Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 30 - Evidence - February 6, 2013
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 6, 2013
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which was referred Bill C-316, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (incarceration), met this day at 4:15 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, since this is our first formal meeting of this part of the session, I would like to wish everyone a happy new year, including all those who support us so thoroughly here. Welcome back.
[Translation]
Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
[English]
I am Kelvin Ogilvie, a senator from Nova Scotia and chair of the committee. I would like to start the meeting by having my colleagues introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Eggleton: Art Eggleton, a senator from Toronto and deputy chair of the committee.
Senator Merchant: I am Pana Merchant, from Saskatchewan.
Senator Dyck: Lillian Dyck, also from Saskatchewan.
Senator Enverga: I am Tobias Enverga, a senator from Ontario.
Senator Eaton: Nicky Eaton, Ontario.
Senator Martin: Yonah Martin, from British Columbia, and welcome to a fellow British Columbian.
Senator Seidman: I am Judith Seidman, from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Cordy: I am Jane Cordy, a senator from Nova Scotia.
The Chair: To give a brief background, we all know why we are here, but for the record, we are here today to deal with Bill C-316, an Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act. Our formal witness today is Richard Harris, Member of Parliament for Cariboo—Prince George and sponsor of the bill. Also with us from Human Resources and Skills Development Canada is Mireille Laroche, Director General, Employment Insurance Policy. Welcome to you both.
We will start off by inviting Mr. Harris to make opening comments, following which we will have questions from senators.
Richard Harris, Member of Parliament for Cariboo—Prince George, sponsor of the bill: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for inviting me today. This is my first appearance before a Senate committee after being here for 20 years. I am happy to be here because it is in support of my private member's bill, which I am most assured all of you will pass through quickly and we will see it become law.
I would like to tell you a little story to begin. This is a true story. In my riding, a little more than a year ago, I received a call from a young man who needed my help. Upon talking to him, I found that this was his family's story. He was a skilled tradesperson, had a good job, and his wife was working at a middle level position in the health care industry. They had two young children, and there came a time in their lives when his wife thought that she might like to take some upgrading courses to raise her up to a higher level of knowledge in the health care industry, thereby guaranteeing even more that she would have a job for some time.
She did. Voluntarily, she took a year off from work, went back to school at her own expense, completed her course and came out with a degree which was somewhat higher than what she was at when she went in. They were happily looking forward to a very secure future with a family income that would not likely be interrupted by layoffs or a shortage of work.
She started in her new job. After working for about three months, she was not feeling well. She went to the doctor and, sadly, it was discovered that she had cancer. The advice from the doctor was to begin treatments as quickly as possible because it was an aggressive form of cancer. However, there was some hope.
She had to leave her job. Because they had two children, the decision was made that her husband would take as much time off work as he could to care for her while she was at home undergoing the treatment as well as to care for the children and shoulder the other family responsibilities.
They applied for Employment Insurance payments, but because she had not worked enough in the qualifying period, she was denied benefits. That is how the file got to my office asking for assistance. They went to the EI appeal board, which reported that while they believed this person should absolutely receive the EI funding that was available to nearly every other person who works, because she did not qualify under the rules, they could not recommend it and so it did not go forward.
The file came to my office and I began to look into exactly what the qualifications were and why this lady was denied. Of course, I learned the same things as I had been told: that she had not worked enough during the qualifying period and was ineligible to receive EI payments. However, in my search of qualifying periods I found out, much to my surprise, that if she had gone to jail for a year and then been released, she would be eligible for a 52-week extension period so that it would be as if she had never left her job. I thought that was basically unfair. How can a convicted felon be treated more preferentially than someone like the lady I was trying help, someone who voluntarily left their job for a year and came back to work for a few months and then was laid off? Those people would not be entitled, but for a person who goes to jail, it is as if they never left their job, which is most unfair.
I talked to many people who were astonished that this preferred position was available to convicted felons under the EI system, so I set out to try, through legislation, to take away that preferred position. That is what Bill C-316 is all about.
I am not out to change the entire system; I just want to make it fair so that convicted felons are treated equal to honest, hard-working Canadians who lose their jobs through no fault of their own or who have voluntarily taken some time off. I just want to make it fair. Who can justify a convicted felon receiving more preferential treatment under our system than someone who obeys the law, works hard and who wants to provide for their family but loses their job? That is what the bill is all about.
I am certainly prepared to defend the bill. It is a very small step in making our huge EI system fair. I am not trying to change the world; I just want to make things fair because Canadians deserve to see us do things that reflect fairness.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Harris.
For the benefit of the committee, I will mention that Ms. Laroche is here to answer questions and not as a presenter. Mr. Harris is the presenter today. He will need to leave at 5:30 because of votes that will take place in the House of Commons.
I will now open the floor to questions from colleagues.
Senator Eggleton: I will save the technical questions I have for Ms. Laroche until later, if I may. Since Mr. Harris has to leave, I will ask him questions at this time.
Mr. Harris, the provision you seek to remove from the Employment Insurance Act was put in place by the Diefenbaker Conservative government. It was proposed by the Honourable Michael Starr, who said at the time:
Ordinarily a person who had spent up to two years in a penitentiary would lose the benefit of unemployment insurance contributions, which would impose a further punishment in addition to those levied by the court. This disability is now removed and it will help a great deal in the rehabilitation of those who have been unfortunate enough to have punishment imposed upon them by the courts.
Do you believe Mr. Starr was wrong in doing that?
Mr. Harris: Regardless of who implemented the legislation, be it a Progressive Conservative government or a Liberal government, it is not fair to give preferential treatment to convicted felons under the EI Act, which is what this does. I want to remove it. There is an abundance of NGOs that provide assistance to people who come out of incarceration at the provincial level, the municipal level and the regional level. Correctional services also have programs to help them become better people and turn away from their criminal activity.
I am not convinced that being able to collect EI is that meaningful to them. It could be argued that it is an incentive to someone who comes out of prison to not bother looking for a job because they will receive 52 weeks of income. There are arguments both ways.
Senator Eggleton: That, of course, is the maximum. It could be less than that. We are talking about people who served terms of up to two years, so we are not talking about hardened criminals who have been convicted of major crimes. Many of these people are in jail for poverty-related crimes. The majority of them serve only about three months, perhaps for theft or for not paying a fine. Many are women and many are Aboriginal.
Without this income, many of them become homeless. People have a difficult enough time as it is getting a job after coming out of jail, but without this allowance do you not feel that the likelihood of recidivism, of going back into some criminal activity, is more likely? That ends up costing the taxpayer more, so we are not being very fair to the taxpayer in that respect.
Mr. Harris: Senator Eggleton, I believe that people are responsible for the things they do, and this is, in a way, a way to reward someone who has committed a crime. If they commit a crime and go to jail, that is an extension of the crime that they committed. They have to go to jail or serve a penalty of some sort.
When they come out of jail, if they have served a year or less, the EI system suddenly says, "Well, it is just as if you never were in jail. We are going to give you a free pass on this one and you are going to be able to start collecting EI." For a convicted felon who has come out of prison, that is clearly seen as preferential treatment over someone who never went to jail and lived their life honestly. It is preferential treatment. I just cannot support it because it is not fair.
Senator Eggleton: First, this is not a government taxpayer paid program. EI is a program these people paid into and employers paid into as well. When Mr. Starr introduced this, he pointed out that these people are already getting punished. However, punishing them a further time and making it more difficult for them to get back on their feet will only further result in recidivism, people committing crimes and going back to jail, but it also punishes the innocent members of their family.
Mr. Harris: The short answer to that is perhaps they should not have committed the crime in the first place. They would not be in jail. That opens a whole new area of trying to get our society in better shape, and that is not what this bill is all about. This is about correcting a distinct unfairness in the system and taking away a preferential treatment under the act that treats convicted felons in a better way than it treats hard-working, honest Canadians.
When they come out of prison, there is I think about $400 million in programming at all governmental levels. We have Elizabeth Fry, the John Howard Society, programs of course, and we support them because we know that they are needed. However, there are programs to assist people when they come out of incarceration. I think those programs are adequate, and they do not have to be treated in a preferential way under the EI system.
Senator Eggleton: You talk about fairness. What about fairness to future victims? If these people go back into the system — and there is evidence to indicate that many people who come out of the system end up going back in, particularly if they cannot make ends meet and are having difficulty getting a job — someone becomes victimized as a result. Are we not being unfair to future victims?
Mr. Harris: I think you would have a tough time making an argument that that was the reason they were victimized, senator. The person who comes out of jail, saying that because they did not have an EI payment or EI cheque every week will automatically turn them toward a life of crime, whether they have that or not I do not think has much to do with whether they will further victimize society.
Senator Eggleton: What is the characteristic of these people? I have described them as being people involved in petty crimes, maybe stealing a loaf of bread, maybe not paying a fine. The statistic I have seen indicates that the majority of them would be in the very short end of that two-year period, but they are going into provincial penal institutions as opposed to the federal penitentiary system. You seem to describe these people as being rotten to the core.
Mr. Harris: First, I am sure you know that people who steal a loaf of bread or do petty crimes or do not pay a fine do not go to jail, not in our society now. People who are found guilty of assault and non-petty crimes seldom go to jail anymore. House arrest and suspended sentences seem to be the norm. Using that argument, I do not think quite makes it.
Senator Eggleton: You might be surprised.
Senator Munson: Welcome, Mr. Harris. We have a past; you invited me to speak at the Special Olympics many years ago. It was a long time ago.
Mr. Harris: It was. Thank you for coming.
Senator Munson: It was wonderful.
I think we differ a little on this issue. You used the words "to be fair," and you told the tragic story of the young woman with cancer. To be fair, why not the other way around? Why not an amendment that would have made it easier for her and people like her across the country to receive EI? I think from that perspective that would be fair.
Mr. Harris: First, you cannot do that with a private member's bill. That involves the government spending taxpayers' money, so that cannot be introduced by me. It would have to be introduced by the government.
Second, this bill is not about fixing the part of the system that is pretty fair across the board. This is about fixing a small part of the system that has no fairness whatsoever, and that is the difference.
Senator Munson: Do you think it would be fair, though, if we could fix the system in a different way, that we could be fair to that kind of person through another piece of legislation that might alleviate this stress and pain so that her family could live properly?
Mr. Harris: We have an EI system in this country that will never be perfect, but I think we are doing as good a job as most other countries could ever hope to do. Sure, there are areas of imperfection in any part of our government that we would like to fix ultimately, and maybe we will, but that is not the purpose of this bill. The purpose of this bill is to fix a very distinct unfairness in part of our system, and that unfairness is that our system in this case treats convicted felons who are released from a penitentiary or institution in a more preferential way than regular working Canadians.
Senator Munson: We see statistics in some of the reactions, for example, from the United Way who had recommendations stating that the amendments in your bill would have a negative impact on the most vulnerable populations, people who are poor in the first place. The United Way, at least in Calgary, says income supports such as EI are critical to ensuring successful reintegration of those formerly incarcerated into their communities and reducing rates of recidivism.
Did you speak with groups that would be dealing with those kinds of people who have been in prison for two years or less and find themselves on the street? It seems that is what will happen. You will find them out on the street. There they are on the street with very little in the way of dependency and may have to commit a crime, in their own way, to try to survive.
Mr. Harris: Like I mentioned earlier, a number of organizations are there to help people who have been incarcerated and now are back in society. They provide shelter, food, clothing and assistance to find a job and get their lives back into shape. You will find them at pretty much every level of government in our society. I think they do a pretty good job, and I certainly support much of the activity. The Elizabeth Fry Society and other similar organizations are very active in my riding of Cariboo—Prince George, and I support them. I believe that if someone comes out of prison and somewhere along the way decides they will rehabilitate themselves and not go back to crime, that is when they make the decision. It is not coming out of prison and finding out that they do not have an EI payment for the next 52 weeks that turns them back to crime. It is more likely, if they give it a second thought, to turn them toward an organization for some help and direction in how to get their life turned around if they sincerely want to do that.
Senator Munson: When you decided to propose this legislation, what reports or studies did you use, besides the tragic story you told us about, to support the removal of EI benefits for anyone incarcerated for less than two years?
Mr. Harris: I turned to the public. I did some extensive asking of questions, talking about my bill, and I received overwhelming support from the public. First there was shock and surprise that this provision existed, and then overwhelming support to make changes to make it fair.
I know there are organizations and people out there that will oppose this bill. Bills seldom get unanimous support and I expected that. However, that has not deterred me from working to get this bill through the house and now through the Senate, and I will continue with it.
Senator Dyck: He asked my first question. In my mind, you are comparing apples and oranges, and if I were able to fix it I would want to have provisions to allow the cancer patient to be able to extend her qualifying period so she would be able to receive EI benefits when she recovered and was able to go back to work. That would be the way to make it completely fair. However, you are saying that it cannot be done because it will require taxpayer monies and that since it is a private member's bill you cannot do that.
Mr. Harris: I cannot do it on a private member's bill, but that does not stop me from always trying to find ways to make any system in our government work better. That is another part. I am only dealing with this provision. I am sure our ministers are always giving good oversight to their departments and, with the help of their departmental people, are always looking for ways to make something better. Perhaps next on my list should be petitioning the minister to try to make that provision work better, but as I say, that is apart from this bill.
Mireille Laroche, Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada: In the EI Act there is already a provision that allows for the extension of a qualifying period for a person who is either sick or pregnant, so it is already covered.
Senator Dyck: It is already covered, so this cancer patient —
Ms. Laroche: The issue was that she was not sick when she was off work. She was actually in school.
Mr. Harris: She voluntarily took the year off to go back to school.
Senator Dyck: It is complicated because of the training period. Again, I do not think your comparison between the prisoner and the cancer patient who had taken time off to go to school is really a fair one.
Mr. Harris: What is not fair is that someone who knowingly commits a crime and goes to jail is given preferential treatment when they come out of jail over someone who did not commit a crime or go to jail and, because of the fact that they may have taken some time off, were not qualified to receive EI. That is the unfairness of it.
Senator Dyck: In one of your responses to Senator Munson you said these people know what they are doing and committed a crime. You mentioned the word "assault," which is a loaded word, and said that you talked to your constituents and they were shocked and surprised. You say that leads to support for the bill.
However, to follow up on what was asked previously, we have a chart here that indicates that 75 per cent of people who are in jail are there for three months or less, so what kind of crimes do you think constitute a three month sentence or less?
Mr. Harris: I am not a prosecutor or lawyer, so I can only reply from my own observations, reading court dockets and watching the news. Sentencing appears to be on the very light side of what it used to be. I was responding to Senator Eggleton when he talked about someone going to jail for stealing a loaf of bread or not paying a fine, and frankly you would have to go a long way to find someone who went to jail for a small, petty crime like that. I am talking about crimes that are significant enough that, where there would be latitude of an even longer sentence, the courts are on the low end of the sentencing.
Senator Dyck: Unfortunately because you have not done a study, you do not have the evidence and we do not know what the answer is.
Mr. Harris: I know what the question is. The question is: Should a convicted felon be entitled to preferential treatment when they come out of jail under the EI system as opposed to someone who has lived a law-abiding life and was out of work for a year through no fault of their own or because they volunteered and are not eligible for it? That is the crux of this bill.
Senator Dyck: I will not argue with you.
Senator Cordy: I think one of the things we have to clarify is that the Employment Insurance program is not a government handout. It is an insurance program and people are paying premiums into it to receive benefits when they need them. We also have to clarify, because of Senator Dyck's questions, that anyone who is in a federal prison will be there for longer than two years, so they are automatically not going to be receiving benefits because it would be longer than 104 weeks. We are talking about minor crimes, but crimes nonetheless.
Could you tell me, when you were studying to develop your bill, how many people in the past year have used the extension of extending the qualifying period from 52 weeks to 104 weeks? How many people in the past year have done that?
Mr. Harris: It is not as big a cost as one could imagine. I think it is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $3 million to $5 million a year that would be payable out of the way the system is now. Whether it is $10 million, $20 million or $50 million does not make it any fairer.
To me, the amount paid out under these provisions is not the question; I always go back to the issue of fairness. Is it fair to treat a convicted felon in a way that is preferential to someone who is a law-abiding citizen?
Senator Cordy: My question was how many people have applied to extend the period from 52 weeks to 104 weeks in the past year?
Mr. Harris: We have that number.
Ms. Laroche: A survey was done between September 2006 and 2007. We estimated that 1,500 claimants at that time had benefited for a qualifying and/or benefit extension. The qualifying period is when you accumulate your hours; the benefit period is when you draw your weeks.
Senator Cordy: That was 1,500 who were incarcerated?
Ms. Laroche: Yes, but it was further estimated that the fact that they benefited from the extension does not mean that it affects their entitlement. It does not mean that it would change their ability to get EI. It was estimated that of those 1,500, if we were to repeal completely, regardless of whether the person had been found guilty or not, 700 would have been impacted. However, only 10 per cent of those, or 70, would have been significantly impacted as they no longer would have been able to establish the claim. That means that 70 would be in a position to not have their qualifying period extended. They would not have enough hours to qualify and therefore not be eligible.
For the remaining 630, it could be they would be still eligible to receive benefits, but there could be implications in terms of the number of weeks that they would be either able to receive or to draw.
Senator Cordy: Some might have been receiving benefits before they were incarcerated and so would not have 52 weeks remaining.
Ms. Laroche: Yes. If they were receiving benefits before they were incarcerated, that means their benefit period would have already been established, so their hours would have counted beforehand.
When a person is in prison or incarcerated, they cannot draw any benefits. When they come out, in your particular example, if they are looking for work, they would be able to collect the remaining weeks they have.
Before this bill, they would have had a potential extension for each of the weeks they were incarcerated. In the case of this bill, if they were found to be guilty of the crime they had committed, then they would no longer be able to have that extension, but that does not mean they would not be able to draw some weeks. It all depends on how much space there is in their benefit period and how many weeks are left.
Senator Cordy: I would like to go back to Senator Munson's question. I, too, was curious to know why you did not lobby the government in terms of making accessing EI benefits easier for people who are ill, because many people are denied EI benefits for many reasons. I think some would argue that this is somewhat punitive for people.
I would like to go back to Senator Dyck's question. There are a number of people who receive three months or six months in jail for what would be small crimes. What kinds of crimes would you commit to get three months in jail? You must have looked at the types of crimes that people would have committed to be incarcerated in a provincial prison.
Mr. Harris: Some of the crimes could be theft of value up to a certain value. It could be impaired driving causing bodily injury or common assault or damage to private or public property.
I have seen court reports that people who have committed what I would consider a more serious crime still only having three or four months in prison as a penalty.
Senator Cordy: Certainly, I have seen people in Nova Scotia who were not able to pay the fine because they are poor and then were put in jail, so they would then be denied their EI benefits when they got out of jail.
Mr. Harris: I honestly think, senator, that we would have to look long and hard in our society presently to find people put in jail for not being able to pay fines. It hardly ever happens.
Senator Cordy: It does happen, unfortunately.
To go back to the comment that I made earlier that this is not a government handout, that in fact it is an insurance program, how can we say that someone who has actually paid premiums into an insurance program and then will receive the benefits later from that program is given preferential treatment when they have used their own money to pay into the program, as has their employer? How can you call that a preferential program when they have paid into it?
Mr. Harris: The EI program has some very distinct qualifying rules. If you fit into those qualifying rules, you of course achieve eligibility and are entitled to receive EI payments should you lose your job for whatever reason, and that is fine.
One of the parts of the EI qualifying criteria allows for some exceptions: interruption during your qualifying period because of illness, injury, quarantine or pregnancy; receiving payments under some provincial provision; receiving assistance to take some upgrading in your training; and, surprisingly, confined to a jail or penitentiary. I do not disagree with three of those four, but I certainly disagree with the one that provides for payment despite the fact that you are going into a penitentiary or a prison.
Senator Cordy: If someone is in jail and awaiting trial and found not guilty, I know it does not apply, but would they receive their benefits retroactively for the time they were in jail when they should not have been in jail?
Mr. Harris: I believe they do.
Ms. Laroche: If a person is charged but then found not guilty, they would need to advise Service Canada. Service Canada would ensure they get the extension, and if there was a payment to be made retroactively, it would be made.
Mr. Harris: This only applies to those that are convicted and incarcerated.
Senator Seidman: My question, Mr. Harris, follows from Senator Cordy's. I want to ask about the history of this bill because, if I understand correctly, the bill that we received in the Senate has been amended. There were two amendments in the House of Commons. Could you please tell us about those two amendments? I would appreciate it.
Mr. Harris: One amendment was to clearly establish something that we just talked about: You absolutely had to be convicted before this provision would be taken away under the legislation.
The other was a small amendment dealing with the date that the legislation would come into force, which would be a Sunday. I am sure that Ms. Laroche has a real rock solid reason for wanting to start on a Sunday, and I had no problem with that.
Senator Seidman: However, the point you make is important. In the name of fairness, in fact, the amendment was that anyone who was not found guilty of the crime they were accused of would not lose anything at all. That was amended in the House of Commons and that is what we received in the Senate.
Mr. Harris: That is right.
Senator Seidman: Thank you.
Senator Enverga: I am all for fairness. I agree we should be fair and we should not give EI to convicted criminals.
If we were to make this bill fairer or better, since the EI premiums are paid for by the insurance, I have been thinking that maybe somebody would be able to have those. Could it be an NGO or the government that would be able to get those EI premiums and give them to the victims instead? Have you thought about that kind of thing?
Mr. Harris: That is a whole other train of thought, where you would be looking for a way to make that happen. I know that most of the support agencies that are there to help people coming out of prison are operating on a provincial level. I know the provinces are providing funding. At the federal level, we provide funding to some of them. That is an idea.
Senator Enverga: Maybe it is your next bill to get those EI premiums to the victims instead, since it is paid for.
Mr. Harris: I am sure there are very good policy people in HRSDC who are always looking for ways to make the system fairer and more streamlined.
Senator Enverga: That is good.
Senator Merchant: Mr. Harris, I understand that you are basing your reasons on the element of fairness. As has been said previously, I do not think there is only one way you could have made this fair, because while your story about the woman with cancer is moving — and I think perhaps she should be able to remedy her situation — I do not think we can make things fair for one side of the equation by punishing the person who has already been punished and has served their time. When they come out, unfortunately, I think they would have a very difficult time getting a job. You can say it is their fault that they are in this situation, but they have paid. We have decided that the way to punish those people is to send them to jail for a certain length of time. They paid money into an insurance scheme under what they understood the system was before they committed the crime and went to jail, and then you suddenly say to them, "We have changed the rules and you will not receive what you bought into with an insurance policy; you bought in, but you will not receive the benefit of it."
Will you give those people a little leeway, or how will you handle it? I know you will implement this on a Sunday, but is it the Sunday after they get out of jail or what was that all about?
Mr. Harris: Let us go back to the first part of your question. Every system we have within our government is pretty much created for people who live by the law and want to make their communities, provinces and country a better place to live and who want to do the best for themselves. Some achieve different levels of personal success than others.
I do not think that legislation to provide programs for our citizens was ever thought up, designed or created in any way to take into consideration people who break the law. That puts you in a whole different segment of society, apart from those who are living by the rules and trying to provide for themselves as is their responsibility, with the government's assistance.
I am not so sure that people who end up charged with a crime and are convicted really give much thought to the fact that they will have some EI coming to them when they get out. I am not sure that forms part of their mindset when they are about to commit a crime.
Senator Merchant: That is probably correct, I agree, but we have rules in our society. I am just saying that when you pay into the EI program, is there a stipulation that if you were to commit a crime right now that this is null and void? Is there a stipulation there right now?
Mr. Harris: No, there is not a stipulation there now. There is a provision there that makes an exception for someone who commits a crime and goes to jail.
Senator Merchant: That they will never get their insurance?
Mr. Harris: No, that they will get an extended qualifying period to receive benefits. That is not applied to the everyday, working, honest Canadian. I am saying that we should take that preferred treatment out of the EI system so that people who commit crimes and go to jail do not have that preferential treatment that others are not entitled to.
Ms. Laroche: I wanted to make a point of clarification with respect to the bill. Clause 4 of the bill, which is called "Transitional Provision," states that the new provisions will only apply as of the coming into force. If a person has a benefit period and was in jail before the coming into force, the provisions will not apply and will only start applying following the coming into force.
Senator Merchant: I come from a province where many of the individuals who are incarcerated are First Nations people, and many of them are women. We know that many incarcerated people suffer from mental illness. If our system were fair, it should maybe take into account something about the way that the people in our society are not all equal. I know you want to make everyone equal, but we are not all equal. This bothers me a lot.
I could not possibly support your bill because I do not think you have statistical evidence or have even just talked to people on the street. What do you say to the people who are mentally ill or to the First Nations women who have been terribly abused? How has the system been fair to them? Have you thought that some of those people in jail perhaps have had a bigger hurdle to cross than the woman — who I feel very badly for — in the example that you used? She came from a stable situation with a husband and children, with a home.
Many things are unfair in life, and I do not think your bill evens the playing field.
Mr. Harris: I appreciate those thoughts. I would suggest that the work on those issues should start long before someone gets into a position that they may be charged with a crime. Granted, Canada, among every other country that is dealing with disadvantaged people in so many forms, still has a lot of work to do to keep these people from getting into a position where they may commit crimes or end up in jail. I think that is where the targeting of our efforts and funding should be — on the other side, before they get into a prison situation.
Senator Martin: Thank you for being here today and for a very personal, clear and thoughtful presentation as to the genesis of this issue and your efforts to address what you have discovered in your efforts to assist the constituent.
Fairness is a very important point that you have raised and that others have talked about. I see that communication will be a very important factor in a successful transition or implementation of changes that will come about. You also mentioned the Elizabeth Fry Society and other groups that have a role in our society. Government has a role, as does civil society and non-profits. I am very familiar with the Elizabeth Fry Society, as my husband has worked with them in the past.
I am concerned about the communication to the affected individuals who will no longer be eligible if this bill were to come into effect. I am curious about the communication piece, as well as the conversations you may have had with some of these organizations and how this will all need to work together. There is a role for all of us.
Mr. Harris: If and when this bill comes into force, communicating that preferential treatment has been taken out of the system is certainly something that will have to be done. We talked about that earlier in questioning, and it is my opinion that for people who end up in court and are convicted of a crime, whether or not they are going to get any EI payments when they come out of prison is not first on their minds. We will try to communicate the fact that the provision of extra extensions does not exist any more, and we will do our best. I am not optimistic that people who are likely to end up in prison because of criminal activity really would give that much thought to it. If they did, if they were thinking that clearly about their lives, they probably would not end up in prison anyway.
Senator Martin: Ms. Laroche, in terms of communicating changes in provisions within acts, I assume there is a clear system of communication that you have established. Would it follow that same process?
Ms. Laroche: The changes are announced in a variety of ways. It might be publicly through the government, but the department also has websites and provides information to claimants by phone or through a Service Canada centre.
With respect to this particular change, given the justice angle, there would also be communication or collaboration with the Department of Justice to ensure that this information is provided to claimants.
Senator Martin: I am just thinking of the responsibility of the individual, in the face of whatever changes they may be faced with, to think about their next steps; but, again, perhaps they are not in that state of mind. I will not assume any of that, but I want to restate that key piece of communicating to the affected individuals and, within the system, to all of those who will be working around that individual.
Senator Eggleton: I refer you to a couple of studies that have been done on this matter. The United Way of Calgary, for example, did a study called Crimes of Desperation. The study says that Aboriginal women and women with mental health issues have been identified as the fastest growing prison population in Canada. They go on to say that the majority of incarcerated women are imprisoned or held in remand for nonviolent and often poverty-related crimes such as shoplifting, free riding on public transit or drug possession related to addictions.
The National Council of Welfare, a government appointed body that no longer exists, did a study in 2011 on the dollars and cents of solving poverty and said that of the 80 per cent of Canadian women that are incarcerated for poverty-related crimes, 39 per cent are for failure to pay a fine.
So the studies do indicate that people who are in a state of poverty end up going to prison because they cannot pay a fine. These are not hardened criminals. We are talking here like we are writing these people off because they made a mistake. They committed a crime and got a short sentence, and now we are going to write them off. We are not going to give them enough money to get back on their feet, to get a job and to help pay for food for themselves and their families; we are going to make it tougher for them. I do not see how society is well served by that situation. That just results in more people going back into crime, and that is a threat to public safety. It just creates more victims of crime. I do not see how writing these people off benefits society at all.
Mr. Harris: First, senator, I am sure that someone who fails to pay a fine does not go to jail for a year. They may go to jail for a week or two weeks, and that has a small effect on their —
Senator Eggleton: You do not know that; you are just guessing. You did not do a study.
Mr. Harris: Senator, I would like to see the source of this study.
Senator Eggleton: I quoted them.
Mr. Harris: I would like to see the details of how they got those numbers. I have been in this world a number of years, and I read a lot of papers and court dockets. Someone who does not pay a $100, $200, $300 or even $500 fine does not go to jail for a very long time, not in this day and age. You know that yourself.
Senator Eaton: To pick up on what Senators Merchant and Eggleton were talking about — the incarceration of our poor, our addicted, of our inner city people — is EI the best place, or should we be paying more attention to our mental health facilities, shelters, rehabilitation places, skills training? I do not think that we can just flop it at the door of EI. What would you say, Mr. Harris?
Mr. Harris: We talked about that earlier, and I am absolutely convinced, as I am sure most people are, that we should be targeting our efforts to the lives of people who are in need before they get into trouble — helping them to improve their education, helping them to understand how they can live healthier lives, helping them to get skills training so that they can get a job, and helping them to do whatever it takes to stay away from crime. If we want to spend money as a government, that is where we should be spending it, because if you do that, you do not have the burden of supporting people who have committed crimes.
Senator Eaton: Money does not do it anyway.
Mr. Harris: I do not agree that money is the turning point to change a person's mind. If they are seeking help to make their and their family's lives better, the help is available to them, and they have to make a decision to take it. Making a decision to commit a crime, going to jail and then coming out and having an EI payment waiting for you every week or every month is not as big a deterrent to them committing a crime again than getting to them before they make a decision to commit a crime. That is where I think our efforts should be.
Senator Cordy: We all agree that we should be paying more attention to those who are mentally ill and poor. This committee did a report called In from the Margins because there are many people in Canada who are marginalized and poor. This committee also did a report, a number of years ago, called In from the Shadows, on mental health, mental illness and addictions, so this committee is very committed to bringing people in from the margins and out of the shadows. However, the reality is that, as Senator Eggleton said, a high percentage of women in prison are there because they are poor. A large number of people in prison are mentally ill, and they are receiving no or very little help in prison. They are just doing their time and coming out; they are still mentally ill. This bill, to me, is very punitive.
You talked earlier about preferential treatment. This is not a government handout. As I said earlier, this is an Employment Insurance plan where people have paid premiums.
I do wish that you had information in terms of the types of crimes for which people are incarcerated for a period of 30 days because they would not be major crimes. They would be shoplifting. They would be, in many cases I would think, related to addictions, which would fall under mental health and mental illness. I do not like to see that we are penalizing. We used to have a saying: Do the crime, do the time. Now we are saying, "Do the crime, do the time; and by the way, you have paid into this insurance plan, but you cannot get it." We are doubly penalizing someone.
Perhaps you could send some information to the committee on 30-day crimes and less and the people who will be penalized and will not receive their benefits, which they paid into.
Mr. Harris: I have to go back to the point that Senator Eaton was trying to make. Our job as a government is to do things that will keep people out of jail and to try to make the situations that people are in better so they will not have to turn to a life of crime or will not be encouraged to do that. If we want to try to steer people away from committing crimes, it should be before they do their first crime.
You also talked about insurance. We have an EI program that people pay into in the same way that people buy fire insurance, car insurance and insurance of every nature. When you buy insurance, you do everything you can to ensure that an incident does not happen and you have to collect on it. Look at Employment Insurance in the same way. You pay into it in case you lose your job, and you should do everything you can to ensure that a job loss does not happen, particularly from committing a crime after which you would not be able to work.
From an insurance picture, there are many similarities between EI and other insurance that you pay. There is a responsibility not just simply to pay the money but also to ensure that you may never have to collect on that insurance. You do what you can to ensure that. One thing to do would be to respect the job that you have and if you lose the job, for whatever reason, to work hard to try and get another one and to try to improve your skills. Certainly, committing a crime does not fit into taking responsibility for yourself.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Mr. Chair, I urge the senators across the way to check the figures. First off, Mr. Harris, congratulations on your bill, which I see as being based more on principle than on any significant research.
In Quebec, the statistics show that only 1.7 per cent of those incarcerated committed crimes against the state. They are people who did not pay their taxes or who falsified restaurant bills and did not pay their fine.
Some 51 per cent of those incarcerated receive income security and 5 per cent are on employment insurance. But the most shocking thing when it comes to employment insurance is that, should you quit your job tomorrow, you will not qualify for employment insurance. Is that not right, Ms. Laroche?
Ms. Laroche: Generally speaking, yes.
Senator Boisvenu: You commit a crime, you stop working voluntarily and, then, you are rewarded. Where do you stand on that, Mr. Harris?
[English]
Mr. Harris: That is where the unfairness comes in. If you can be rewarded for committing a crime by being given an extension on either your qualifying period or your benefit-receiving period, then in my opinion that is a fundamental flaw in the system — you are rewarding someone for committing a crime in this country. When you commit a crime in a country like ours, there are always consequences to pay. One of them should be that you are not eligible to receive preferential treatment over someone who does not commit a crime. This is not a complicated bill; it is just trying to fix a small piece of gross unfairness, as I see it.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I agree with you. When you voluntarily leave your job, you are not eligible for employment insurance. And by committing a crime, you are, more or less, choosing to lose your job, so you should be treated the same way and not be eligible to receive employment insurance.
Mr. Harris, would you say that taking this privilege away from criminals punishes them or puts them on equal footing with other workers?
[English]
Mr. Harris: This bill is designed to ensure that people who commit crimes and become incarcerated as a result are treated in the exact same way as people who do not commit crimes and work hard and may lose their job through no fault of their own. We just want everyone treated in the same way.
Senator Dyck: I want to ask about Aboriginal women. I notice that you come from Cariboo—Prince George. Did you make any effort to find out the opinion of Aboriginal women in your area? The Native Women's Association of Canada has a report that talks about arresting the legacy from residential schools to prisons. In other words, residential schools have created a cycle of abuse and these women, not because they want to go out and be criminals, end up in the prison system. Did you make any effort to find out what their thoughts were?
Mr. Harris: I do not think anyone can say, in any way, any good words about the residential school system. There is no doubt about that. It is a part of our history that we wish had never happened, but unfortunately it did. We are seeing the consequences of that system in many different ways. Indeed, it has contributed in a harsh way to the lives of many people. There have been ongoing attempts to resolve the effects of the residential system on the people who went there. The effort should be on trying to prevent people going to prison.
Senator Dyck: My question was: Did you make any effort to contact them because this bill will definitely have an adverse effect on Aboriginal women in prisons? Did you seek their opinion?
Mr. Harris: No, I did not.
Senator Dyck: Okay.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Harris, for being here. We know that you have to leave with regard to the votes in the House of Commons. Ms. Laroche has agreed to remain and answer technical questions. She will not speak to the bill but will answer technical questions around the bill. On behalf of the committee, I thank you very much for being with us today.
Mr. Harris: Thank you.
Senator Eggleton: Ms. Laroche, does an incarcerated person complete a written application while still incarcerated? How do they find out what they are entitled to? Do they have to initiate the application? Can you tell me about that?
Ms. Laroche: A claimant, anyone who wants to apply for EI benefits, has to apply. Typically, this is done electronically. About 99.8 per cent of people apply electronically; so it would be the same for someone who is incarcerated. They could apply while they are in prison. I do not know the prevalence of how often that occurs, but certainly when they come out, they could apply online or the paper-based approach.
Senator Eggleton: Do prison officials advise them while they are incarcerated on how to go about this? Do they tell them about this provision in the act as it exists?
Ms. Laroche: I do not know.
Senator Eggleton: For the people who do apply, what types of crimes have they committed? Some statistics on that must come from the applications?
Ms. Laroche: For the purposes of EI, we would not track what kind of crime a person would be in prison for. The information required is whether they are in prison.
Senator Eggleton: I believe that you said earlier there are about 1,500 per year.
Ms. Laroche: We did one survey.
Senator Eggleton: That was in 2006-07, but there are no statistics for other years.
Ms. Laroche: That is right.
Senator Eggleton: You do not have statistics for any other years.
Ms. Laroche: We do not have those. We do not track that on a regular basis, so a special search had to be done to assess that information.
Senator Eggleton: Do the 1,500 people who apply under this provision do so while in prison or when they come out?
Ms. Laroche: I do not have that information.
Senator Dyck: I wonder whether the committee or steering committee would consider asking the Native Women's Association of Canada to appear as witnesses. A study shows that Aboriginal women are overrepresented in the prison system. As well, more of them are poorer than the rest of the population. I would like to make that request.
The Chair: We will take that under advisement on the steering committee.
Are there any further technical questions for Ms. Laroche? If not, I thank you on behalf of the committee for being here. Colleagues, I thank you as well.
(The committee adjourned.)