No Kidding
Oh, what the hell! Another lousy little detail that most people have no idea of. They will now, since a Conservative backbench Member of Parliament has taken direct aim at a 63-year-old practise, dating back to John Diefenbaker's reign as prime minister, when it became 'normal' for those convicted of petty crimes to qualify for (Un)employment Insurance once they were discharged back into society.
It's in the same category as convicts receiving their old-age pensions while incarcerated. Which people discovered was the case with serial child-murderer Clifford Olson. Who knew that people serving two years, upon discharge, qualified for EI for double the amount of time as those who legitimately qualify on the basis of their having contributed to the EI fund before finding themselves unemployed?
Member of Parliament Dick Harris discovered that little tidbit when he attempted to get EI for one of his constituents who was suffering from cancer, but was deemed to be unqualified because she took off sick time. She couldn't get a break, but someone exiting prison is entitled. There are countless people who work on contract, who are unable to any longer get contracts and remain unemployed and uncovered by EI.
Throughout their working lives they contributed to the well-being of the country through various forms of taxes. Tough. But a way was found in 1959 by the Progressive Conservative government of John Diefenbaker to proffer this leg up to petty criminal offenders. Canadian workers who qualify for EI can collect for 52 weeks. Convicted criminals, out of prison, are able to collect benefits for up to 104 weeks on completion of their sentence.
Right on cue, on the introduction of a private member's bill to re-visit the practice, the opposition parties are hysterically warning that an alteration of the law will result in recidivism. They would, of course; any recourse to holding government accountable for purported trouble is nectar, the ambrosia of opposition life to them.
On the other hand, Victims of Violence testified in support of Bill C-316. Sharon Rosenfeldt, its president, characterized the situation of rewarding ex-convicts with that kind of kind consideration comes at another kind of cost, ignoring the plight of the victims of criminal acts for whom there is little regard and no institutionalized societal support.
As for Member of Parliament Harris: "Ninety-nine percent of people don't know this favoured positions exists. The No.1 response from my constituents is: 'You've got to be kidding.' they can't believe it."
It's in the same category as convicts receiving their old-age pensions while incarcerated. Which people discovered was the case with serial child-murderer Clifford Olson. Who knew that people serving two years, upon discharge, qualified for EI for double the amount of time as those who legitimately qualify on the basis of their having contributed to the EI fund before finding themselves unemployed?
Member of Parliament Dick Harris discovered that little tidbit when he attempted to get EI for one of his constituents who was suffering from cancer, but was deemed to be unqualified because she took off sick time. She couldn't get a break, but someone exiting prison is entitled. There are countless people who work on contract, who are unable to any longer get contracts and remain unemployed and uncovered by EI.
Throughout their working lives they contributed to the well-being of the country through various forms of taxes. Tough. But a way was found in 1959 by the Progressive Conservative government of John Diefenbaker to proffer this leg up to petty criminal offenders. Canadian workers who qualify for EI can collect for 52 weeks. Convicted criminals, out of prison, are able to collect benefits for up to 104 weeks on completion of their sentence.
Right on cue, on the introduction of a private member's bill to re-visit the practice, the opposition parties are hysterically warning that an alteration of the law will result in recidivism. They would, of course; any recourse to holding government accountable for purported trouble is nectar, the ambrosia of opposition life to them.
On the other hand, Victims of Violence testified in support of Bill C-316. Sharon Rosenfeldt, its president, characterized the situation of rewarding ex-convicts with that kind of kind consideration comes at another kind of cost, ignoring the plight of the victims of criminal acts for whom there is little regard and no institutionalized societal support.
As for Member of Parliament Harris: "Ninety-nine percent of people don't know this favoured positions exists. The No.1 response from my constituents is: 'You've got to be kidding.' they can't believe it."
Labels: Crime, Government of Canada, Politics of Convenience
posted by Pieface | 7:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home