I'm not going to answer your question about poverty because I don't think there's a consensus in this country about what our obligations to low-income people are. To me, a poverty line reflects an acknowledgement that there is a political or a cultural obligation. Is our obligation to the poorest of Canadians that we will keep them alive from Monday to Tuesday? If that's your view of our obligation, that welfare will be money sufficient to keep them alive for another day, your poverty line will reflect that. How many people have enough money to stay alive?
If you believe your obligation is that the money should be more than that, that the money should be sufficient so the people in the family can participate in society with some level of dignity, then you will have a broader poverty line.
If you believe the children in the family should be able to go on the field trips that schools run—read that Poverty Is poem—then you will have a different poverty line than if you believe, no, because that child is poor, we understand that the child will not be able to take music and art classes in the school that require extra money; the child will not go, and that is fine with us.
To me, before you decide what your poverty line is and whether or not it's absolute or relative, whether or not it changes with social conditions, you will have acknowledged whether our obligations to low-income people are a basket of services that will keep them alive from day one to day two or whether they are sufficient resources to participate in society.
And I haven't answered you on child care and housing because I want more time.