Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Paquette, I want to thank you for that last answer. We have been trying to find something out for quite a while, and you just gave the answer to Ms. Minna. Indeed, you acknowledge that when an inmate has a spouse under the age of 60 or 65—whatever the age may be—and still has dependent children, the person serving a jail term will not receive an Old Age Pension, and will therefore not have any income.
One of our concerns is to ensure that this bill does not create victims. There is a desire that has been expressed that I find deplorable. Some people seem to want to punish the inmate even more. As Mr. Comartin was saying, there is a desire to ensure that inmates are making their contribution because they receive room and board, and so on, since they are already serving a jail term. We are in favour of that.
However, we are not seeing any desire to support the victims. Not only are the victims not receiving any support, but there is a danger of victimizing other people, specifically the dependents, as Ms. Minna was saying earlier.
I am very surprised to discover that there are no statistics indicating how many dependent children could be affected by this measure. That is quite surprising. I understand that you don't have access to that data for people serving sentences in provincial penitentiaries, but you surely have them for people in federal institutions. You have the inmate's file. You know everything about that inmate. You even know the colour of his underwear.
So, how is it that you don't know whether he has dependent children, how old those children are, whether they are young or have a disability, and so on. There clearly is no desire to support potential victims and avoid creating others.
That is the problem with this bill. Our job is to try and find solutions. I think that you can help us with that. What can be done to make the necessary adjustments, but obviously without contravening the object and purpose of the bill? Do you have an answer to that?