Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 30 - Evidence - February 7, 2013
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 7, 2013
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 10:29 a.m. to study Bill C-316, an Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (incarceration).
Senator Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
[English]
My name is Kelvin Ogilvie. I am a senator from Nova Scotia and chair of the committee. I would like my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Martin: I am Yonah Martin from Vancouver, B.C.
Senator Eaton: Nicky Eaton from Ontario. Welcome.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu from Quebec. Welcome.
[English]
Senator Cordy: I am Jane Cordy from Nova Scotia.
Senator Merchant: I am Pana Merchant from Saskatchewan and I welcome you also.
Senator Eggleton: Art Eggleton, senator from Toronto and deputy chair of the committee.
The Chair: We have two sessions of the committee this morning. The first one will end at 11:30 and the second at 12:30. Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I want to welcome our first set of witnesses. I will introduce them as I call them to present. For the benefit of the witnesses, I will invite each of you to present and then open up the floor to my colleagues.
Since I did not discuss a particular order with you, with your permission I will go in the order you are listed on my agenda. That means I will ask Justin Piché, Member, Policy Review Committee of the Canadian Criminal Justice Association, to present first, please.
Justin Piché, Member, Policy Review Committee, Canadian Criminal Justice Association: The Canadian Criminal Justice Association welcomes the opportunity to discuss our Policy Review Committee's position regarding Bill C-316, which we have outlined in our brief submitted to HUMA in February 2012.
The CCJA is one of the longest-serving non-governmental associations of professionals and individuals interested in criminal justice issues in Canada, having begun its work in 1919 and having testified before numerous parliamentary and Senate committees. Our association consists of nearly 800 members and publishes the Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, The Justice Report, the Directory of Justice Services and the Directory of Services for Victims of Crime. We also organize the Canadian Congress on Criminal Justice every two years.
The CCJA recommends that Bill C-316 not receive the legislative support of Parliament for the following reasons.
Employment Insurance in Canada is a contribution-based scheme, thus it stands to reason that should someone contribute to this fund they should have to derive a benefit from it when the need arises. Once individuals have been sentenced we do not agree that additional punishment in the form of limiting their ability to collect Employment Insurance after they have served a custodial sentence ought to be pursued. As section 11(h) of the Charter reminds us, any person charged with an offence should not be tried or punished for it again once the sentence for which he or she has been convicted has been handed down. Put differently, in cases where persons receive a prison sentence, it is a deprivation of liberty itself that is the prescribed punishment, nothing more.
By eliminating the ability of individuals currently eligible to obtain Employment Insurance upon their release from prison, it arguably undermines public safety goals by taking way funds they may need to obtain food and shelter should they not be able to initially secure employment upon their release. As noted in a 2007 study by Public Safety Canada researchers, it is well documented that when individuals enter prison they "may have lost their livelihood, their personal belongings, their ability to maintain housing for themselves and their family." In these circumstances, the expenditures associated with re-establishing oneself on the outside involve many large one-off costs, such as deposits on a rental unit and purchasing essentials. The clawing back of these benefits from former prisoners currently eligible for such assistance will likely mean, in real terms, that no funds will flow to many of these individuals when they may need them the most. The collection of Employment Insurance benefits as it stands today arguably has a crime prevention benefit as the modest stability these funds offer provide ex-prisoners with resources to resettle. Without this, the chance of reoffending resulting from need or stress may increase.
This legislative initiative has been touted as a measure to support the rights of victims of crime, but it is unclear how removing benefits or services from the criminalized improves the situation of victims. Should legislators wish to better meet the needs of victims, it is recommended that considerably more robust investments be made in the provision of information, compensation and services for those impacted by crime, rather than artificially attempting to balance the scales of justice by stripping away benefits the criminalized have contributed to while they were employed.
Should this legislation pass, there is a risk that additional victims will be created by extending the punishment of criminalized people to families. Every household has bills and expenses to pay. In cases where a former prisoner has a household, the loss of income that would result, where applicable, from the elimination of their ability to access Employment Insurance benefits upon their release from prison could result in financial hardship for the loved ones they are rejoining.
This measure could also exacerbate economic strains that the families of the criminalized already experience while their loved ones are in prison. They struggle to pay for household relocation to communities where prisons are located or the cost of travel and phone calls incurred to maintain contact with their incarcerated loved one. Further, those responsible for child support continue to incur these costs while incarcerated. Without the means to pay them, many will have debts to their children and former partners, who have committed no offence and deserve to be supported financially. In these cases, Bill C-316 could contribute to household instability and disintegration which creates high cost to all Canadians through expenditures related to civil courts, legal aid, child welfare, mental health and other services.
In our estimation, the bill before the Senate should be abandoned. If the legislation is passed without adequately considering the collateral consequences, it is possible that more victimization and harm to families will be the result. Legislators should not pass laws where research exploring the potential impact of proposed measures has not taken place. Should the committee wish to further study this issue, we would be happy to assist.
The Chair: I will now turn to Catherine Latimer, Executive Director of the John Howard Society of Canada.
Catherine Latimer, Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada: Thank you very much for the kind invitation to appear and share the views of the John Howard Society on Bill C-316.
The John Howard Society of Canada is a community-based charity whose mission is to support effective, just and humane responses to the causes and consequences of crime. The society has more than 60 front-line offices across the country, many with programs and services to support the safe reintegration of offenders into our communities and to prevent crime. Our work helps to make communities safer, and employment is often a key factor to supporting the successful reintegration of offenders back into the community.
Bill C-316 proposes to amend the Employment Insurance Act to remove provisions allowing for qualifying periods and benefit periods to be extended as a result of time spent by the claimant in a jail, penitentiary or similar institution. These changes would prevent people from obtaining the benefits of an insurance scheme to which they and their employers contributed when the legislation allowed for these extensions.
We have a number of concerns about how Bill C-316 would have implications for people trying to reintegrate and for the justice system per se.
Our first concern, and it generally supports the comments made by Mr. Piché, is that this is an insurance scheme. It is an insurance scheme where contributors have made contributions on the understanding that certain benefits would flow. It seems grossly unfair to change that scheme and disentitle contributors after the fact.
The second point is that it creates an inconsistent, unfair and very difficult-to-administer scheme. The loss of Employment Insurance benefits seems to be triggered by time spent in detention or custody and the finding of guilt on the criminal charges. This, by the way, is much better than when I looked at the bill when it was before the House of Commons. It was not necessarily linked to a conviction and so people who were presumed innocent and detained in pretrial detention would also lose their employment benefits. However, by linking it to a finding of guilt you have created a massively complex scheme to administrator in a criminal justice system which is already inefficient and overly burdensome. What will happen now is it will be necessary for people to track the outcomes of criminal justice proceedings in order to determine whether EI benefits are lost or not.
I had to do a little chart for myself with all the variables to determine when EI benefits would flow and when they would not. Some of them are fairly simple. However, you get into unfairness and difficulty particularly if the person is subjected to remand and there is a finding of guilt but the sentence that is thought to be appropriate is not a custodial sentence and the person is actually receiving a community-based sentence. If the justice system had worked efficiently and fairly and there had not been long periods of detention in order for them to come to a determination, there would be no disruption of work and the person would not have lost the entitlement to their EI benefits. However, if there is, because of the slowness and delays in the justice system, those in remand who then receive a community-based sentence would lose their entitlement to EI. That seems like an additionally onerous penalty for those people who are spending long periods in pretrial detention when they do not end up with a custodial sentence at the end of the day.
The other concern is that the way the courts are administered now is probably at the maximum level of complexity without losing cases. As many of you may know, there have been many delays in court processing in B.C such that charges against some people have had to be dismissed. We are perilously close to facing the Askov issue, which requires that decisions be made in a reasonable time. Part of the delay relates to burdens on court administrators and clerks. This will impose an additional burden on those clerks to track what is happening with the criminal conviction and to share that information with the Employment Insurance administrators so that they can determine whether there is an entitlement or a loss of entitlement to the EI benefits at the end of the day. The Prime Minister has recently indicated that he is interested in an efficient justice system, and we are interested in that as well. We think that would be a significant problem.
The other issue we have is the illegitimacy of civil penalties on top of criminal convictions. There has been a growing tendency to compound the appropriate sentence imposed in the court by piling on civil disabilities on top of the original conviction. This is yet another example of this, and we think it leads to disproportionate penalties and is not fair to the person being sentenced.
It may well also create an impact on the criminal justice system because people will want to avoid convictions, particularly if it means that they might lose their entitlement to EI. Some people may be trying to delay their period in pretrial detention until the equivalent of the penalty that the court would impose has been discharged, as the prosecutors may well drop the charges at that point and there would be no conviction rendered and they would not lose their EI benefits, but it would exacerbate a crisis we are experiencing now in pretrial detention. That is a potential problem in this.
As Justin Piché pointed out, having employment supports for the reintegration process is enormously important to getting people back on their feet and being contributing members of society. Probably 10 per cent of the Canadian population have criminal records. If you break that down along gender lines, probably 20 per cent of men have criminal records. I raise this because you are concerned with employment. Taking that number of people out of the possibility of employment or compromising their ability to get employment will have an effect on the economy as well as on those people trying to reintegrate.
In conclusion, we have concerns with Bill C-316. It would disentitle people to the benefit of an insurance scheme to which they and their employers contributed. It would create unfairness for claimants and significant administrative burdens. For those found guilty and sentenced in the criminal courts, it would amount to an additional ex post facto penalty to the criminal sentence that is dubious in law and could lead to disproportionate penalties. Efforts to avoid the loss of Employment Insurance benefits could lead to delays in a criminal justice system that is already in crisis. It would undermine public safety by jeopardizing employment prospects and denying insurance payments to a vulnerable group as they seek to successfully reintegrate into the community.
For these reasons, we urge that the committee oppose Bill C-316.
Kim Pate, Executive Director, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies: Thank you also for the invitation from the committee to appear on behalf of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies. We are an organization spread across the country. Our membership services individuals, women and girls in particular, who have been victimized, who are marginalized, who are criminalized and who end up institutionalized. It ranges anywhere from early intervention with pregnant teens and girls, after-school programs, shelters for battered women, victims' services alongside police services through to and including visits to the institutions, advocacy for women in jail, resettlement services and halfway houses, and work with homeless and women post-warrant expiry. It is from that perspective that I offer my comments.
I do not need to repeat what my colleagues have said. We are in agreement with the submissions made both by the Canadian Criminal Justice Association and the John Howard Society of Canada.
I, too, was pleased to see that there had been some change in items of the pretrial detention component. I agree, however, that it is not clear from that change what that would mean, and I think the administrative burdens that may be added to the system in order to administer those sorts of changes may inadvertently result in further complications. Clearly that was not intended, but unfortunately there are far too many unintended consequences when we make these sorts of changes.
We have concerns that the Charter will be potentially breached by the addition of a civil penalty in addition to a criminal one. I do not need to go through that again.
Also, we are concerned with the ability for individuals who have, in law, repaid their debt to society and then have great difficulty reintegrating.
We are also concerned with the added victimization that has been identified for family members who may be reliant on individuals who would otherwise be able to benefit from the Employment Insurance scheme to which they have contributed and therefore are deemed to be entitled otherwise.
We are also concerned about the potential off-loading on provinces of the costs of maintaining those individuals and their families. If in fact they are not eligible for the Employment Insurance scheme to which they contributed and are not able to find employment, they may very well find themselves on the rolls of the social assistance schemes and therefore be off-loaded onto the provinces and territories.
In sum, we think this is a measure that does not exemplify the proud Canadian tradition we have of supporting human rights and the principles of fairness, equality and justice. In fact, if our desire is to assist victims and prevent further victimization, then we would certainly support investment in those very national standards we have seen eviscerated in this country so that provinces and territories can implement the sorts of social services, health care and educational services that we know in fact increase the likelihood of equality, fairness and justice. We feel that going down this road will bring into further disrepute our international reputation in this regard, not to mention our national one.
The Chair: I appreciate the efficiency with which you have used your time. I will now open it up to my colleagues and urge them to be as equally efficient in their questions, as I want to ensure that each senator who wishes to ask questions will have the opportunity to do so.
Senator Eggleton: Yesterday, the proponent of the bill came before the committee and said a couple of things that I would like you to comment on. He said first of all that people coming out of jail, incarceration, are not thinking about their Employment Insurance benefits that might be out there. He was dismissing it as it is not an important issue for them. He also said, when I challenged him about people who would find themselves homeless, living in conditions that may result in their returning to crime, that your organizations and other services, a lot of them taxpayer services, I am sure, can do the job or can make up for these people not getting their Employment Insurance benefits. Could you comment on those two assertions that were made here yesterday?
Ms. Latimer: One of the things that I have been struck with is the extent to which people who have had brushes with the law and are coming out of custodial facilities are quite interested in getting employment and how frustrating that process is. I think about 72 per cent of employers now ask for criminal records checks, which makes that process very challenging indeed.
I think they are particularly interested in ensuring that their families are not unduly hurt by their lack of good judgment in having committed an offence, and they are interested in ensuring that they get employment.
This is becoming increasingly challenging, and it is certainly well beyond the capacity of organizations like John Howard and I would assume the Elizabeth Fry Society — but I will let Ms. Pate speak to that — to compensate for the many detrimental measures put in place. In fact, we were quite surprised, for example, when we testified against the pardon application or records suspension fee being increased to $631 that the National Parole Board of Canada is telling people who cannot afford the $631 that they should turn to the John Howard Society. It would be wonderful if we did have the money to support people getting pardons, but that is not within the range of capacity we are able to provide.
Ms. Pate: I would echo the comments Ms. Latimer has made. In addition, we certainly have a number of barriers for women. I had a call this past weekend from a woman who was even having difficulty getting her mobile trailer put in a parking spot because she had a criminal record. This is after years of trying to find employment or to set up her own business.
The reality is that huge blocks people are now able to get on with their lives. The pardons have only made that more difficult. We have had two offices close in the past year because they did not have resources to continue. The oversubscription of our services means that our ability to assist people in these ways is becoming more remote as the numbers vastly increase.
Senator Eggleton: Let me ask you a question about the people we are talking about. While we are talking up two years, I understand that the vast majority might be there for three months, for example.
There are a couple of submissions I just want to quote from. One is from the United Way of Calgary, representatives of which will be here later. It says: "Aboriginal women and women with mental health issues have been identified as the fastest growing prison population in Canada."
In 2011, a National Council of Welfare report indicated that of the 80 per cent of Canadian women incarcerated for poverty-related issues, 39 per cent of them are for failure to pay a fine. The sponsor of the bill said he did not believe anyone ever went to jail for not paying a fine. Can you comment on that and add any other comments about the characteristics of the prison population we are talking about in terms of this bill?
Ms. Pate: That is the sort of data we have as well. We are seeing an increase in the number of women in prison. We have seen them being the fastest growing prison population for some time — the better part of the decade — and the numbers are continuing to increase. As the most recent death in the regional psychiatry centre in Saskatoon reveals, the issues for both physical health, mental health and for indigenous women is only getting worse. We are seeing increased numbers.
The Correctional Service of Canada has estimated that by the end of this decade, we may see half of the women in federal custody being indigenous women. Clearly that is not representative.
Senator Eggleton: Are they part of the population we are talking about as part of this bill? That is what I want to know.
Ms. Pate: They will be part of the population but not all. Some of the women with mental health issues will be women who may not have been able to work. Women, more so than when I worked with men, are chronically more likely to be underemployed and undereducated, so the cuts to social services, health care and education have already disproportionately impacted them.
However, some of them will be impacted by this, yes.
Ms. Latimer: I would say you are looking at a similar situation for men. I was looking at something last night. Statistics from 1989 said that 40 per cent of people in custody in Nova Scotia were there for defaulting on fines.
Senator Eggleton: What percentage?
Ms. Latimer: It was 40 per cent.
It is not unusual, particularly in the provincial institutions, for people to be there for fine defaults. The people you see ending up in prison are often those with chronic mental health, addiction issues, and the impoverished and marginalized of both genders.
Mr. Piché: I was listening to the testimony yesterday from the proponent of the bill. One of the main reasons he was encouraged to do this was he wants to ensure a principle of fairness that people who are criminalized and people who are not criminalized have the same type of EI benefits.
He told the story of a woman with two children who had only been working in her new career for three months, was diagnosed with cancer, and then she tried to get EI to cope with her treatment. She was not able to get it. This prompted the honourable member to examine the Employment Insurance Act to see what clauses would prevent her from getting access.
To respond to that kind of situation in a manner that strips away Employment Insurance from a group of people rather than trying to find a way through legislation or other means to ensure that the person with cancer has Employment Insurance seems like we are pursuing the wrong remedy. In fact, we are creating another disease.
That is all I wanted to add regarding fairness.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you very much for your presentations. I have two questions, the first of which is very delicate. I will put it delicately. People are telling us that this measure could affect many aboriginal women. When I look at statistics on incarceration, I see that 91 per cent of prisoners are men and 9 per cent are women. The portion of incarcerated aboriginals in Canada varies between 3 per cent and 4 per cent, and aboriginal women account for 0.02 per cent.
Do you think saying that this measure will mainly affect women and aboriginal women is an exaggeration? I am looking at the statistics. That prison population is statistically very low.
Mr. Piché: Although the aboriginal population represents 3 per cent of Canadians, it accounts for 20 per cent of provincial and territorial inmates, and 27 per cent of federal inmates.
Senator Boisvenu: The statistics I just gave you concern the prison population. Ninety-one per cent are men and nine per cent are women. The aboriginal prison population varies between 3 per cent and 4 per cent of the total prison population. The statistics I am giving you concern prisoners.
Mr. Piché: I do not know where your statistics came from.
Senator Boisvenu: Public Safety Canada.
Mr. Piché: The Statistics Canada report published this summer states that 20 per cent of federal inmates and 27 per cent of provincial inmates are aboriginals. Those are the statistics I know about. However, I will have a look at your report.
Senator Boisvenu: I have two sources — Statistique Québec for the Quebec prison population, and Public Safety Canada for the statistics on aboriginals. As we do not agree on the statistics, I will stop here.
I put a question yesterday to Ms. Laroche from Service Canada. When Canadians voluntarily leave their job, they are not eligible for employment insurance. When an individual voluntarily commits a crime, why would that individual — who is voluntarily leaving their job — have a benefit or privilege that honest Canadians, who have not committed any crimes, do not have access to?
This bill is a piece of legislation for equality among Canadians. I am trying to understand the logic here.
If I voluntarily leave my job to go on vacation because I do not like working, I will not be eligible for employment insurance. If I voluntarily commit a crime, I am an elderly person, I voluntarily assault a woman, I am incarcerated, I will be benefiting from a privilege.
I am trying to understand how this logic can be defended.
[English]
Ms. Latimer: I think you raise a very interesting point, and it goes to elements of criminal and civil law. When people commit a crime, it does not necessarily mean that they are making a conscious decision not to work. Most people who commit a crime and are convicted and sentenced receive a community-based sentence; they continue on with their employment, so there is no loss of employment in that regard. It is illogical to think that the intention to commit the crime is equal to an intention not to work. I think these are separate things.
I would guarantee that most of the people in remand centres or in custody would much prefer to be working than to be where they are. It is the state's imposition of a penalty — justly so — that is precluding them from having access to employment; however, it does not mean they do not voluntarily want to work.
On your first point, I am no statistician, but you are quite right: There are far more men in conflict with the law and in the prison system than there are women. However, when you are talking about proportionate impact, you see bigger changes when you are talking about smaller subgroups within the prison context.
There is no question this denial of EI benefits will have a massive impact on males in the prison system. It will have a very serious impact on men, but it may well have a disproportionate impact on women. However, there will be more people who are affected.
Ms. Pate: It is true that there are disproportionately more men than women in prison. However, I am not sure where your stats came from because the most recent stats on the number of Aboriginal women in federal custody is 32 per cent and rising, and the numbers regarding provincial custody ranges anywhere from a low in Quebec to a high of 90 per cent in Saskatchewan.
As has just been discussed, the issue of how people end up in custody, particularly when you are talking about crimes where people are trying to survive poverty in a context where we have inadequate social assistance rates, where we have inadequate wages and where we are seeing an increasing gap — as Kathleen Lahey from Queen's has documented — between the income earning potential of women and men, we are seeing a disproportional impact on women in general. Yes, it is a smaller number than the number of men, but there is a grossly disproportional impact when you see the impact of criminalization, period, on those individuals, particularly when you realize how many of them — if there were other opportunities — would likely not end up in that situation in the first place.
Senator Merchant: I come from Saskatchewan, and I think those are very sad statistics. Women have children, and Aboriginal women do have children because I know that they are a growing population. Maybe you could comment as to how it affects families when women find themselves in a situation where they come out of prison, cannot access their EI benefits, and they have children to support.
Ms. Pate: Due to the underemployment situation, I would agree that this will have less impact than if it were to be applied across the board to anybody who had a criminal record, for instance, or as it was in the first instance in the house. However, the reality is that it does impact children. We know that the majority of women in prison are mothers. Most of them were sole supports for their children before they went to prison.
The social, human and financial costs of incarcerating women, which are rarely taken into account, are the costs of having the state care for their children. Again, those costs are usually off-loaded onto the provinces and territories because the children end up in the child welfare system.
We do not have good stats in Canada, but comparable stats in the United States, where this has been looked at, indicate that about 90 per cent of the children of women in custody end up in the care of the state as opposed to about 10 per cent of the children of men. Therefore, we are looking at a huge issue in terms of the addition of this punitive impact that comes down on individuals who have criminal records and have been in prison, and the long-term costs of keeping their children.
That is not a direct consequence of this bill. I do not want to misrepresent it, but certainly it is an overall concern. This bill contributes to that concern when we see civil penalties being added to criminal penalties. We have already seen in this country a following of the U.S. example of eliminating social assistance benefits in a similar vein to what is in this bill in terms of adding a civil penalty to a criminal penalty. We certainly do not want to see that happen here more than it already has.
Senator Merchant: All of you have done a lot of research in this area, and I was taken aback yesterday by the sponsor of the bill, who could not give us any information that he had obtained through research other than to say that he had talked to some people in his area and they were all supportive of his efforts, which I am sure is true. However, I think we need a little more scientific research to make these changes in our laws.
When we mentioned that this was brought in by Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, who was also from Saskatchewan, the sponsor said, "Yes, that was a Progressive Conservative prime minister." Those were his words.
Senator Eggleton: They got rid of the word "progressive."
Senator Merchant: Those were his words. I do not know if that counts or not.
Mr. Piché, if this were to come into effect, how many persons are we talking about? Do you have any numbers at all?
Mr. Piché: Perhaps Ms. Pate and Ms. Latimer can add to this, but I do not know. We do not know, and I think that is part of the problem. We do not have the evidentiary base to see what the collateral consequences will be on these populations. I think we need to do that research before we move forward with policies in order to see the impact on Canadians.
Ms. Pate: I apologize in advance for not exactly answering that question, but given the motivation of the sponsor of the bill — and this may be a little unconventional — perhaps this committee could propose a different change to the EI system. Maybe exceptions could be made for individuals who have a debilitating and potentially life-threatening diagnosis, like lethal cancer.
I was recently assisting a friend who has fourth stage breast cancer and is in a group with a woman who faced a similar situation to the one discussed by the proponent of the bill, except she did qualify for EI, but it was not enough. After her benefits were done, she went on social assistance. She could not get gifts from those of us who were willing to make gifts to her because she would then be disqualified or require an overpayment.
Paradoxically, she did qualify, but when her benefits ran out, she then was on social assistance, struggling to maintain and support her family. She was a sole-support mom, and we had to go through all kinds of convoluted ways assist her and her family to have Christmas and gifts for the children for their birthdays, because she was struggling to survive on social assistance.
If you wanted to make some really positive and people-friendly amendments — particularly for women, the poor, and Aboriginal and indigenous peoples — expand the extent to which EI would be available to those who have worked but for whom the benefits period may not be sufficient to assist them through that process. That would be an excellent amendment.
Senator Dyck: I had two questions, but you raised the example of the cancer patient. I believe we were told yesterday that the cancer patient was eligible for EI. In that situation, it was because she had taken leave to do additional educational training.
The Chair: It is the difference between voluntary withdrawal and the emergency issue. The emergency issue is covered now; the voluntary issue is not.
Senator Dyck: Therefore, the cancer part of the story, although a very sad story, really is not relevant to this situation.
During testimony, to some extent, the sponsor of the bill had a stereotyped view of what criminals were. He used words like "assault" and "carrying out crimes that we all should not allow to happen." If you look at the statistics, what sorts of crimes are most people in jail for? We had a little chart here that says up to 75 per cent of people in custody are there for three months or less. Basically, we are dealing with theft under, fairly minor.
Ms. Latimer: The vast number of people in jail are there for minor property offences and drug offences. There is an important sliver of people who are there for violent offences and bodily harm offences, but the majority of people are there for common assault, which is tantamount to bar fights, property offences and drug offences.
Senator Dyck: To follow up, the issue of Aboriginal women has been raised a couple of times. I am from Saskatchewan, and I know that the statistics there are very bad for Aboriginals when it comes to incarceration. Someone said that 90 per cent of the prison population in Saskatchewan is Aboriginal. It was also mentioned that most of the women who are in prison are poor and single parents. How do you see this bill having an impact? Will it have a more detrimental impact on Aboriginal women?
Ms. Pate: For Aboriginal women who have been employed and would be otherwise eligible, it would have a significant detrimental impact because they would be coming out of prison and trying to get access to or make contact with their children and get them back from care while also trying to find work and accommodation. The potential impact for those who would be eligible would be significant. It is already difficult enough when they are coming out.
To add to the last question you asked, in my experience, when we are talking about women who are in custody for violent offences, it is often reactive violence. That does not mean it is okay. For instance, last Friday I saw a woman in full restraints on a board in the segregation cell of a regional psychiatric centre. I last saw her when she was in the community, and she has mental health issues. She went to the hospital to get support. Since she had a criminal record, she was not put as a priority, and they told her that they were not going to take her in even if they got a bed. She then said, "Well, I know how to get help," and proceeded to say she was going to kill someone or take someone hostage. She is now in jail for a violent offence. She did not do any violence, but she is in jail for a violent offence largely because she has mental health issues that are going untreated in the community.
Would she get EI on this bill? No, she was not out long enough to have employment for a sufficient amount of time, but that is certainly someone who is in custody and a reason why these kinds of impediments are all the more egregious.
Senator Dyck: Do you think that the Native Women's Association of Canada should appear as a witness? They have a report called Arrest the Legacy — from Residential Schools to Prison.
Ms. Pate: Yes. We have worked closely with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Native Women's Association of Canada, looking at the multi-generational impact on particularly women of residential schools, both in terms of those who were in residential schools themselves or whose parents and grandparents were.
Senator Cordy: We heard yesterday from the sponsor that prisoners were getting "preferential treatment" because they were able to delay receiving their Employment Insurance until they left. They were able to receive their Employment Insurance after they would finish their term. Could you comment on that?
We also heard yesterday from the sponsor that if they were not getting EI, they would be able to get help from the Elizabeth Fry Society or from the John Howard Society. I wonder if you could comment on that.
I would also like to say a couple of things. We have to remember that EI is an insurance plan; it is not a government handout. People have paid premiums into this plan. We also have to keep in mind that we are talking about minor offences that people have committed. These are people who will be in jail for less than 104 weeks. Ms. Latimer and Ms. Pate have given a description of the types of crimes that they would likely be in jail for.
Could you comment on the preferential treatment aspect and how able the John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry Society are to help people financially when they leave prison?
Ms. Latimer: I do not think anyone who has experienced a period in pretrial detention or in the provincial custody facilities would consider that to be preferential treatment. I would encourage all senators who have access to prisons to go and take a look to see what is happening there. They are overcrowded; they are dangerous; they are violent. They are not places people want to be.
Particularly if it is detention at the remand phase, when you are presumed innocent, that is not understood as being a penalty. That is understood as being a requirement of the justice system to ensure that you attend trial and have your day in court. For someone to lose benefits because of a demand of the justice system, which really puts them in a significant loss of liberties situation, would seem unbelievably unfair.
As for the capacity of the John Howard Society, I think this is very interesting. It is a charity. We do what we can, but our resources are certainly limited. We cannot, though we would love to, compensate for a lot of the tough-on- crime measures that are having a detrimental and harsh effect on people across the country. Our phones are constantly ringing. The demand for assistance is increasing. I wish we could answer all of the requests for assistance, but we cannot.
Ms. Pate: We are in a similar situation. Fortunately, a number of our halfway houses keep beds available for community resources and are underfunded but also underwritten by the local societies. The increased demand for those beds is huge. Every day we get requests from people asking for our assistance in everything from finding an apartment to, "Do I have to say I have a criminal record so that I can get this trailer pad?" Those are the sorts of things we face every day.
I wish we could meet the demand. We are probably not meeting hardly any of the demand that is out there right now. We are doing the best we can. We have thousands and thousands of volunteers, community members who contribute of their time to try and assist and who donate resources, but unfortunately the demand is increasing astronomically.
Senator Cordy: Yesterday I asked the sponsor of the bill about the types of crimes for which people are incarcerated — three months, for example. I suggested to him that there were people in Nova Scotia going to jail for defaulting on fines, not being able to pay their fines. He said he thought that was highly unlikely. Could you give me stats on people who are being sent to prison for not paying fines?
Ms. Pate: I cannot give you the exact stats, although Mr. Piché or Ms. Latimer might be able to.
One of the experts in your province, Vince Calderhead, brought one of the key challenges to try and stop that process. He has been somewhat successful in your province but not necessarily anywhere else in the country. We are still seeing people fined for default, particularly where no "fine option" programs exist.
Ms. Latimer: This is likely to become more of a problem with the doubling of the victim fine surcharge or victim surcharge, because that also has a provision that judges cannot waive it on the basis of financial hardship. You will see a lot of people who are really not able to pay being required to pay.
Senator Cordy: Are we penalizing the poor with this bill?
Ms. Latimer: Yes, but you are also penalizing those who have employment and are good prospects for being successfully reintegrated if they are able to maintain their employment through this period.
Ms. Pate: I would say you are penalizing every Canadian taxpayer because the ultimate cost will come to be borne by those who are paying taxes for not just EI, but also for provincial social services and mental health services in particular.
Senator Seidman: There is no question you are presenting issues, problems to us that are serious, and I do not think that anyone here would even begin to minimize them. However, I must say that we are also hearing discrepancies in numbers today. As well, it is not clear who will really be affected by this bill. We talk about people and we hear from you about people with mental health problems. However, people with long histories of mental health problems would probably never have accumulated enough work time or Employment Insurance to be at risk.
I have read in our notes and we have talked a lot here about people with sentences of three months or less. We have been advised in our research notes that persons sentenced to one year or less would be less affected by this bill and would likely still accumulate enough hours of insurable employment, even without the extension of the qualifying period. That would take care of a certain degree of concern around this table about people who had committed less severe or less violent crimes, people who were incarcerated for a week, a month or two months, or people who had not paid fines. It appears the people that we were seriously concerned about would not really be affected by this bill.
Ms. Latimer: I think it is also important to look at pretrial detention, which is a period of confinement that will be factored into this. More than half the people behind bars in this country are in remand. The average length of time is fairly short, but some of them are there for a year.
I was talking to a fellow in the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre who had been there for four years. These are big chunks of time, and the actual sentence that may be imposed could be in the range of 90 days because they take into account the amount of time the person has spent in remand.
It is not easy to judge the extent of the loss of the liberties by confinement that is connected with the criminal process by looking at the actual sentence that is imposed without also looking at the period of remand. However, I agree with you and with Mr. Piché. I think you need some more research on the impact of this particular bill.
Senator Munson: I have two quick questions. What message is this bill sending to our prison population?
A philosophical question: With this kind of bill, what picture is it painting of our society?
Ms. Latimer: The prison population is feeling that they are marginalized and not welcome in society. That creates a real problem. They are being shut out of a capacity to even give charitable donations, through the removal of the capacity to have pizza and chicken events where they raise money for charity. That is really pro-social conduct. They are not welcome in the employment services. They are not welcome to get EI benefits that they contributed to. Generally, they are feeling more marginalized and less committed to making a contribution. I think it is an extremely negative statement that prisoners will be hearing. It does not help society in the long run because a great number of people have criminal records.
Ms. Pate: I agree with that. I received two letters in the past two days. One was from a woman inside who thanked us for continuing to say the things that it sounds like people do not want to hear anymore, and I thought, "What an indictment of our communities." There is a presumption that people are not welcome back in their own communities anymore. This is a woman who, much like the situation faced by Ashley Smith, ended up in custody largely because of mental health issues and is trying to get out, but is in a fairly vicious cycle. We are trying to get her into the mental health system right now.
The other letter was from a man I worked with years ago — I have worked for the last 21 years with women and girls — and his response was similar. He said, "I guess it will not be long before no one will speak up for us because we will be the garbage of society forever. Until we are in a big dump and buried somewhere, nobody will be happy."
That sentiment of losing hope is being expressed in a country where we have prided ourselves — and where we demonstrate to our children, every day I hope — that you can make mistakes and you can come back from making those mistakes and pay back to the community. We are sending very different messages inside.
Equally as scary is the message we are sending for the rest of the population when we say that no longer is the penalty the criminal penalty, but now we will heap on all kinds of civil penalties. It means we are back to a place where prisoners suffer civil and community death, as well as a criminal penalty.
Ms. Latimer: We are heading back to having outlaws: people outside of the law, outside of the protection of the laws because of the criminal act that they have committed.
Mr. Piché: I think the message we are sending to prisoners is that essentially we should not hope for better days to come. Every one of us sitting around this table hopes for improvements to be made in our own lives and in society more generally. We are saying to a group of people that they should not hope, whether we are talking about pardons or bills like this.
I think when we are talking about the message that we are sending to our society, justice — whether we were talking about justice in our own day-to-day lives or within the penal system — is being defined by what we can take away from people. That is extremely problematic. We should not respond to unfair situations with more unfairness and to unjust situations with more injustice. I think we can do better. We have tremendous resources in this country and prospects for economic growth. We can do better.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Colleagues, I am sorry we did not get to everyone to have their questions asked today.
It is clear to the committee that this is a complex area with very significant positions that often differ in terms of how we see these issues in society. However, I think you have been very clear with regard to your presentations and answers. On behalf of the committee, thank you for being here and answering questions in the manner that you did.
Colleagues, we now welcome two witnesses who I will introduce and invite to speak in the order they appear on my list. I will ask Loreen Gilmour, Director of Poverty Initiatives and Research for the United Way of Calgary, to present first.
Loreen Gilmour, Director, Poverty Initiatives and Research, United Way of Calgary: Thank you for the invitation to appear here today. The United Way of Calgary and area has recently announced that we just raised $55.2 million from our community as we work towards our vision, which is to create a great city for everyone. The United Way has a long history in Calgary of representing vulnerable populations, and we support over 100 front-line agencies, but we also work toward progressive policy and system change that we hope will remove barriers and, in the future, have fewer vulnerable people in our population.
It is because of these barriers that we recommend that the Senate oppose Bill C-316. Our research indicates that this will add more barriers and make it more difficult for former prisoners to reintegrate. We agree with many of the positions that the previous three presenters had discussed.
We believe this bill will trap more people into poverty. That increases the likelihood of recidivism and the need for more government spending down the road. Removing supports from formerly incarcerated people will end up costing taxpayers more money in the long run, potentially create more crimes and more victims and creates an additional punishment.
We know from our context in terms of looking at vulnerable populations that many of the people in prisons come from a background that has been impacted by poverty, mental illness, violence or abuse. While we agree that personal responsibility is an important principle, people that come from these backgrounds often face fewer choices or fewer tenable choices than many of us in this room would have in our day-to-day life.
We provided a Crimes of Desperation report that was published by the United Way in 2008. In that report, we chronicled how many women in particular were committing crimes that ended them up in the remand system that were very minor types of crimes. For example, we talk in this study of single moms making the decision not to buy a CTrain ticket, which was $2.50 at that time, because that bought a loaf of bread. If you got caught on the CTrain without a ticket and you had other unpaid tickets, which again may have been part of those decisions and choices that you were making to support your children, you could end up in the remand centre.
We found that these types of crimes tended to increase in August and September. Many moms are struggling to get their kids back to school and the supplies that they need. We also found that November and December was another key time when those crimes went up as the pressures of Christmas were visited upon these women.
The consequences of being taken off the CTrain and off to the remand centre were often, we feel, outweighing the crime. If you missed a shift or two of work, you may have actually lost your job. Even if you did not lose your job, your pay would be cut, which could then be disastrous when it came time to pay the rent. Moms were sometimes losing their apartments. Often women in these situations did not have a broad social network. If they had kids at home, they did not often have friends they could phone in their one phone call to say, "Please pick up my kids from daycare or school," and sometimes these children were being apprehended. You see from a choice of not buying something as simple as a CTrain ticket you often had very negative, escalating results from that.
We do know from our research that living in poverty often constrains the choices people have to make. While we are not advocating that there be no consequences, we think that taking away further supports from a vulnerable population will only result in very negative consequences for our society. We know that for anyone coming out of prison, one of the key elements if we have any hope of them integrating into our society is that they must have access to basic needs. We know many people coming out are homeless, or they are now homeless. Often they do not have access even to food and a stable income. We believe if they have paid into the unemployment system, that that is one very positive thing our society can continue to do to help people re-establish themselves.
From our learnings of this report, we actually began a pilot to look at what would happen if we took five to eight women who had come out of the justice system, with very minor crimes, and gave them those very intensive wraparound supports, because we know that they do not exist in our society. We worked with the Elizabeth Fry Society, the John Howard and four or five other agencies that the United Way funds. Even in that intensive environment, we found people really struggling — struggling to get that apartment because they have a criminal record now, very tough to get employment, especially for women who often are not able to get manual labour or those entry- level construction jobs.
At least if they have paid into unemployment and they are able to access that, we believe that there is a much greater likelihood that they will be able to support themselves, support their children and come back into society. If we do not, we often leave people with the choice of making quasi-illegal income or potentially illegal income, part of the revolving door, or as our chief of police has talked about in Calgary, the catch and release program, which just ends up costing us all more.
For those reasons, we would strongly recommend that the Senate not support this bill. We believe it will lead to more poverty, more crime, more costs and more victims.
The Chair: I will now invite Heidi Illingworth, Executive Director of the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, to please proceed.
Heidi Illingworth, Executive Director, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime: Thank you for inviting the Resource Centre to appear before you on Bill C-316. I have a very short statement this morning.
We are a non-profit, national advocacy agency working to ensure that the voices of crime victims and survivors are heard. Our concern is for public safety. Also generally we have a focus on more serious and violent crime.
We are here to offer our support for the legislation today for two main reasons. The first is for fiscal reasons. In this economic climate, it makes sense to cut costs in this area and focus government spending on the priorities of Canadians. While we agree that it is important for Canada to offer a social safety net for more vulnerable citizens, there must be limits.
The second reason we support the legislation is about balance. Victims of crime and trauma are not offered an extension of the qualifying period for EI to 104 weeks, even though many victims cannot immediately return to work or in some cases do not return to work at all following victimization due to grief, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, et cetera. I wanted to share with you the voice of our board in saying that many of them do not feel it is just for those who deliberately commit acts of violence and harm to benefit from this extension. Also, we support the amendments made by the House of Commons.
The Chair: Thank you both very much. I will now invite my colleagues to ask their questions.
Senator Eggleton: There has been a lot of discussion about fairness, and fairness to whom. People who support the bill are saying that it is unfair for these people to have something that citizens who are not in trouble with the law would not otherwise have. A case was cited. However, a lot of people have also suggested that maybe we need to increase the benefits for people who are ill and who need more support from EI. In fact, this committee in its In From the Margins report did recommend that, I might add.
The other side of fairness is whether it is fair to taxpayers. For one thing, taxpayers will pick up more costs; if it does not come from EI, which is a contributor system, a lot of it will come from taxpayers. Is it fair to the taxpayer? Is it fair to the public?
As the previous witnesses said, if these people are marginalized to a degree where they feel there is a loss of hope, there is a good chance they will get back into more crime, and more crime means more victims. What sense does that make? It is not fair to victims. It is not fair to victims in the future, particularly.
Could you comment on the question of unfairness?
Ms. Gilmour: In terms of fairness, the bill that is in front of you is proposing to take away EI from people who are coming out of prison. It does not mention anything about victims. If there is an interest in increasing the EI program for that group of people, we would be in support of that.
We are not in support of taking away one of the limited supports that are currently available to people when they are coming out of prison as part of their reintegration. Studies done by the criminal justice system say that it costs at least $140,000 a year to support someone in a federal penitentiary. If we take away more supports from people and they have no choice but to turn to crime, we are actually costing people more in the long run. If you look at it from a purely economic standpoint, a few weeks or a few months of EI from a system they have already contributed to is a far less expensive option for our society.
From a fairness viewpoint, if we want to extend EI benefits to victims of crime, the United Way would be supportive of that. We also know that they are a vulnerable group.
In terms of the double jeopardy that has been talked about by previous witnesses, you start to mix criminal and civil penalties, which we do not believe is part of the intention of our justice system.
Ms. Illingworth: I agree that this bill does not speak at all to victims, so it is difficult coming in. I know the other groups before us this morning have done a good job of addressing the needs of those on the other side of the law.
I want to reiterate from our opening statement that it is often the case that it seems in this justice system that we are addressing those who commit crime and not the needs of those impacted by it. I would like to reiterate that.
Senator Eggleton: I appreciate the need to talk about the victims of crime. I think the government should be doing more to help the victims of crime. There is no doubt about that.
However, the focus in this particular bill seems to be not on helping but on taking away. By taking away, it gives less hope to those people in the prison system. We are talking about people with sentences only up to two years; we are not talking about the long-term, hardened or serious criminals who would have sentences longer than two years. We are talking about shorter sentences. Many of them, as we have heard, have poverty-related issues, even people who cannot pay fines.
What is the public interest here? Is it not in the public interest to try to prevent more crime, to support victims of crime, and to prevent future victims of crime?
Ms. Illingworth: I would agree with that statement; it is in the public interest, absolutely. Our agency is very interested in looking at ways to increase funding in this country around crime prevention. Let us stop it before it begins, so we do not have victims in the first place.
I think this bill really is out of scope a little bit for us because we focus more on the serious and violent crimes. We think that people who are in prison for reasons of poverty and for reasons like the examples of the moms Ms. Gilmour provided certainly need that extra support when they come out of prison.
Senator Merchant: Ms. Illingworth, I think it is difficult for you. We have heard so many moving stories on the other side, so I thank you very much for being here.
My question was similar to this. The Calgary United Way did a complexity of integration case study. Could you tell us what that showed about the complexity of women reintegrating into the workforce? You have done a study and I would like to hear about it.
Ms. Gilmour: It was our family intervention pilot. We were looking at women coming out of the justice system with minor or less severe types of crimes. The hypothesis was that if we provided extensive wraparound support, we could see them reintegrate quicker, better and it would be better for their families as well.
Even with that intensive support where we had an additional case worker and we were drawing on about a half-dozen agencies that we fund, it was still extremely difficult. Many of these women were coming in with mental health issues. Again, as previous witnesses have talked about, there was just the difficulty of getting an apartment once you have a criminal record. Every step of the way there seemed to be a brick wall. Even having a case worker travelling that journey hand in hand with these women, they faced extreme difficulties getting reintegrated and on their feet in society.
If we take away one more support, we are just slamming the doors. When you do that and you leave people no other opportunities, then they are often forced back into a life of crime because they do not have any other options. Therefore, more costs, more victims.
There were comments or questions earlier about the proponent of this bill saying there are enough supports in the community. That is absolutely not the case. There is no city or town in this country that does not have vulnerable populations in dire straits. Current support levels in the community are poor, as federal, provincial and municipal governments are often off-loading some of these support programs to the non-profit sector. It is a fallacy to think it will just get picked up, because it is not. We are having more and more populations and people falling through the cracks.
Senator Enverga: This is more or less a question for the previous witness, but I think you will be able to comment. I believe we have to give everybody a second chance, and I also noticed that this bill will only impact those incarcerated for one year or more. If you are incarcerated for a year, you must have committed a serious crime, something that will seriously impact the victims.
In this bill, we will try to balance everything. I was thinking about — and I want your comment — how much impact the crime has on the victims. Would it be fair if the convicted person gets out of jail and has a normal life because they will have EI, while the victim will not be able to function correctly? There must be instances like that. They cannot live normally because they were victimized. I do not think that would be fair.
Could you comment? Will it be fair if this convicted person has a normal life when they get out of jail while the victim is still suffering from the victimization? I hope you will be able to answer these questions.
Ms. Illingworth: In our work with survivors, we certainly see that crime costs a lot. There is a huge toll financially, emotionally and psychologically within families. There is a lot of harm.
Justice has done research about the cost of crime in Canada every year. It is massive, especially in more serious and violent crime cases, which is where our focus is. We have family members who cannot go back to work because they are too traumatized, anxious and cannot sleep properly. We hear from family members about how much it costs: various legal costs, loss of employment, health costs, psychologically. It is very expensive to have a professional psychologist work with them over a long period of time to help recover from the trauma they experienced.
Our agency feels that we do not do enough in this country to support victims in their recovery and in helping them reintegrate and normalize their lives after a crime happens. We would like to see the wraparound supports for offenders coming back into society available for the victims as well.
Senator Enverga: Have you met victims who could not function normally in the community? How do they feel if they find out the perpetrator of the crime receives EI benefits and lives a normal life? Have you met victims like that?
Ms. Illingworth: Not specifically about an offender receiving EI, but there is a feeling among many victims — not all — that the supports to help offenders reintegrate are far more than what they are for victims in this country.
Senator Enverga: If the criminal does not receive EI, do you think the victim will feel better or maybe more justified?
Ms. Illingworth: Possibly. There is a feeling that it is unjust for many victims. It would not be the same in every case. Some victims want offenders to make up for what they have done, to come back and contribute to society and not harm anyone else. They do not always want to see someone locked up forever or suffer severe consequences.
Senator Martin: Thank you both for being here. It is clear, even from our session so far, that we have one person representing the families of victims, advocating for victims. We have been focusing on the legislation for various reasons. We say "the other side" or "this side," but I appreciate your presence here today.
In the case of individuals suffering from mental health issues, the way our system currently works is that the focus can be entirely around that person. The victims, families and those affected are not ignored, but the focus tends to be on the perpetrator or the person with mental health issues. For various reasons, we want to see these things addressed, but I want to acknowledge how important your voice has been for our study of this bill.
Ms. Gilmour, my question is about the case you mentioned regarding single moms or women who are in these various vulnerable, poverty-stricken situations. As a society we need to think about the entire system and ways we can wrap around our most vulnerable. However, of these women, how many would you say would have full-time jobs or bankable hours?
My understanding is that the provisions of this bill would not impact a lot of the cases that have been mentioned, but rather those that would have paid into EI were able to be employed. Often in serious cases of those suffering from mental health, they are not able to work. I speak from direct experience on this.
I want to express that we, as a society, must care for all Canadians. However, I am curious whether this bill would impact the types of examples you are giving and what percentage that may be because we have heard various statistics. A very important point is that often in these cases they are not employed, have not paid and would not be eligible for such benefits.
Ms. Gilmour: The study we did was not quantitative. The United Way is not an agency that advocates for people coming out of prison or victims of crime. We advocate for all vulnerable populations. We would be very supportive of the victims of crime also having additional supports. A lot of our agencies provide that. We fund many agencies that do counselling in the community for low-income Canadians and provide housing for people who may have been victims of crime. We see both sides of that issue.
In terms of the particulars of the women involved in this study, I actually do not know how many would have worked enough to qualify for unemployment. I do know that any time you take away more supports, you leave people with less choice. Even if it is a small percentage, you now have more people who have no choice but to fall in between the cracks. Some of the previous witnesses indicated the statistics on that. We did not have this bill before us, so we were not measuring or asking people if they had qualified for EI because previously they would have worked enough hours. I am afraid I cannot answer that particular question. However, any time you take supports away, you create more victims and more crime.
Senator Martin: I am reinforcing and/or highlighting the fact that the examples we were hearing around the table are all serious and that as a society we need to address many of the issues. However, in the case of the provisions this bill — specifically in making the system more equal or just — I think the sponsor of the bill presented his points clearly as to what led him to drafting of the legislation. I was trying to determine who would be captured by this.
In any event, I commend the societies that were here, including yourselves, in the work that you do. I know that it is far reaching and therefore we must continue to support groups like yours, and there are some initiatives on that as well.
Ms. Illingworth, I would love to hear from you not so much on the question but whether there is anything else you could add to what I mentioned. I raised the key issue of mental health several times. As the voice of the victims and given the advocacy work you do, is there is anything you want to add?
Ms. Illingworth: In looking at this bill, we also questioned how many cases it would apply to. If someone has worked enough hours to qualify for some EI benefits and suddenly commits a crime and ends up in prison, in our experience, I cannot imagine that there would be that many cases across the country every year where that would happen. Perhaps it would be more in the circumstance of a minor crime where someone who is established in the community and is leading a pro-social life has an incident that causes a little derailment.
Mental health is a huge issue across this country. We certainly know that it is an issue for people on the streets, for our prison system, and also for victims and survivors of crime. It is a massive issue, and we know that not enough people are getting the help and support they need to recover and become well and be productive members of society.
Ms. Gilmour: I would like to add that this bill would have no impact for those people who have ended up in the justice system without being able to work prior. Where this bill could have a negative impact is you are taking those people who were previously employed — if they had mental health issues, they were able to manage them and keep employment. That group is the most likely that can be reintegrated back into society. If they had employment before and they can have a few weeks or months of support to get back on their feet and get back into the workforce, we would want to encourage that. This bill will actually work against them because once you are released from prison, you often are homeless. It is tough to get a job when you do not have an address. We know that from lots of our other research at the United Way. Even just to create a direct deposit, if you do not have an address, it is tough to get a bank account.
A negative cascading effect happens any time you take away supports. People who were able to work before are probably the best group that you will be able to reintegrate quickly, and this bill actually works against that.
Senator Seth: Thank you, speakers. You have given very interesting presentations. I am trying to understand how we can make it equal for law-abiding citizens and the people who have done the crime.
This bill is not taking anything away from the felons. We are just not giving an extension. We are trying to show that there is a difference between two groups.
As you know, many law-abiding Canadians also have a difficult time getting back on their feet once they have lost their job. Why should felons receive preferential access to EI benefits over law-abiding Canadians? We have not done anything in this bill to harm anyone.
I understand you deal with vulnerable people and you have been working on that. What percentage of criminals — you counsel them when there is a problem — look for work when they come out of jail? How do they integrate into normal society? What happens?
Ms. Gilmour: Oftentimes when someone is released from prison, they are given a couple of bus tickets and driven to the CTrain, and that is it. They do not have a home to go to. They do not have a job. Sometimes they do not even have identification, and so we are working on creating a system where they do have at least those basic supports. If you release people and take away their ability to have even those most basic kinds of supports, you often are creating a system where they are forced into a survival mode which may include quasi-illegal or illegal activities as a way to support themselves.
We are asking that the Senate oppose this bill which would take away their ability to access EI, which they have already contributed to. If they have not paid into EI, they would not be able to collect it afterwards. This is simply an insurance program.
Our principles of justice say that if you have committed a crime and have gone to prison, you have paid your debt to society. This bill takes away an insurance program. We do not take away their health care. We are trying to reintegrate this group of people so that they do not commit more crime and do not end up back in a federal penitentiary which would cost our society many more times than EI.
Senator Seth: We are not taking away their EI. We are just taking away the extension because we are giving more preference to them than to a normal citizen who has not committed a crime. Why are we giving them preference? I do not understand that. Can you explain to me why it is so, why they should be preferred over normal law-abiding people who have done everything in their life and yet are not given the same benefit?
Ms. Gilmour: The United Way is very supportive of all vulnerable populations. We would be the first in line if there was a bill before us offering more mental supports for all Canadians, for all law-abiding citizens, because most of the vulnerable population that we represent have never committed a crime. Our fundraising and our agencies that are supporting vulnerable populations are trying to help law-abiding citizens get back on their feet.
In terms of this bill, we ask the government to continuously provide the supports to help people who have committed a crime to also get back on their feet.
Senator Cordy: We have to remember that Employment Insurance is not a handout. It is not a government handout. It is a program where you pay premiums. If you have not paid EI premiums, then you will not receive benefits, so not all the prisoners are eligible if they have not paid benefits for a certain specified period of time.
We also have to remember that with this bill we are talking about people who have committed minor crimes: people who have not paid tickets on the CTrain, people who are put in jail because they cannot afford to pay the fine. We are not talking about people in a federal penitentiary. We are not talking about major crime. We are talking about minor crime.
We have heard a lot of questions about the victims of crime, and we certainly all think that there should be more government programs to help them. They have gone through horrendous things. How does this bill specifically help victims of crime, or does it?
Ms. Illingworth: I guess specifically this bill is not about victims, as I said earlier. However, we have been asked to comment on the bill in terms of victims being one part of the equation when a crime happens. The group that I represent, our board members, certainly have the view that it is unjust to have this extension for those who commit crimes. That is what I came here to voice today.
Ms. Gilmour: I think this bill actually will end up creating more victims of crime, and so I think it is an assault on all Canadians who could be potential victims of crime. If it passes, you will have taken more supports away from people who were previously able to work and are probably most likely the group that can be reintegrated into the workforce; and if you take those choices away and take those supports away and force people back into a life of crime, there will be more victims. I think this bill will actually work to create more victims, not fewer.
Senator Cordy: Perhaps we should be looking instead at a bill that would be more helpful to society and victims of crime rather than doubly penalizing those who have committed minor crimes. Would that be the case?
Ms. Gilmour: Absolutely. All United Ways, as I have said, are advocating for vulnerable populations. Many groups need support and would benefit from help and assistance in building their assets, but this bill will actually work in the opposite direction.
Ms. Illingworth: I agree that we would love to see more legislation focused on the needs of victims, responding to them and meeting them. I understand that some people view it as taking away from one and impacting another. Unfortunately, in this country, oftentimes it is the victims who do not have a strong voice. Achieving or feeling a sense of justice is very difficult for people who have been severely traumatized.
I want to reiterate again that our board of directors is concerned about the extension that is provided in this case for people, even though it is minor crimes, mostly.
Senator Cordy: We are calling it an extension; it is really a delay in terms of receiving benefits. They are just able to delay it for a longer period of time.
We have all heard the saying "do the crime, do the time." I think we all certainly think that if you commit a crime, you should be incarcerated or penalized. However, should someone who is put in prison because they are poor or unable to pay a fine be penalized? We heard testimony earlier from the John Howard Society that 40 per cent of the people in prisons in Nova Scotia were there because they were unable to pay the fine, because they did not pay for a CTrain ticket, because they were poor.
Should we be penalizing the poor twice, once because they are jailed or penalized criminally, and then again removing a benefit to which they have paid into? Should we be penalizing the poor? They are the ones most affected. They are the ones who are unable to pay the fines. They are the ones who are imprisoned for it. They are the ones who are unable to pay for their CTrain ticket and are put in jail and then unable to receive Employment Insurance. They are being penalized twice. Should we be penalizing the poor?
Ms. Illingworth: No, we should not be penalizing the poor. We need to have social supports in this country that can help people maintain their homes.
I do not want to get into specifics. I do not know how many people are in jail because they have not paid fines. However, if someone was working previously and are paying into EI, you would think they would be able to pay fines and not be incarcerated.
Senator Cordy: It is not that much money on EI.
Ms. Illingworth: No, but if you are employed and you receive a fine in the community, I do not know what kind of fine it might be that would result in one going to prison. I think there is a disconnect there.
I would also say that not every sentence under two years in this country is for just minor crimes. We see lots of sexual offenders in this country cause immense amounts of harm to multiple victims over many periods of years and receive sentences of two years less a day.
Ms. Gilmour: We know in the Calgary courts that 25 to 40 per cent of time is spent on what they call "crimes against the courts," which are such things as not paying your fine and not showing up to meet with your probation officer. It is a perpetuation of your crime that continues into the court system. We are working with our provincial government on many of those issues. That even extends to moms with children not being able to meet with their probation officer during the day because of jobs or child care issues.
It can just cascade into negative results. We know a lot of people in the situation come from a background of poverty. We know that if you cannot meet your basic needs, you have fewer choices. You can make the wrong choices and end up in our prison system.
We therefore believe that this bill creates a double-jeopardy situation where you have paid your debt to society and now you are not able to access supports coming out of prison. Again, we feel that this will hinder their reintegration and potentially cause more crime and more victims.
The Chair: On behalf of my colleagues, I want to thank our witnesses today. This is not a simple area in which society attempts to move forward, to deal with the issues overall or to find ways through them. You have certainly brought dimensions to us with regard to our deliberations today. I want to thank my colleagues for their questions.
(The committee adjourned.)