Clawing back employment insurance benefits to convicts is a tough-on-crime measure destined to backfire, a Calgary agency told a Senate committee this week.
The United Way of Calgary appeared on Parliament Hill to voice its opposition to Bill C-316, a private member’s bill that would severely limit the ability of offenders to collect EI when they get out of jail.
The bill, introduced by B.C. Conservative MP Bill Harris in 2011, has passed the House of Commons and is now being considered by the Senate.
On Thursday, the United Way of Calgary’s Loreen Gilmour urged the Senate’s standing committee on social affairs, science and technology to reject the bill.
“There are not nearly enough supports for people to get back on their feet again, and this is taking one away,” Gilmour, the agency’s director of poverty initiatives and research, said in an interview.
Because it’s often difficult for convicted criminals to find a job, Gilmour said it’s important they have a legitimate source of income until they do.
Cutting them off, Gilmour added, only increases their chances of reoffending.
“The bill may force some people back into quasi-legal or illegal activities, which creates more crime and more victims,” she said.
Convicts serving sentences longer than two years in federal institutions are already ineligible for EI, but the current rules allow offenders serving shorter sentences in provincial jails to apply for coverage.
EI eligibility is most commonly determined based on the hours worked in the 52 weeks prior to job loss.
However, the current rules extend the eligibility period for jailed individuals up to 104 weeks. The extension was designed to allow offenders to claim benefits based on hours they worked before going to jail.
In Alberta, the daily average population in the adult provincial jail system last year was 1,446 — but it’s difficult to say how many offenders would be affected by reduced EI benefits. Convicts serving shorter provincial sentences could still have insurable hours within the 52-week eligibility period proposed by Harris’ bill.
Harris did not respond to a request for an interview, but has said the current rules unfairly favour “felons” (an American legal term not used in the Canadian justice system) over law-abiding citizens.
Advocates for victims of crime and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation were among the groups who appeared before the Senate committee to support Harris’ bill.
There are alternatives, such as probation, for criminals who commit more minor offences or have families to support, said Gregory Thomas, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
For those going to jail, there should be deterrents, added Thomas.
“When Canada’s justice system actually throws someone in the slammer, that sends a message,” he said.
“It costs a small fortune to keep someone in jail, and the idea is to punish them.”
But Gilmour said cutting off EI benefits doesn’t make fiscal sense, either.
‘It’s a lot cheaper to provide a few weeks or months of employment insurance than if someone commits a crime and goes back to jail,” she said.
Gilmour added arguments about whether criminals deserve EI benefits ignore one key fact: any convict who has held down a legitimate job has paid premiums.
“If you paid into it, you have a right to claim from it,” she said.
Original Article
Source: calgaryherald.com
Author: Jason van Rassel
The United Way of Calgary appeared on Parliament Hill to voice its opposition to Bill C-316, a private member’s bill that would severely limit the ability of offenders to collect EI when they get out of jail.
The bill, introduced by B.C. Conservative MP Bill Harris in 2011, has passed the House of Commons and is now being considered by the Senate.
On Thursday, the United Way of Calgary’s Loreen Gilmour urged the Senate’s standing committee on social affairs, science and technology to reject the bill.
“There are not nearly enough supports for people to get back on their feet again, and this is taking one away,” Gilmour, the agency’s director of poverty initiatives and research, said in an interview.
Because it’s often difficult for convicted criminals to find a job, Gilmour said it’s important they have a legitimate source of income until they do.
Cutting them off, Gilmour added, only increases their chances of reoffending.
“The bill may force some people back into quasi-legal or illegal activities, which creates more crime and more victims,” she said.
Convicts serving sentences longer than two years in federal institutions are already ineligible for EI, but the current rules allow offenders serving shorter sentences in provincial jails to apply for coverage.
EI eligibility is most commonly determined based on the hours worked in the 52 weeks prior to job loss.
However, the current rules extend the eligibility period for jailed individuals up to 104 weeks. The extension was designed to allow offenders to claim benefits based on hours they worked before going to jail.
In Alberta, the daily average population in the adult provincial jail system last year was 1,446 — but it’s difficult to say how many offenders would be affected by reduced EI benefits. Convicts serving shorter provincial sentences could still have insurable hours within the 52-week eligibility period proposed by Harris’ bill.
Harris did not respond to a request for an interview, but has said the current rules unfairly favour “felons” (an American legal term not used in the Canadian justice system) over law-abiding citizens.
Advocates for victims of crime and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation were among the groups who appeared before the Senate committee to support Harris’ bill.
There are alternatives, such as probation, for criminals who commit more minor offences or have families to support, said Gregory Thomas, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
For those going to jail, there should be deterrents, added Thomas.
“When Canada’s justice system actually throws someone in the slammer, that sends a message,” he said.
“It costs a small fortune to keep someone in jail, and the idea is to punish them.”
But Gilmour said cutting off EI benefits doesn’t make fiscal sense, either.
‘It’s a lot cheaper to provide a few weeks or months of employment insurance than if someone commits a crime and goes back to jail,” she said.
Gilmour added arguments about whether criminals deserve EI benefits ignore one key fact: any convict who has held down a legitimate job has paid premiums.
“If you paid into it, you have a right to claim from it,” she said.
Original Article
Source: calgaryherald.com
Author: Jason van Rassel
No comments:
Post a Comment