Mr. Chair, we heard in testimony on this issue that the market basket measure is indeed a very useful tool for the assessment of poverty in Canada. It establishes a baseline so that progress against targets can be measured. Changing the title of the official measure of poverty would, as a consequence, I fear not be consistent with the strategy and the broad support received from Canadians, including academic experts, during our public consultation and public engagement process.
The decision to go in this direction to pursue a vision that is concentrated on the market basket measure is, in fact, the result of plenty of consultation that was carried out. The market basket measure is a very good tool. We ought to use it. This is a decision that certainly this side supports.
There is something else as well. In the rebuttal to my colleague, Mr. Dusseault talked about a lack of ambition on this side when it comes to dealing with problems of poverty. As we've seen, poverty is on the decline. Not only are jobs up in Canada, but poverty is on the decline like never before, specifically child poverty because of the Canada child benefit.
Now I know Mr. Dusseault is not happy because we are not moving apparently toward a poverty-free society, but can he show me in the history of the world—I'll be that general—where there has been a poverty-free society?
If the NDP wants to live in utopia, then they ought to understand the actual definition of that term. Utopia means no place, and so we can't live in utopia. We have to live in the here and now.
What we have done, as a government, since 2015 is truly historic. It's transformational. I wish the NDP would get behind some of the policies that we've seen, not just the Canada child benefit, which I think they voted in favour of.... The Conservatives did not, but they'll have to explain themselves in the next election.
Beyond that, I'm quite surprised they are not supporting the market basket measure. It's something that really makes sense.