated--did you say 13% or 13 times?

[Catherine Latimer]

I said 13 times. It's huge.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Yes, that is significant, then.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Your time is up. If someone wants to make a brief comment, then we'll move to the next question.

[Kim Pate]

Since I was invited to comment by Mr. Cuzner, and I thank you for this comment, one of the things is there is a presumption, when we talk about who is eligible and who has been criminalized. We know that self-report studies in this country show there is virtually nobody in this country who has not done something in their lives for which they could have been criminalized. The fact that we ignore that reality and we only talk about those who have been detained or monitored is significant as well. I think that's another important piece to think about. Certainly my son, who is 21 now, raised that recently. He said I used to quote that it was no excuse for them to do anything. Certainly--

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

May I make a point of order, Chair? I'll just ask the witness--

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

You don't ask the witness. Just raise your point of order.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

My point of order is that I would just ask that the witness stay on point with respect to the Employment Insurance Act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Your time is pretty much up, and I won't rule on that point of order. I'll move on to Mr. Mayes.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you for taking the time to be here.

I think I can say that everyone appreciates the work you do, and the work your organizations do.

This issue has to do with definitions. It's not an unemployment benefit. It's unemployment or employment insurance. When people insure, it's because there's a risk of losing their job or having their house burn down. But if you go and burn your own house down, you're not going to collect the insurance, right? Therefore, they're not eligible. They're entitled to the benefit, but there is some eligibility for the benefit, and this is strictly stated in the act. You have to be available for employment. It's basic. Unfortunately, they're not available for employment.

People talk about somebody collecting employment insurance from down in Mexico on holidays, and they're cheating the system. They are—they're not available for employment. That's how they're cheating the system. Those who are incarcerated, unfortunately, have made a decision and they have ended up not being available for employment.

I see where you're coming from—you're compassionate about the people. You want to make sure that they have the ability, when they leave, to have some dollars to take care of themselves, and I understand that. But this is a system called “insurance”, and we must respect that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Hold on, Mr. Mayes, there's a point of order.

Go ahead.