Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 31 - Evidence - February 13, 2013
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 13, 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 4:14 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I declare the meeting in session.
[Translation]
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 will start by asking my colleagues to introduce themselves. I will start on my left.
Senator Eggleton: Art Eggleton. I am a senator from Toronto, and I am deputy chair of the committee.
Senator Merchant: Hello and welcome. Pana Merchant, from Saskatchewan.
Senator Dyck: Lillian Dyck, from Saskatchewan.
Senator Cordy: I am Jane Cordy, and I am from Nova Scotia.
Senator Enverga: Tobias Enverga, from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Josée Verner, from Quebec, the province of Quebec.
[English]
Senator Seth: Asha Seth, from Toronto, Ontario.
Senator Martin: Yonah Martin, from British Columbia.
Senator Seidman: I am Judith Seidman, from Montreal, Quebec.
The Chair: Thank you, honourable senators. I would like to remind my colleagues that we have two sessions today. We have the first session with the witnesses I will introduce in a moment. That session will end at 5:15, and it will be followed by clause by clause to end by 6:15. Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: It is my pleasure to welcome our witnesses for today's meetings and to introduce them. I will start with Teresa Edwards, who is Director of Human Rights and International Affairs. I understand you will be making the first part of the presentation.
Teresa Edwards, Director of Human Rights and International Affairs, Native Women's Association of Canada: That is correct.
The Chair: We also welcome Erin Corston, Director of Environment. Both are with the Native Women's Association of Canada. Thank you so much for joining us on short notice. Ms. Edwards, if you would please begin.
Ms. Edwards: [The witness spoke in her native language.]
My English name is Teresa Edwards, and my Mi'kmaq name is Young Fire Woman. It is my privilege to present to you today on behalf of the Native Women's Association of Canada. Before I do, I would like to acknowledge the Algonquin people, on whose territory we are gathered today. I always have to centre myself on the earth, to acknowledge where I come from, in order to be able to discuss where we are going from hereon in. I realize we are pressed for time, so I will just highlight some of my presentation with the hope that your questions will prompt more fulsome discussion afterwards.
On behalf of the Native Women's Association of Canada, otherwise known as NWAC, we are here to highlight some of the concerns of Aboriginal women that have been raised to us over the last 40 years, all linked to the advancement and well-being of Aboriginal women and girls, their families and communities. Today, more importantly, Aboriginal women continue to play a central role as the knowledge holders. They are integral to the well-being of their families and communities. They are the pillars of strength and the mainstay. Despite their resilience, however, Aboriginal women continue to face social, political and economic barriers that prevent them from fully participating, as they once did, in decision-making processes in their communities and in this country.
This brings us to why we are here today. Generations of Aboriginal communities have seen their lives, families, communities, lands, culture and traditions being exploited, appropriated, disrespected and harmed. How is that relevant? As a result of those issues, Aboriginal peoples and, more specifically, Aboriginal women, are among the most disadvantaged, vulnerable peoples in Canada. They continue to suffer persistent marginalization, impoverishment, inequality, incarceration and ongoing discrimination through past and new Canadian laws, programs and discriminatory policies.
Aboriginal women are rarely considered and consulted when we talk about critical decisions being taken in this country, so I am grateful to Senator Dyck for asking the committee to call on the Native Women's Association of Canada to have the opportunity to make this presentation today. I want to acknowledge you for doing that. Thank you.
Fundamentally, poverty is a denial of choices and opportunities and is a violation of human dignity. When you live in poverty you are forced to make choices that you would not otherwise make.
Many of our women live in situations where they are forced to choose between paying rent and putting food on the table. No one in a country as wealthy as Canada needs to be in this situation.
Based on the situation that Aboriginal women are placed in, when we look at this legislation we see that it could potentially negatively impact an already marginalized population, and specifically Aboriginal women in prison. From all statistics that have come out, we see there is an increase in Aboriginal women being incarcerated. If we look at a penalty that will occur to Aboriginal women coming out of prison, trying to re-establish themselves and who would otherwise be eligible for EI, being negatively impacted by this legislation would be another kick to them when they are already down. They have already paid their debt to society and are trying to get on their feet again. For that reason, NWAC is opposed to the bill and would ask you to recommend that the bill not go through.
I also want to make the link — Ms. Corston can speak to what has progressed with the project that she has worked on for NWAC — between our women in residential schools to being in institutions and prisons.
As I mentioned, Aboriginal women are the fastest-growing population and are being incarcerated at a rate four times more than their non-Aboriginal women counterparts. Usually these are based on poverty offences: fraud, theft, trafficking. This bill would directly impact them if they are in fact eligible for EI. As I said, they are incarcerated due to factors linked to issues such as having been exposed to residential schools, experiencing trauma, growing up in the child welfare system and losing their language, culture and identity.
In addition, there will be more cost to the provinces and territories if these women cannot access EI and are not able to care for their children. Their children would be in care of the state, which would be at a higher cost to provinces and territories. If the legislation is put in place, we will start to see a punitive impact on individuals who have been in prison whereby civil penalties will be added to the criminal ones.
I will leave you with the fact that there is an urgent need to address the context of inequality and intergenerational trauma in which Aboriginal women and girls' criminality takes place. In particular, more attention must be paid to the continuum of violence and poverty where Aboriginal girls are unprotected, re-victimized and criminalized, and now will be negatively impacted with civil penalties.
Once individuals have been sentenced and have done their time they should not be punished again by depriving them of their ability to obtain Employment Insurance, contrary to their human rights protections — which are supposed to be guaranteed in Canada — such as equality, fairness and justice.
By taking away their ability to access EI, we would severely impact their entire family. In addition, we would subject them to hardship they would have sustained while their partner may have been in prison and it could lead to reoffending out of desperation. EI is an insurance scheme based on contributions made by individuals and their employer. Whether individuals have committed a crime or not is irrelevant to their contribution, given they have already paid their restitution by having a loss of freedom and being criminalized for the crime they have been found guilty of committing.
This legislation will ultimately result in more adverse conditions for our marginalized Aboriginal women. Therefore, I ask this committee to recommend that it be abandoned.
Erin Corston, Director of Environment, Native Women's Association of Canada: Good afternoon, senators. I am the Director of Environment at NWAC. I am from Treaty 9 territory in northern Ontario and I am a member of Chapleau Cree First Nation.
In light of the fact that we are watching the clock, I will try to hammer home a couple of points that Ms. Edwards mentioned. One in particular is the fact that the Aboriginal female offender population has grown by almost 90 per cent in the last 10 years and is the fastest-growing segment of the offender population. This comes from 2009-10 report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator.
The second point that I want to mention, which Ms. Edwards alluded to, is the cost. The cost of imprisoning a woman in a federal prison is now estimated by Corrections to average $175,000 per year and can be as high as $250,000 per year for women kept in the most isolated and segregated conditions of confinement such as segregated maximum security units in prisons for women. This comes from the Elizabeth Fry Society. I am sure you have already heard from Kim Pate, but those are two pieces that I thought needed to be hammered home.
I will give you a bit of an overview of the report that you have. Not everyone has in their hands. I was able to bring six English copies and three French copies of the Gender Matters report. It was the outcome of an initiative funded by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, and we are essentially in phase 4 of this project.
The first part started with an academic research paper based on culturally relevant gender-based models of reconciliation. The following year we engaged a number of people in dialogues across Canada and came up with Arrest the Legacy, which speaks to the journey of our women from residential schools to prisons as was mentioned by Ms. Edwards. The report you have is the Gender Matters report. For my presentation, I will briefly talk about a couple of the recommendations that are specifically relevant to the legislation on the table.
The barriers facing Aboriginal women and girls exiting the justice system or the child welfare system are already insurmountable. The statistics speak for themselves and I would like to refer to page 30 of the report. It basically says that in our circles young women spoke about the difficulty following release from youth prisons and commented that it is hard for youth when they are released with little or no job experience and a criminal record. People give up after a while, some commented.
The people that we engaged across the country over the last couple of years were, in large part, women and girls who were either in conflict with the law or incarcerated, as well as a number of people who work with Aboriginal women and girls incarcerated or in conflict with the law. This piece goes on to say that some commented that prisoners are not prepared for exiting during their time in prison and are set up to fail when they leave.
The main point that NWAC wants to get across with this bill on the table is that we are setting them up for further failure. The proposed bill would ensure that the most marginalized people in Canada, namely Aboriginal women and girls, not only remain on the fringes of society, poverty and worse situations but increase their likelihood of staying in the system their entire lives.
There is a whole series of recommendations pulled from the work we did with these women across the country. On pages 40 to 41 there is a brief summary of the recommendations at a glance. On pages 44 to 50 there are more in-depth recommendations. These are related to community-led Aboriginal healing programs, residential school awareness and early prevention. The recommendations are grouped under various headings. Some are related to youth and the criminal justice system on child welfare. I will refer you to one point on page 49 that is particularly relevant to the legislation you are considering.
The fourth bullet in the middle column on page 49 speaks to the need for specific supports for women and girls as part of their exit plan when they are exiting the justice system, whether that be jails or the welfare system. They need more supports related to housing, employment and education. As I am sure you are aware, criminal records create a myriad of barriers to securing basic needs related to housing, employment and education. Aboriginal women and girls and their families will be at even greater risk than they already are with the passing of this bill, and the residential schools era legacy in Canada and Canada's criminal justice system will continue well into their children's and their grandchildren's lives.
I will stop it there.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I will now open the floor up to questions from my colleagues.
Senator Eggleton: I am plowing through the statistics you have referred to. I want to get an idea of some typical cases of people. Are they young? Are they middle aged, predominantly? Do most of the women have kids? Who looks after the kids while they are incarcerated? What are they in for? What did they get convicted for? Give me some examples.
I am trying to get a picture of the typical situation with respect to Aboriginal women in our prison system. Of course, because this legislation only deals with up to two years, we are not talking about serious major crimes. For example, the 75 per cent under three months or less probably covers a lot of them. It is that kind of short-term situation we are looking for. What are they in for and all those other questions I asked?
Ms. Edwards: I do not believe I have here today the age range specifically, but we do know that the majority of women who are incarcerated are mothers, so there is a cost to the state while they are being imprisoned, and there is a cost to the state if they are to lose their children after they resume care of their children once they are out and are unable to provide for them. The vast majority are mothers; we do know that for sure. The specific age range, I do not have here in front of me. I can get that for you quite easily.
Also, they are in for minor offences, two years less a day, such as poverty offences, as we call them.
Senator Eggleton: Like what?
Ms. Edwards: They include trafficking, fraud, welfare fraud and shoplifting. They are misdemeanours, two years under summary convictions, trafficking and prostitution. They are not violent offenders. I had the privilege, and for me it was a privilege and a wake-up call, to tour some of the prisons in Canada. This year I am on the national committee with Correctional Services Canada as the only national Aboriginal organization on the committee, so I was able to tour some of the prisons. I toured Grand Valley and was able to walk, and except for the three or four for severe offences that were being held there, all the other women were free to walk around. We asked permission to walk in their house. One woman had a knife and was making pizza. The reason is that they are not a threat. It is not like men in prison. They are not there for violent offences. They are largely there for poverty offences.
Senator Eggleton: Who is looking after their kids?
Ms. Edwards: It is often the state, the provinces, non-Aboriginal families. If they are fortunate enough to have Aboriginal families care for them, then it could be their grandparents.
Senator Eggleton: Are there many husbands?
Ms. Edwards: No, the majority of them are single parents. That was in my longer notes I was going to present. The majority of Aboriginal women are raising the children in Canada as single mothers. If they are fortunate enough to have family to care for their child, then they can resume that care more easily once out of prison, but if not, it is a lot more difficult process to try to resume care of their children once they have already been in the care of the state for any time over a year.
Senator Eggleton: You are saying most of these crimes are relevant to the poverty condition that these people are in.
Ms. Edwards: Exactly. That is what makes Aboriginal women particularly marginalized and have difficulty in getting settled. It impacts their ability to get education, as Ms. Corston said, access to housing, employment, and even if they were lucky to be eligible for EI, this would impose another barrier on them.
Senator Merchant: I was interested in your information because for one thing you pointed out that this is insurance that the women have paid into. This is for people who had jobs and have paid into the EI system. As you said, there is no stipulation that you will not be able to collect, or there is a period granted to them to give them a chance to get back with their families and get some supports.
I am thinking about the revolving door of getting back into the penal system. Do you have an idea how many of those women reoffend? If they are not getting the supports in the community, the risk is heightened. Do you have statistics? It is important for us to have data that can back up all these claims.
Ms. Corston: I would recommend the information on the Elizabeth Fry site. That is the area of expertise of Kim Pate. She knows the numbers off the top of her head. NWAC does not have the capacity to delve into many of these areas to the degree we would like.
There is also the report of the Correctional Investigator that comes out every year. It is chock full of statistics.
Senator Merchant: Could you tell us what they show?
Ms. Corston: I do not know off the top of my head.
Senator Merchant: We did hear from Elizabeth Fry and the United Way of Calgary, and they both want us to oppose this legislation. They gave us many reasons, which you already talked about.
Senator Seidman: I have mostly an observation, and you might want to comment on it. It is my understanding that this bill would impact offenders serving fewer than 104 weeks, which generally applies to provincial institutions.
The other observation I have is with regard to persons sentenced to one year or less. You referred to this in your presentation, Ms. Edwards. You say that up to 75 per cent of people in custody are in jail less than three months for minor property offences, drug offences and common assault. It is my understanding that the 75 per cent you refer to who are in custody would be only very slightly affected by this bill, if at all, because they would still be able to accumulate enough hours of insurable employment even without extending the qualifying period, which is what this bill does.
Ms. Edwards: For me, any additional impact is too much. These women are already extremely marginalized. For me, any impact that would further burden them would be excessive. That is my observation on that comment.
Senator Seidman: The fact is that very few would be impacted at all. This bill would affect offenders serving fewer than 104 weeks, and that generally applies to provincial institutions, not federal institutions.
Ms. Edwards: Right. Twenty-seven per cent Aboriginal are in provincial prisons. There are high rates of Aboriginal offenders in provincial prisons. My point is that this would still have a higher effect on Aboriginal offenders than non- Aboriginal offenders.
Senator Eaton: When you talk about marginalized First Nations women and children, it is absolutely appalling. However, the reason I do not see it having much to do with this bill is because if they are that marginalized — and we all know that many of them are — I would think it has more to do with things like education, health and housing.
How many of them are actually eligible for EI and how many of them would be on welfare? It makes a difference. If you say that 95 per cent of them are not eligible for EI in the first place, then again this bill will not help them very much; there are other things we should be doing to help them.
Ms. Edwards: I would hope that the committee would have that statistic too, if they are to do a culturally relevant assessment on where the legislation would take them and who it would impact. We would not have that statistic handy of how many are on welfare and how many are on EI. The point would be that the women who are eligible, who have paid into it, would be negatively impacted. Even one would be too many because of the fact that they are already subject to so many barriers as it is. I would use the same response. It would not be to say that most of them are on welfare anyway.
Senator Eaton: I am not assuming that. I just wanted to know how many of them would be eligible for welfare in the first place.
Ms. Edwards: I would have to look into that further.
Senator Eaton: When we talk about marginalization, are we really talking about EI or are we talking about perhaps education and health?
Ms. Corston: I just wonder how much is enough. I feel a little unprepared because the line of questioning here is very statistics based.
The Chair: I think the witnesses have answered with regard to the bill. Questions going beyond that, while of great interest, are not directly related to the bill.
Ms. Edwards, your response to Senator Seidman and to Senator Eaton was very clear in that you believe that the magnitude of the number, if I understood you correctly, is not significant. You put it that if any one woman is impacted, you consider that too many. Did I understand you correctly?
Ms. Edwards: That is correct.
The Chair: Then you have answered the question clearly. Thank you very much.
Senator Dyck: Thank you for your presentation, and on relatively short notice. I am glad that you are here.
Senator Eaton asked some interesting questions, but my follow-up question to you is this: Did the sponsor of the bill ever contact you to find out anything with regard to those types of questions? Did he ask you what impact this would have on the Aboriginal women in prisons, how many are on EI and how many are on welfare?
Ms. Corston: No.
Ms. Edwards: Absolutely not. Unfortunately, Ms. Corston and I did not have the time to do the whole map to show you the link between the impact of residential schools that closed only in 1996. This is not a hundred-year-old story. This is a very relevant story impacting women who were in residential school, who went from residential school to having children in custody, or the children of people who were in residential school being in custody and state care, to then being institutionalized, to then being subject to many barriers, such as poverty, the lack of access to education, housing and economic security, because of the fact that they have been repeatedly in this cycle, which needs to end. As I keep saying, any one woman who would be eligible and who would be negatively impacted would be just one more barrier too many.
No, in no way were we ever contacted to be able to provide a statistical, culturally relevant gender analysis of what this bill would do. It is my understanding that it is a requirement by Treasury Board that a gender-based analysis is certainly required of any legislation. The host departments, or whoever is putting the legislation through, must provide the considerations that were given to demonstrate that they in fact did that gender analysis. I would like to think that they would also do a cultural and gender-based analysis when considering the impacts, and that was not done.
Senator Dyck: The sponsor of the bill argued that it was unfair, in a sense, to provide EI benefits to people who have been incarcerated. He was using the case of a woman who had cancer. However, in fact it was not the cancer that was the problem; it was her educational leave that was the problem. Do you agree with the sponsor's argument in any way?
Ms. Edwards: No. In fact, it is talking about apples and oranges, pitting rights against one another. I think the situation of Aboriginal women is a unique and specific situation and circumstance. Although the marginalization is extreme with immigrant and refugee women, I would never pit rights against one another because they are distinct and unique. For that specific reason, I think we always need to take into account what the specific impact would be on Aboriginal peoples, because they are in that extremely unique situation with the multiple barriers and impacts that are very relevant today, not from 100 years ago. These are very relevant things that have happened today, how they are in that exact position.
Senator Cordy: As a follow-up to that, and I did ask the question to the sponsor of the bill last week. This is a punitive bill. This is a double jeopardy kind of bill. You are getting the legal punishment and, in addition to that, you are getting a civic punishment. You are put in jail, which you should be if you break the law. However, in addition, you have your EI removed. You made the point, Ms. Edwards, that EI is not a government handout; it is, in fact, an insurance plan that people have paid premiums into.
Instead of bringing forward a punitive bill, which pits groups against one another, as Senator Dyck said, should we not be looking at legislation that would in fact benefit people, particularly since the numbers are going through the roof, and should we not be looking at programs that would keep Aboriginal women from going into prison in the first place? Do you not think that would be a better way to use government dollars?
Ms. Edwards: That would be a better investment. Although we did not have the specific statistic of the women in prison, we do know that Aboriginal youth is the fastest-growing population in Canada. More than 50 per cent of that Aboriginal youth are girls. If Canada were to invest in the economic development and economic security of Aboriginal women and girls in employment, skills, training and education, they would fill the labour gap.
When we look at the large investments that this government has made into Aboriginal economic development and we do a gender-based analysis, we see that out of the 400 million, I believe there is only something like 17,000 that has been specifically targeting Aboriginal women, and they are more than half the population. Then we can see why Aboriginal economic development is not taking off and why Aboriginal communities are not thriving in economic security. If you are not targeting more than half the population in skills, trades, education and employment, then you will not see the results.
Yes, the government would benefit. We know there are links. When I presented a year ago, a senator said to me, "You keep speaking as though poverty is related to criminalization," and they did not see the link. All the statistics show it is related to housing crises, violence and criminal activity. If we were to make investments in women — Aboriginal women specifically — and economic development, security, skills and training, that would go a long way to improving the social economic situation of Aboriginal peoples overall.
Ms. Corston: Just to add to that, a significant number of the recommendations that came out in the Gender Matters report are prevention oriented, specifically targeting youth and early prevention.
Senator Cordy: It would certainly be cheaper than keeping people in jail.
I spoke earlier about the double jeopardy, the double punishment. Does this bill in fact punish the poor? We look at Aboriginal women certainly in that category. Will this bill punish the poor?
Ms. Edwards: I would say it does. That is NWAC's position: Yes, it does.
Senator Cordy: You both spoke about the link between residential schools and the number of Aboriginal women being imprisoned. Could you tell us briefly what the link is, what effect the residential schools have had in terms of women being imprisoned and the numbers growing at such high rates?
Ms. Corston: There is a lot of that information in this report.
Senator Cordy: Just so we could have it on the record in terms of what it does.
Ms. Edwards: I had a specific quote here as well.
Senator Cordy: Page 9, I think.
Ms. Edwards: Yes. It says:
It is estimated that some 40 per cent of Aboriginal inmates in prison are residential school survivors. Many others are intergenerational survivors, and/or have survived the child welfare system, including the 60's scoop, and other legislated legacies . . . .
Ms. Corston: I think a big part of that as well is that the report speaks to residential schools and child welfare and making links to the number of incarcerated women. While there is a legacy from residential schools to prisons, there is also the legacy of the child welfare system to prisons. There are three times more First Nations children in state care today than at the height of the residential school era. When you look at that from a long-term perspective, I think we will be dealing with more severe impacts in the future.
Senator Cordy: We know that 25 to 40 per cent of the crimes are for things against the court, things like not paying a fine. We found out last week that, according to a study, 40 per cent of people in Nova Scotia are in prison for not paying a fine. We know that 75 per cent of people in custody are in jail for three months. Four per cent of people in prison would not be affected by this bill because they would be in for a short period of time. Four per cent would be fully affected. Ninety-two per cent, according to the information that we have, particularly those serving sentences of between 6 and 12 months, would find it harder to receive benefits. Again, going back to the types of crimes that are against the court in terms of not paying a fine, would you not say that the people who would be impacted the most by that would again be people living in poverty?
Ms. Edwards: Yes, absolutely. I had thought of a point while you were speaking. Yes, they are victimless crimes, largely known as poverty offences. It would negatively impact poor people, more specifically poor women, and especially poor Aboriginal women.
Senator Seth: Thank you for your very good presentation. Again, I come back to the same thing — how this bill affects the people who are incarcerated for less than one year. Supposedly, it is more than one year, which is 52 weeks. What happens when they are released from jail? Are not some other benefits not already provided, like a social benefit? These women belong to low-income groups, and they often go to my office. I am a physician. I am in a practice and have been in a practice for a long time. Usually a form is sent, which is filled out by us. It depends on the income they make, and that depends on that situation. We fill out the form, and the form itself covers the whole family, including the fact that they can apply for housing, drug benefits, et cetera. My point here is this: How are they affected because of this bill? I am not quite sure at this point.
The Chair: If we could focus the question, I interpret it as: Could you give us a sense of any post-release support programs that are available to the women upon release?
Senator Seth: Thank you.
Ms. Edwards: I was struck by your comment that women are easily provided with support when getting out. Being on this national committee, the National Committee of Aboriginal Services for Aboriginal Women in Prison, we met with prison guards, Correctional Service parole officers, federal government employees and community support workers and were asked to watch a short film which showed that there were high rates of recidivism because of the lack of supports. I do not have an exact statistic here, but they certainly did complain of the fact that it was setting women, Aboriginal women in particular, up for failure because there were no community supports in place to help those women. In this movie that the Correctional Service of Canada showed the committee, a woman who was being released was given two bus tickets, had no place to stay that evening and was not receiving a welfare cheque. The money that she had upon entering — something like $16 — was returned, and she was sent on her way. Within three days, she was back incarcerated in the Edmonton facility. There was no housing. There was no second-stage housing. There were no links to a community organization, such as the friendship centre. Although the Native Women's Association of Canada has said to the Correctional Service of Canada that we want to work with them to see what we can do within our provincial-territorial member associations to have supports available for Aboriginal women, it is not something that has been in place. There is no funding for those kinds of supports right now. The lack of housing and their ability to secure housing is a big problem that they face. If they have lost custody of their children and their children are not with their family and not in any kind of reintegration system with them, they cannot get their kids back because they are not able to demonstrate that they have a home, that they have a room for the child. They cannot get a house that has a room for the child unless they have custody of the child.
Do you see how it goes? It is a bit of a vicious circle for them, unless there is a specific program in place that allows them to work with a criminal record and they are lucky enough to have a plan.
On paper, part of the Correctional Service and the Parole Board's mission is to have that package and plan, but we heard from those people themselves that that does not play out in real life on the ground. Therefore, you have high rates of recidivism due to the fact that women do not have anywhere else to go, and they feel hopeless. Within days, they are committing a small offence, such as not reporting to their parole officer. Then, they get picked up and brought back to the institution.
Senator Munson: I am impressed with the report Gender Matters from the Native Women's Association of Canada and Justice for Girlsthat you talked about earlier. This is a follow-up to the previous question.
You were talking about your recommendations in regard to prisoners getting out of prison, particularly Aboriginal women. You referred to increased "collaboration with community based housing, employment, educational, cultural and psychological supports for women and girls as part of their exit planning." Instead of this bill, what kind of increased collaboration? What are you looking for the federal government to do, in a very tangible way, either financially or through better supports?
Ms. Edwards: Definitely training and access to housing.
Ms. Corston: Social programs. I think what has happened for a lot of women is that the programs related to housing, education and employment are being cut at the community level. That is a recommendation that came directly from the women who are experiencing the issues firsthand.
Ms. Edwards: Tangible programs like second-stage housing, reintegration programs, shadowing and mentoring programs are all things of the past. If the government were to make those investments again, building on women's ability to participate in the economy, it would go a long way to reducing recidivism, violence and a lot of the problems that require state care and the high cost afterward.
Senator Munson: In my understanding, we are supposed to be a nation of empathy, sharing, caring and helping others; this seems to be a double punishment. What message does this bill send to Aboriginal women who spend a short period of time in prison for something like shoplifting as you described, had worked and were eligible for EI? What is the message in this bill from your perspective?
Ms. Edwards: The message is that you are not entitled to make a mistake and that you will be punished for the rest of your life. This is not a state that embraces human rights, fairness and social justice and that you can move past what you have done. Given the fact these are women who have already been in the system it is a recurring message that they do not matter, are better off in jail and cannot contribute to society. I do not see it as a useful bill at all. I think far better investments can be made. This government believes in economic development and security, and I say "hear, hear" to that. Let us do that, but let us do it by helping the most marginalized population of all, not the cost of incarceration. Do not lead me down that road; it is a huge cost. We could be doing more investing in economic trades and skill development.
Senator Munson: As you have said, the cost is $175,000 a year, which is quite incredible.
Senator Enverga: Thank you for the presentation. You say that we have the fastest-growing population of incarcerated Aboriginal women. It looks like we are even marginalizing them by calling them perpetrators instead of victims. Are they more victims than perpetrators of crime?
When you mention that 75 per cent of people are incarcerated, about 10 per cent have been incarcerated for over two years and I can imagine that those people have created many victims, perhaps by violent crimes. I was thinking they could be Aboriginal women. Since they are victims of crime, will they not feel better if they feel the victims and the perpetrators are on equal terms or that it is fairer for them, especially if the woman has cancer? Will this bill not help people with cancer and the victim of a crime?
Ms. Edwards: How would double punishment to an Aboriginal woman help someone with cancer?
Senator Enverga: If a person who has committed a crime comes out and receives EI and this person with cancer cannot get EI, do you not feel worse off and bad for being victimized?
Ms. Edwards: It is a wrong representation of the situation.
The Chair: We had it explained that the issue of EI eligibility for those with chronic or serious illnesses such as cancer has already been taken care of within the regulation. That is no longer an issue.
Senator Enverga: I was speaking of the victims.
The Chair: It is difficult for us to understand the nature of your question in terms of double victimization. I am not sure, Ms. Edwards. Do you understand the question?
Ms. Edwards: I do not see how any victim would feel better. I do not see that link at all. It may look like I am getting off topic for a moment, but if you just let me explain, all statistics show victims feel far more vindicated or not victimized where they have been in situations with the perpetrator of the crime and there has been some kind of a resolution or have had the opportunity to make relevant restitution to the crime that was committed.
For example, someone had their property damaged and in a circle sentencing they were offered the opportunity, under elder and community supervision, for the perpetrator to rebuild the fence or restore the property damage. The victim said they felt more vindicated that there was a direct correlation between the crime and the sentence or the act itself, rather than them going to prison. There was no benefit received by the victim by the offender having lost a freedom. I am not sure I understand what you are saying about a victim feeling further victimized because a woman who had been in prison would be eligible for EI. I do not see people making that link. I think it is an apples and oranges type of argument.
Senator Enverga: I was thinking of victims who were victimized violently. We are talking about two year terms here; those must be violent crimes.
Ms. Edwards: With Aboriginal women it is very uncommon to commit violent crimes. When I entered in the prison, there were only three women in secure custody. All the other women were free to roam and one woman was preparing pizza with a knife because they are not violent offenders. They are in there because of poverty reasons.
Senator Enverga: This is two years of incarceration, right?
Ms. Edwards: Then they would not be eligible for EI anyway. It is moot.
The Chair: I wonder if you could clarify something for me. You or Ms. Corston gave a rather staggering statistic with regard to the amount of money earmarked by the federal government for economic development and such a small percentage went to women out of that particular amount. How does the federal government manage that? It is such a stark number you have given. Does the federal government provide those funds to Aboriginal organizations that then redistribute, or do individual people within the native communities apply directly to the federal government on their own?
Ms. Edwards: The federal government would have signed agreements with provincial-territorial organizations. It is not with NAO, so it would not be Assembly of First Nations. They would be with direct communities, perhaps where they have signed agreements. However, the point is when they report the investments to Canadians they talk about investments in Aboriginal peoples, whereas if you look at the gender data, I would say Aboriginal men. I am fine if you want to invest that money in Aboriginal men. However, let us say that and then do not ask why it is not improving the economic situation if we are not investing in half of the population that is living below the poverty line.
The Chair: The numbers were stark and I agree with you entirely. They struck me as being a stark distribution gender wise, and I was curious about the mechanism used for the funds to be granted. It goes from the federal government to provincial and territorial organizations that presumably have a mandate to direct these monies to the Aboriginal communities, but whatever that mechanism is, it leads to the result you have summarized.
Ms. Edwards: Right. As NWAC is a national organization, we are trying to head up the Aboriginal women in business network. It is just starting new this year, and I have been working under a small pilot project of Aboriginal women and leadership, self-esteem building and increasing civic participation. I have met with SAIT, the college in Calgary where they are starting and launching in May, and we are trying to join in with them to make it a national kickoff of Aboriginal women in trades and skill development. The data already shows, with the very few women who are in skills and development, that they have a higher success rate than Aboriginal men doing skills and development. It is an opportunity for success.
The Chair: Thank you both for the clarity of your answers. I think you have been remarkably clear in your answers on a very difficult subject, one that obviously is at your hearts. We thank you for the way in which you have responded to questions.
I want to also thank my colleagues for the clarity of their questions, which I think have helped us with regard to information to the general and specific issues that we are dealing with.
Thank you so much for agreeing to come on such short notice.
Honourable senators, is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-316, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (incarceration)?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Shall clause 1 carry? Senator Eggleton.
Senator Eggleton: A lot of the discussion has been centred around the word "fairness." The proponent of this bill, from the House of Commons, used that word and it has been used several times. I understand that what he means and what some of you mean by "fairness" is that you are concerned about people who do not get this additional extension, who may be ill, or those who seem to be good citizens of the community and they cannot get it, but these people can get it. I understand that point. However, there is more to the word "fairness" and there are more places you apply it than to just those people.
For example, there is fairness to the public. I do not think this is fair to the public. Why is that? Because the fewer resources and the less rehabilitation you give to these people to get back on their feet, the higher the chances that they will reoffend and go back into the system. Reoffending frequently creates new victims, so you are creating more victims in the communities when you do that.
We have seen statistics indicating that for people who get out of prison, they stand a much better chance; 11 to 13 per cent who become employed are likely to stay that way, but many do not.
In terms of public safety, we are not being fair to the public if we are creating a condition where there could be more reoffending. We are not being fair to the families, as I think we heard from the ladies from the Native Women's Association of Canada, because many of the women in prison, and particularly the Aboriginal women, have kids and have a hard time having them looked after. There is not a man around the house to look after them. It makes it worse for them if the mother cannot get out and get a job, or at least get some EI support for a period of time while looking for a job. It is not fair to the families.
It is also not fair to the taxpayer. I specifically want to address Senator Seth's comment about this because she says there are other support programs out there. I do not know about that. We certainly heard from some of our witnesses — including the ones today but also witnesses from the Elizabeth Fry Society — that it is hard for them to get some of these. They cannot always get them. We heard that very thing today. Even if you could get them, what you are then doing is being unfair to the taxpayer, because you are saying: Instead of this EI system, which is paid for by the person themselves plus their employer, the taxpayer will now have to pay it because it involves additional social services. That is exactly what it is. You are passing the buck over to the taxpayer. Yes, you clearly are.
Yes, there are some ways of support out there, but diminishing the ways of support is the wrong way to go. I do not think this is in the public interest at all. Let us put the public interest first. Yes, we can talk about fairness, but the public interest is our main responsibility.
Back in 1959, Prime Minister Diefenbaker and his labour minister thought it was in the public interest to put this provision in, which the bill is now trying to take out. Specifically, Mr. Starr said:
Ordinarily a person who had spent up to two years in a penitentiary would lose the benefit of Employment 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.
That is from a Conservative government back in 1959. I think it is as much in the public interest today as it was at that period of time.
In addition to that, in terms of cost to the taxpayers, I should mention not only the question of social services at taxpayers' expense, but if these people go back to prison, that costs, as indicated today, $175,000. That costs the taxpayers an awful lot of money. The objective should be to keep them out of prison and give them the kind of support services they need to get back on their feet again, not hobble them by taking away something.
Senator Seidman has made a couple of comments, both today and at a previous meeting, which I want to point out. I take it that some of the remarks in terms of people who would be affected or not affected come from the statistics that are shown in the staff report. It says that 4 per cent of inmates would not be affected by Bill C-316; 4 per cent would be fully affected; and the remaining 92 per cent, particularly those serving sentences of between six and twelve months, would find it harder to receive EI benefits.
Percentages are percentages. How many people are we talking about? Apparently, the statistic is based on about 90,000 people in the prison system, so 4 per cent would correspond to about 3,600 people. That is 3,600 people totally affected and 3,600 people not affected. That is still a lot of people. If they reoffend and get back into the system, it is costing more and more; plus, it does not help them to get back on their feet.
The number of people in this 92 per cent who would be affected somewhat is over 82,000. That is just for the period 2008-09 that the statistics are based on. We are still talking about a lot of people.
Senator Seidman also said something at the last meeting I noticed. She felt that some of the information was not clear about who would be affected and that there were in some cases clashing statistics, that more research needed to be done. That is a reason not to pass a bill. If all the research has not been done, if we do not have all the statistics we need, then we do not pass a bill. That is common sense. I think now is the time to say that this is not a bill to pass.
This is not a government bill, so you are not bound by the whips. You may feel you have an obligation to the team, but our responsibility here is sober second thought. I hope, on that basis, that we will defeat this bill. I do not think it is in the public interest at all.
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
Do you have a comment, Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: If I might, I would like to clarify. I think I have heard twice now about what I said about more research needing to be done, and I do not think that is really what I said. I think what I said is that the statistics presented to this committee were unclear, that people presented contradictory numbers and that they needed to get their information correct when they presented it to us. I was not at all suggesting that more research needed to be done. That is just to set the record straight, if I might.
The Chair: That is how I heard your question. Thank you.
Shall clause 1 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Senator Eggleton: Recorded vote?
The Chair: You request a recorded vote.
Jessica Richardson, Clerk of the Committee: The Honourable Senator Cordy?
Senator Cordy: No.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Dyck?
Senator Dyck: No.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Eaton?
Senator Eaton: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Eggleton, P.C.?
Senator Eggleton: No.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Enverga?
Senator Enverga: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Martin?
Senator Martin: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Merchant?
Senator Merchant: No.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: No.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Seth?
Senator Seth: Yes.
[Translation]
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Verner, P.C.?
Senator Verner: Yes.
[English]
Ms. Richardson: Yeas, six; nays, five.
The Chair: I declare clause 1 carried.
Shall clause 2 carry?
Senator Eggleton: Can we just apply the same vote without having to read off the names again?
The Chair: Is it agreeable to the committee that it is carried six to five? Do you agree with that?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Cordy: May I speak?
The Chair: You now want to speak to clause 2?
Senator Cordy: Yes, please.
The Chair: I am sorry, Senator Cordy, I would not have proceeded had I known you wanted to speak.
Senator Cordy: I can speak on clause 3, if you prefer.
The Chair: If that is okay with you.
Senator Cordy: That is fine.
The Chair: I will come to the question on clause 3 and I will recognize you immediately.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Shall clause 3 carry? I recognize Senator Cordy.
Senator Cordy: There has been some discussion about information, statistics, differing information from different groups. It was really unfortunate, I thought, when the sponsor of the bill came and did not have a lot of this information that I would think, if it is his private member's bill, he should have. He did tell us that he did little research, did not speak with community groups, did not speak with Aboriginal groups, did not speak with the John Howard Society and did not speak with the Elizabeth Fry Society. That is what he said to us when it was asked of him by different people.
When I asked him about the types of crimes that people were in jail for, he said he did not know but that they would be minor. When I asked him about people being put in jail for not paying fines, he said that was highly unlikely, and we found out that in Nova Scotia 40 per cent of people who were in jail for under two years were there because they were not able to pay their fine.
This bill, I believe, is punishing the poor. It is punishing Aboriginal people. It is particularly punishing Aboriginal women. As I said to the sponsor, why are we bringing in a punitive bill? Why are we not bringing in programs to help those in need, to help the poor, to bring in programs so that they are less likely to be imprisoned?
One of our witnesses today spoke about the challenges of getting out; she said they get out with little help. I asked the Elizabeth Fry Society last week and the John Howard Society whether or not they had programs to help people financially when they got out, and they said they barely had enough money to keep up the programs they had and certainly would not have the financial resources to help people who will no longer be able to access EI when they get out of prison.
EI, by the way, is an insurance plan, not a government handout. We know that 25 to 40 per cent of crimes where people are imprisoned for under two years are for crimes against the court, crimes like not paying a fine; the poor are not able to pay their fines; or not meeting with a parole officer.
I find it very difficult and I cannot support a bill that gives a double punishment. We have a criminal penalty. Those who commit a crime should be imprisoned; they should be punished. I have no question in my mind whatsoever about that. If you commit a crime, you should be punished criminally; you should receive a criminal penalty.
Should you, on top of that, be given a civic penalty? I do not think so. I believe this bill will be hurting the poor, the most disenfranchised in our society. As our witnesses last week, Kim Pate and Catherine Latimer, said, it was a bill designed to hurt the poor. In fact, Kim Pate said that not only would it hurt the poor, but that it would also penalize Canadians and the Canadian taxpayer because you are more likely to commit another crime if you get out and you are poor and not being given a break. As our witnesses here said, no one cares.
The Chair: That you very much. I will put the question again. Do you want to make the suggestion?
Senator Eggleton: It will be a recorded vote, but the same recorded vote. Just apply the recorded vote in this case.
The Chair: Is it agreed that we accept that and the clause is carried six to five as per the recording?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Clause 3 carries on that condition.
Shall clause 4 carry?
Senator Eggleton: It is the same thing. Apply the recorded vote.
The Chair: It is understood that clause 4 carries by the committee with a majority vote of six to five, those voting having been recorded in the first vote. Carried.
Shall clause 5 carry?
Senator Eggleton: It is the same thing.
The Chair: It is understood that clause 5 is carried on a six to five vote, with the voting distribution the same as it was on clause 1. Carried.
Shall the title carry? Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: It carries.
Shall the bill carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Senator Eggleton: We will take a recorded vote on that one.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Cordy?
Senator Cordy: No.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Dyck?
Senator Dyck: No.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Eaton?
Senator Eaton: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Eggleton, P.C.?
Senator Eggleton: No.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Enverga?
Senator Enverga: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Martin?
Senator Martin: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Merchant?
Senator Merchant: No.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: No.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Seth?
Senator Seth: Yes.
[Translation]
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Verner, P.C.?
Senator Verner: Yes.
[English]
Ms. Richardson: Six for, five against.
The Chair: The bill has carried six to five.
Does the committee wish to consider appending observations?
Senator Cordy: Why do we bother?
The Chair: Hearing none, is it agreed that I report this bill to the Senate?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: It is agreed, on division. Thank you, colleagues.
I would like to say that I think that we learned a great deal about issues here and the complexity of the social issues around those who wind up incarcerated. Indeed, we have learned a lot about these issues, social determinants, in studies this committee has and is currently completing undertaking. It has informed us as to those issues as well.
I want to thank the committee for the way it conducted itself during this process.
(The committee adjourned.)