Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The one thing we heard about the provisions for maintenance enforcement recovery was that for a garnishee scheme to work, the order had to be filed the moment payment was made to an individual. That became a real challenge, of course, because if payment hadn't been made on the day an order was put forward in court there'd be no money to pay out for child support. This was looked at as a different mechanism to deal with that issue, because obviously inmates aren't paid on a biweekly pay schedule, as the common citizen in Canadian society is.
I found your comments about fairness with regard to other Canadians interesting. I think that's a fair commentary. But to give an example, if I'm provided an award for damages as a victim and I'm wronged in whatever form or fashion you want in Canadian society, and the only source of income I get is the judgment for being a victim, Canadian law doesn't protect that for me. It doesn't say you have this income stream because you're a victim and therefore we will set that aside and make it untouchable by all your other creditors. They can get it regardless.
So what you're proposing is that inmates would actually have enhanced rights over those of the average Canadian, in that they would get awards because they had been victimized.
I think, Ms. Pate, you said it would be an egregious breach. I would agree. I think your commentary on that and your assessment of when these payouts occur are right. But nobody sets that aside for me or any other Canadian citizen and protects that award because someone has been victimized. If I owe Revenue Canada money, they garnishee that. If I owe spousal support, they garnishee that. If I owe any other creditor or debtor, they take that money. That money is not set aside and protected for me. Why would we do that for the inmate population, and how do we convince the average Canadian citizen that it is a suitable and reasonable thing to protect inmates from?