Mr. Fragiskatos.
Evidence of meeting #215 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #215 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
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.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
It's unfortunate my colleague has decided to insult me. The word may be a bit strong, but I feel he is also in this way insulting all of the groups that aim to eliminate poverty. By telling me that I am not realistic, he is including them also.
I must say that I am not necessarily surprised by his words, given what the government has always said, which is that it aims to reduce poverty, not eliminate it.
Liberal
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
I just want to take issue with something Mr. Fragiskatos said.
As you can tell by my pronunciation, my Greek is nowhere near as good as his and he exercised an unfair advantage in the etymology of the word “utopia”. He gave it a definition of “no place”. I just want to point out that the NDP's definition of “utopia” has not existed in no place; it has existed in many places, and in all of those places poverty has been exceptionally high. In fact, almost everyone is poor. That place does exist. It's too bad there aren't proper poverty measurements in those places, because they would show that the socialist utopia of our friend in the NDP is a hellish place.
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I think we're getting a little off track here. I know the day's getting long.
Mr. Longfield, did you want in?
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Yes, I'll be fairly brief, getting back from where Mr. Poilievre was speaking. I've been working with the poverty groups in Guelph, and the market basket is something that really can distinguish different communities. In fact, 50 communities in Canada are separated out using this measure. The thresholds across the country can be very different, from Vancouver to Regina, Guelph or Halifax. The market basket of goods really gives a good tool for people working on poverty. I would be supporting going to the market basket as our measure.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We'll go to NDP-15. If NDP-15 is adopted, NDP-21 and PV-5 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
Mr. Dusseault.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will do as I promised. Since my amendments do not have the support of the majority at this table, I will continue my efforts to strengthen the law and follow the recommendations of the witnesses.
This amendment is based on the recommendation of the Collectif pour un Québec sans pauvreté, which proposed that the official poverty line be changed.
There is already a discussion around the table and I can already hear my colleagues' arguments. So let me explain. The collective recommended the low-income metric, and that 60% of the median be used as the official poverty line—the so-called "LIM-60". The collective believes that this metric would better represent what poverty is than the market basket.
The objective here is therefore to change the measurement mechanism, and therefore the calculation of the poverty line.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Yes, once again the market basket gives flexibility by region, and also, as demographics change, what they're going to be putting in their basket is going to be different, so that the median income in some places might be able to buy more of a basket than in other places. Again, a lot of academics have looked at this. Poverty groups have looked at it. Having a market basket, also reviewed from time to time to see how prices are changing relative to what's in the basket, gives us a good, consistent tool, but it's also flexible enough that it can be reviewed and changed over time as things in the basket change over time, in terms of their cost.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you, Lloyd.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next is NDP-16.
Mr. Dusseault.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I hope you will agree with me. It may come as a surprise that, in the proposed poverty reduction law—we will have to resign ourselves to the use of the word “reduction”—there is no definition of poverty. Most laws begin with a preamble, followed by a title and, often, definitions. In this law, we do not even define what poverty is.
I just want to add a definition to the three definitions already included in the bill, namely, the terms “council”, “minister”—the term “minister” is defined, but not “poverty”—and “official poverty line”. However, there is no definition of it.
The amendment proposes a recognized definition. I didn't make it up. It reads as follows:
Poverty means the condition of a human being who lacks the resources, means, options and power necessary to acquire and maintain economic self-sufficiency or to facilitate his or her integration into and participation in society.
It goes without saying that, in a strong law— according to the government—that wants to reduce poverty, it is unthinkable that we do not define what poverty is.
I would therefore like to clarify what we mean when we talk about poverty by means of an internationally recognized definition.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague, Mr. Dusseault, again, for speaking to poverty, and to the national poverty reduction act, which is now in this BIA legislation, Bill C-97.
The amendment that he has brought forward is not consistent with the existing language within the bill. The existing language states that poverty is the condition of a person who is deprived of the resources, means, choices and power necessary to acquire and maintain a basic level of living standard to facilitate integration and participation in society.
The proposed amendment is incompatible with the existing version.
For that reason, I will be not be supporting Mr. Dusseault's amendment.
Thank you, Chair.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
This amendment follows the one presented earlier. I promised that there would be more to replace the word “reduction” with “elimination”. It's the same here.
I will not dwell on this issue indefinitely, although we had a good debate earlier.
We can move to the vote fairly quickly.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Do you want to redo that debate? It will be dandy.
Mr. Sorbara, I see your hand up.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Mr. Chair, again, I applaud Mr. Dusseault's focus on the poverty reduction act, which is transforming lives across Canada and will do so for many years, lifting kids and families out of poverty.
I will not be supporting the amendment. I will try to rebut this in French, to practise.
Canada's long-term target, which is described in its poverty reduction strategy entitled “An Opportunity for All”, which is to reduce poverty by 50% by 2030, reflects the government's commitment to the first sustainable development objective: “By 2030, reduce by at least half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions.”
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We will call the question on NDP-17.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
PV-4 is considered moved. Is there any discussion of PV-4?
Mr. Kmiec.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
I think the analogy is someone who carried the water for the Green Party, but instead of water it will be oil, since they're not here to say anything against that.
I am all for more transparency and requiring the government to provide plans and annual targets. If we're going to do things, there should be fixed targets. I'm going to vote for it.