:
Thank you very much. It's a great pleasure to be here this afternoon.
The John Howard Society of Canada is celebrating its 50th year as a community-based charity in Canada with a mission 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, with many programs and services to support the safe reintegration of offenders into their communities and to prevent crime. Our work helps make communities safe, and we're happy about that. We recognize that employment is one of the key factors in supporting the successful reintegration of offenders back into the community, and that's why I'm pleased to speak to you today about Bill .
That bill proposes, as I understand it, amendments to 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 had contributed when the legislation allowed these extensions. The proposed amendments raise concerns about fairness and effectiveness, and there are five things to which I really want to draw your attention.
First of all, as an insurance scheme, contributors should receive the benefits that were consistent with the terms in place at the time of the contribution. Both employers and employees paid into this insurance scheme while the extensions were part of the legislative framework, so they should be allowed to have the benefits that were in place when they made their contributions. This is not a government program; this is an insurance program. These people are beneficiaries, having paid into it.
Secondly, the concept of “confined in a jail, penitentiary or other similar institution” is an overly broad concept. More than half of the people behind bars in Canada have not been convicted, nor sentenced for an offence, and thus are presumed innocent in law. This would mean that more than half of the people who lose their current statutory right to an extension are not at fault. Further, the term “other similar institution” is quite broad and could include internment camps, preventive detention, and other detentions that are not necessarily related to wrongdoing on the part of the contributor. I understand that the author of the bill is open to some amendments that would allow the extension to apply only for those held in pre-trial facilities.
The third point is connected with the legitimacy of civil penalties on top of criminal convictions. If those friendly amendments were made, it would make it very clear that the disentitlement was not directed at those who are simply incapable of working due to their involvement with the justice system, but targeted at those who were convicted of a crime. It would be a civil disability that would be added to what the criminal courts have determined is a fair and proportionate penalty for that crime. This further penalization is inconsistent with the evolution of the common law and the understanding of those in custody as being citizen-prisoners. Those under sentence retain all legal rights and responsibilities, except for the rights and responsibilities that are implicated in the carrying out of the sentence imposed by the criminal courts. The concept of outlawry, or a person being outside the scope and protections of the law because of a criminal conviction, is an antiquated notion that is subtly being reintroduced. The punishment for a criminal offence should be the sentence imposed by the criminal courts as the full and fair measure of accountability for the crime committed.
The fourth issue I'd like to raise is the impact on the criminal justice system. If Bill were amended to limit the disentitlement of employment insurance extensions to post-sentence incarceration, the implications for the criminal justice system would be quite serious. A person detained in custody prior to conviction and sentencing generally gets credit for the time served prior to the conviction and sentencing. If the pre-trial period in detention, when the accused is presumed innocent, does not limit the employment insurance extension periods but the post-conviction period does, then delays in the trial processing could result.
Bill , as amended, might motivate the accused to delay the trial to accumulate pre-trial custody, which would offset the sentence imposed. While these delays would protect the claimant's employment insurance entitlements, they would exacerbate a pre-trial detention crisis in our country.
The last point I would like to make has to do with a loss of important reintegration support. One of the groups in society that have most difficulty finding employment is those who have been criminalized. Having access to employment insurance assists a highly disadvantaged group in finding employment. This proposed amendment will hinder the policy objective of promoting community safety by jeopardizing employment prospects and compromising efforts to reduce recidivism.
In conclusion, Bill would disentitle people to the benefits of an insurance scheme to which they and their employers had contributed. It would create unfairness for claimants and particularly for those who are innocent and detained. For those convicted and sentenced in the criminal court, it would amount to an additional ex post facto penalty to a criminal sentence that is dubious in law and could lead to a disproportionate penalty. Efforts to narrow the effect of this bill on post-sentence restrictions on employment insurance extension periods would lead to delays in a criminal justice system that is already in crisis. It would also 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, the John Howard Society of Canada urges you to oppose Bill C-316.
Thank you very much.
My name is Kim Pate. I'm with the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, and I thank you for inviting us on behalf of the membership board and the clientele we work with. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill , an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act.
As you may or may not be aware, our organization has a membership of 26 local community-based organizations, all of which are governed by boards of directors who are volunteers. Many of our local societies also provide services on the basis of voluntary service, as well as contracts with corrections and other services. What you may not be aware of is that our organization works not just with those who are in the criminal justice system, having been criminalized and imprisoned, but also works with the most marginalized and victimized--women and girls. Those of you who are from the western part of the nation will know that in some areas, Elizabeth Fry Societies provide the only victim services to some communities. It is in this context that we add our submissions.
The main concern we have—and we share the concerns of the John Howard Society of Canada, so I won't repeat all of those—is that the Employment Insurance Act provides an insurance scheme for those who have paid into it and invested in it. It's a federally administered insurance scheme, and only those who have paid into it are eligible at all to even apply for it.
The fact that individuals who are disadvantaged or marginalized or are incarcerated for all kinds of reasons, some of which are more or less within their control.... Certainly as we see some of the changes that are happening now, we're seeing it's becoming more difficult for people to survive in the community, particularly many of the women we work with. Not surprisingly, some of them end up criminalized and sometimes for fairly minor things. Those who have been hardworking, productive members of our working communities before going to prison should not be denied the benefit of the insurance that has been paid into on their behalf by them and their employers when they exit prison, if they can be found eligible.
Delaying eligibility only does that: delay an entitlement that they already have.
As Ms. Latimer has pointed out, to add a civil penalty to a criminal penalty is to actually violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to go completely against all of the principles upon which our criminal justice system is based—that the penalty is the punishment and that we should not be racking up more in addition.
The friendly amendment certainly improves on some of that. The fact that we know that anywhere from 70% to 90% of the women in provincial and territorial custody, which is where this bill will most impact individuals, are awaiting trial and may not ever be convicted makes this an even more egregious penalty and civil penalty on top of the non-criminal penalty that may result. We have concerns about that.
We also have concerns that clawing back these sorts of benefits, which are entitlements that people have paid into as an insurance scheme, actually participates in a further off-loading to provinces and territories of the cost of individuals, who might otherwise be eligible for employment insurance while they are looking for employment after they exit prison but then are unable to obtain that employment and will need to possibly avail themselves of the social assistance schemes that are provincially and territorially run. So that will add to the cost to the provinces and territories.
In summary, we're extremely concerned that this bill not pass. We think that there are already checks and balances in place to ensure that there is accountability, and that it seems to be merely an attempt to further punish individuals who, for all kinds of reasons, may find themselves in a situation of being criminalized and imprisoned. We urge the committee to recommend that this bill not be passed.
Thank you.
Happy 50th anniversary to the John Howard Society. It's great to have you here. I think it's extremely important that we hear from those who are so close to the people who are either found guilty or not guilty with respect to this bill, because of the impact this would have. Having worked in probation and parole for 13 years, I certainly understand the good work you do on the ground and the services you provide. I'm sure I will agree with you that most criminals can be rehabilitated. So I appreciate you being here.
You talked about fairness and effectiveness, and I think this is extremely important. The argument that had been made when previous changes had been made was exactly that: it was about fairness and effectiveness. The fact of the matter, as you mentioned, is that the government would be imposing another charge on what somebody's already had.
I'm just trying to put this together. We have a government that says they're tough on crime, and my view is that we need to rehabilitate people. Maybe you could talk about the statistics of how many people, when they come out, do go on the straight and narrow.
The impact of this bill, to me, is going to be very problematic for people who are trying to make a living and trying to go out there and find a job at the end of the day.
:
We know, in fact, that the individuals coming out, particularly women.... But men also come from some of the marginalized groups. People who are in prison tend not to be the most privileged. People coming out, often our first try.... The three basic things people need to succeed, which corrections has found—our correctional services provincially, federally, and territorially—are a means of supporting themselves, a place to live, and a community of support.
Oftentimes employment can provide all of these. Obviously if you've got employment, you have the resources to be able to get accommodation, presumably. If you don't have a family, then you'd have a community of support or at least co-workers. So most people working in the system know that one of the most important things is to try to get people employed. Employment is an important issue.
In terms of those coming out, we have asked for some numbers; I understand the committee has, as well. The only number I'm aware of is that one of the reporters who did an access request received information that 1,500 people, I believe, released during one year—I believe it was 2006-2007—would have been potentially impacted by this provision.
If you consider the 1,500 people who might otherwise have been eligible for the unemployment insurance, which they paid into, while they were looking for work, it's a pretty significant cost that's going to be borne by another part somewhere. The only place we can see where it would be borne is social services. It could be by the health care system, as well. As you indicated, as we see more people coming out with fewer opportunities, the health care system, particularly the mental health care system, is overtaxed. We're seeing prisons increasingly being the default for all of these systems not working. If people have addictions—and they may be criminalized because of the impact of that on them—and if they're poor, we know that about—
Thanks to the witnesses as well.
It's interesting to hear two different views today. I have heard about rehabilitation from the witnesses today. Of course we all believe in it. We all want the criminals to be rehabilitated. But before that, we like them to pay for their crime as well. That's why they are convicted.
We all know one thing: they have numerous federal rehabilitation programs during the time they are in jail, and also after they pay for their crime. But the way I look at it, the truth of the fact is that the victims of the crime sometimes have to take time off as well. Their families have to take time off to deal with the lengthy court process or some emotional issues.
When this bill was tabled, the way I looked at this issue was that the thrust of this bill is the fairness. We all talk about the fairness. If you pay EI, then you should be entitled to that, even though you make some choices you should not make, as a law-abiding Canadian. That's where I think we are going.
I believe that there is no reason—this is my belief, and that's why I support this bill—that convicted felons should receive greater latitude in EI benefits. First of all, I have to admit that, before this bill was introduced, I had no idea that we had this exception in our EI system. Then I started to share this view with my constituents. Believe me, I haven't found one single constituent so far who didn't say “You must be joking”. That's the kind of feedback I get from my constituents.
How do you feel the public views the current system? If you bring it out, would the public feel that convicted felons have greater access to employment insurance this way, whatever way we have right now? What do you think the public will say about it?
Both of you can answer, because you have been working in societies helping victims and marginalized women, and other criminals as well.
:
We certainly have fact sheets on our website that you are welcome to use that are researched every year by the wonderful volunteers and students who work with us. Both Catherine and I teach at the law school as well, and have the benefit of law students to assist with that process, to shore up our limited resources.
For women, we are dealing predominantly with poor women. The last time statistics were looked at, about 80% of the women in prison have essentially been living in poverty and attempting to deal with that. The majority are mothers, many of them employed or underemployed, more often in seasonal or low-wage work. Before they go to prison, most of them are sole supporters of their children. In the federal system about a third are indigenous women. It ranges as high as 75% to 80% in some provinces. About half are racialized. Just last week I was with the Native Women's Association talking about the impact of residential schools on the long-term social deprivation of the number of indigenous women and girls ending up in the system.
We have a high proportion with mental health issues. With the evisceration of social programs and health care, particularly for women but also for men and young people, we've seen increasing numbers of people with mental health issues. Also, for women, the last time the federal government looked at this issue, 91% of indigenous women and 82% of women overall had histories of abuse, much of it stemming from childhood abuse, but also extending into adulthood. For many of them, the treatment they had received, if any, would involve medication. They often also will anesthetize themselves to that reality, so the issue of addictions that was raised earlier also comes up for many prisoners. My experience with men is very similar, although I'll let Ms. Latimer add to that.
:
Thank you for taking the time to be here.
I think I can say that everyone appreciates the work you do, and the work your organizations do.
This issue has to do with definitions. It's not an unemployment benefit. It's unemployment or employment insurance. When people insure, it's because there's a risk of losing their job or having their house burn down. But if you go and burn your own house down, you're not going to collect the insurance, right? Therefore, they're not eligible. They're entitled to the benefit, but there is some eligibility for the benefit, and this is strictly stated in the act. You have to be available for employment. It's basic. Unfortunately, they're not available for employment.
People talk about somebody collecting employment insurance from down in Mexico on holidays, and they're cheating the system. They are—they're not available for employment. That's how they're cheating the system. Those who are incarcerated, unfortunately, have made a decision and they have ended up not being available for employment.
I see where you're coming from—you're compassionate about the people. You want to make sure that they have the ability, when they leave, to have some dollars to take care of themselves, and I understand that. But this is a system called “insurance”, and we must respect that.
:
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and distinguished members of this committee.
It is a pleasure to be here today to speak to you about Private Member's Bill , sponsored by , MP, and to provide you with information on the proposed amendments that the government plans to table at the clause-by-clause analysis.
But first, let me begin by talking about the EI program in general terms.
The EI program is designed to provide temporary income support to replace lost employment income to persons who become unemployed or are off work temporarily because of pregnancy and childbirth, parenting, sickness or compassionate care.
[English]
To establish a claim, an individual must have paid EI premiums and meet the eligibility requirements in the region where he or she resides. The number of hours that an individual will require to establish a claim for regular benefits is determined by the variable entrance requirements and is equal to 600 hours for special benefits. Generally, these hours must have been worked in the 52 weeks preceding the interruption of earnings, a period that we refer to as the qualifying period.
If the person meets the entrance requirements, a 52-week benefit period is established, during which that person may collect the benefit for which he or she is entitled. These two 52-week periods, the qualifying and the benefit periods, can be extended under special circumstances, but never beyond a maximum of 104 weeks.
The EI Act contains provisions that outline circumstances under which the extensions are granted. These extensions all have a common policy rationale—they relate to situations where the claimant is not available for work or entitled to benefits “through external circumstances beyond his or her control”. As such, extensions are available to individuals for situations such as being incapable of work because of illness, injury, or pregnancy; receiving assistance under EI benefits; receiving payments under a provincial law on the basis that continuing to work would have resulted in danger to them, their unborn child, or a child whom they are breastfeeding; or receiving worker's compensation payments for an illness or injury.
[Translation]
Under the current legislation, claimants may also have their qualifying or benefit period extended, beyond the usual 52 weeks, for each week they are confined in a jail, penitentiary or similar institution. This extension of the qualifying period for inmates has been in force since 1959, while the extension of the benefit period has been in force since 1977, and both apply to regular and special benefits.
Bill C-316, sponsored by Mr. Harris, proposes to remove the extension of the qualifying and benefit periods for inmates, regardless of the reason for their incarceration. The bill as proposed would mean that any period of time that a person is detained, whether in remand, waiting for his/her trial or sentence, or after being convicted of an offence, could no longer be considered to extend either the qualifying and/or benefit period.
To ensure that those who ultimately are not found guilty of the offence for which they are being charged can still benefit from the extension currently in the EI Act, amendments will be proposed during the clause-by-clause stage. These amendments seek to ensure that the repeal of the extensions only targets those who were convicted. In other words, the proposed amendments limit the extension provisions for inmates to claimants who have been detained and are later not found guilty on all counts, including for any other charges arising out of the same incident for which they had been held.
[English]
This means that by default, any person spending time in jail or in other similar institutions would not receive any extensions. The extension of the qualifying or benefit period for a claimant who has been detained would be granted only when the person made a request to Service Canada, supported by evidence that he or she was detained or incarcerated and was later not found guilty.
Two additional clauses are also being proposed. The inclusion of a coming-into-force clause will ensure that the amendments to the act will come into force on the first Sunday following royal assent, while a transitional clause will provide for greater certainty as to how the change will be applied.
Let me describe concretely the application of these clauses. The amendments will apply to any qualifying or benefit periods established on or after the day the act comes into force. This means that only claimants whose claims are established after the coming into force and who are not found guilty of an offence or offences for which they were detained will be eligible for an extension of the qualifying and/or benefit period.
[Translation]
When a claim has been established before the coming into force, current provisions will apply. Therefore, claimants, regardless of their culpability, would continue to be eligible for an extension of their qualifying and/or benefit periods. However, for claimants who have been found guilty, extensions would be provided only for the weeks that fall before the date the act came into force, but not for the weeks after that date.
Given that qualifying and benefit periods can only be extended up to a maximum of 104 weeks, only those who are incarcerated for less than two years can currently benefit from these extensions. Claimants who have been incarcerated more than a year cannot have an extension equivalent to their full period of detention.
Adult criminal court statistics collected by Statistics Canada show that, in 2008-2009, 66% of accused individuals were found guilty, a proportion that has been stable over the last few years. The remaining one third of persons being charged, and possibly being detained, were not found guilty due to their acquittal (3%) or because the cases were resolved by being stayed, withdrawn or dismissed (30%).
[English]
Out of those 260,000 individuals who were found guilty, around 90,000 received some form of prison sentence, which means that custodial sentences were imposed in 34% of the cases of guilty verdicts. Approximately 96% of these custodial sentences were imposed for periods under two years: 55% were one month or less; 31% were greater than one month, up to six months; 6% were greater than six months but less than a year; and 4% were greater than a year, up to two years.
With respect to the number of inmates expected to be impacted by this new measure, it is important to note that not everyone who is eligible for an extension of his or her qualifying or benefit period does benefit from it. As an example, an inmate who lost his job when he was arrested and has been incarcerated for 30 weeks could, under the current legislation, extend his benefit period to 82 weeks. However, he may find work 10 weeks after being released from jail and be able to collect his EI benefits within the usual 52-week benefit period.
The department does not collect information on the number of people who receive and benefit from such extensions. To assess the impact of this bill and amendments, an extensive manual review of past EI claims and an analysis of extensions to the EI qualification and/or benefit periods granted to individuals who were incarcerated was performed.
Based on this review, it is estimated that approximately 1,500 EI claimants benefited from a qualifying and/or benefit period extension as a result of being incarcerated, which means that these claimants were entitled to additional EI benefits that they would not otherwise have been entitled to receive. It was further estimated that repealing the current provision for anyone who is detained would have impacted about 700 of those claimants, of which 10% would have been significantly impacted, as they would no longer have been able to establish a claim.
Based on this estimate of 700 claimants who would have been affected, the proposed changes under Bill would result in estimated annual savings of approximately $3 million to the EI operating account.
[Translation]
Let me conclude by thanking you again for the opportunity to contribute to your study. Bill would eliminate inmates' extensions of qualifying and benefit periods that are not available to most claimants while ensuring that those who are detained but have done nothing wrong will not be penalized, as this would be considered as circumstances over which they had no control.
:
I have another question, Mr. Beauséjour.
We are told we can go back 104 weeks. That is very important for us.
We need to make a distinction. Someone in a federal penitentiary, where sentences are two years plus a day, is not entitled to that. However, that is important for someone who is in a provincial institution for two years less a day. It is important because there are no provincial programs to reintegrate those people into society, to reach out to them and help them overcome their addiction problems. For us, it is important that they at least have access to EI and that they look for a job.
As you know, these are not hardened criminals. Just now, the members opposite said that people are criminals by choice. That is not necessarily true. Some people cannot afford to pay for their fines. Some people might have had the bad luck to have one too many beers, to drive home and to be caught at a police checkpoint. With no money, they end up in jail.
Just having this money and the 104 weeks, or at least the fact of looking for a job, is quite significant for us. When someone is in jail, their continuous employment stops after five days. That is how it is under most collective agreements. It is even stricter than that for most people without a union.
I would like us to agree on that, because the 104-week period is important for us and for rehabilitating people.
Thanks for your presentation.
Throughout today what we've been hearing about are law-abiding citizens, the victims, the offenders. What we heard from the previous witnesses was basically the fact that if there's an inequity in the system right now, why not fix it to bring people up, as opposed to reducing access to employment insurance, which would actually create a civil penalty. I agree with that.
My concern as I'm hearing what's been going on today is.... I'm just trying to get some sense of this. If someone is held in remand--and maybe you'd be able to clarify that for me--and then gets sentenced and is found guilty, from the time they're being held in remand, they wouldn't be able to apply for that extension. However, if someone is not held in remand and is waiting for their court date, and then gets sentenced, they won't be able to ask for that extension there, but there will be some discriminatory practices based on the fact that it depends on what the length of time is. You indicated that if they go back to work for a certain period of time they would be able to apply for their EI after that. So if they work a little bit more after, they would be able to go back on that claim.
I'm looking at the remand part, because you will have people who are held in remand and people who are not in remand. At the end of the day, both of these people may be found guilty or not guilty, but if they're found guilty, the person who is in remand will get a longer period of civil penalty, I guess we would call it.