As I read it, employment insurance has to be considered a problem of poverty, and this would be part of it.
I think because in this budget the government has chosen to say they want to have a separate fund through a crown corporation, it's important within the study. If we just do studies to make reports, it's just going to go on. This is something to deal with it, as part of the problem of poverty.
I think the way to go about it is to have it in the motion, to accept the motion as it is, and then when you're getting into it, attack this one right away, change it to have everybody involved, to know where they're going with this. Bring in some experts to see what it means.
Does a crown corporation mean, for example, when we raise a question about Radio-Canada or CBC and we are told to speak to the president of Radio-Canada that the government has no say in it anymore? Is that what it means? Does it mean when you talk about Canada Post in Parliament, the government says it's at arm's length to the government, so go talk to Canada Post? And then there's nothing they can do because the government is on the sidelines.
Is that what all this will mean? That's the type of question we have to raise. What will be the difference between having a corporation and having a separate fund as we wish it to happen? That's the type of study we need. It's all to do with people who create poverty in our country. But this is one I believe should move because of the government's intention in the budget to take direct action. People had better study it and know what the impact will be. What will the impact be?
That's why I will support this motion. I would have liked the motion to go farther, to say it would be the first priority of the committee, but I will leave Tony Martin to make that decision.