Human Resources Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Sorry, Tony. If you're withdrawing the old motion, then we need to get unanimous consent that that is the case.

Why don't we just make sure that everyone has a copy of the new motion? Okay.

Do I have unanimous consent to withdraw the old motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

(Motion withdrawn)

Go ahead, Tony.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

The new motion would read:

With November 24th, 2009, marking the 20th anniversary of the 1989 unanimous resolution of this House to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000, and there not being noteworthy progress towards that goal, while the significant progress in eliminating poverty among seniors shows that government programs can be effective in addressing poverty, be it resolved that the Government of Canada develop a plan now to eliminate poverty in Canada for all, with interim targets and measures, at three-year intervals, to eliminate poverty in Canada.

And that the Committee report its decision to the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Do you want to speak to the motion?

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

This comes to us from a group that is connected with many other groups across the country that are focused on the issue of poverty. Campaign 2000 was started back in 1989 to focus on child poverty. They've done a lot of work, and they're appreciative of the work we're doing here in this committee and in Parliament.

They want to mark this particular anniversary so that none of us forgets the commitment that was made. When this motion is reported to the House and we get a chance to speak to it briefly, I think it would be an excellent opportunity for us to share with the House the work this committee has been doing on poverty for over the past two years now, and to indicate to them that there is in fact a report coming that all will have a chance to look at and perhaps commit to, to achieve the goals that are outlined in this motion. I would encourage everybody at the table to support this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Savage.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I certainly support the intent of this. I've had some discussion with my colleague on this, and also with Campaign 2000. I think it's important that this anniversary be marked in some way. I also think it's important that we recognize that there are ways that have been shown to reduce poverty. This motion references that we have had some success in limiting poverty among seniors, but I think we also need to recognize that child poverty would be a lot worse in this country had we not brought in things such as the child tax benefit and the national child supplement.

I would like to see that put into this motion so that it actually not only indicates that we want to do something but also gives some indication of what measures have worked so far in a positive way in reducing poverty. I would be proposing that we put an amendment in, and I can go through that later if you'd like or I can do it right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Why don't you do it right now?

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Okay. The first two lines are fine.

For “not being noteworthy progress towards that goal,” after the comma I would add “in spite of certain improvements such as the child tax benefit and the national child benefit supplement”. A number of organizations such as the Caledon Institute have indicated that this improvement, which I think came in 1997, has reduced what would have been an increase in child poverty to the extent of close to 30%, or around 30%. It's the kind of thing we can all build on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay.

Mr. Komarnicki.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I hear what Mr. Savage is saying, and I was certainly drawn to the particular clause that says “and there not being noteworthy progress towards that goal”, because there has been progress. If that entire portion were removed, this would be something we could support. I recall hearing testimony not only on the improvements Mr. Savage talks about, which relate to the programs he's talking about, the national child benefit supplement and so on, but on the working income tax benefit, for instance, which I recall being a positive step that would take people past the welfare wall. I think even the member from Dartmouth--Cole Harbour commented favourably about that.

We had at our committee Deb Matthews, I think it was, the Ontario Minister of Children and Youth Services, who spoke about WITB. She also talked about the CCTB as being an aspect. Of course, there were enhancements to some of those programs, and there's a child tax credit—there are a number of pieces and programs that are worthwhile and may need to be enhanced—but I think it speaks to the point that there has been work done.

So although I could see myself supporting Mr. Savage's motion, because it's better than what is there now, I would propose an amendment that would take out the words, “there not being noteworthy progress towards that goal”. If that were taken out, it's something I could support.

The other portion that I find we couldn't support is “at three-year intervals”. I'd want that eliminated as well.

If the decision is to vote on Mr. Savage's amendment, fine; then I would propose an amendment after that. Perhaps Mr. Martin would be prepared to take those words out. That would be something that would likely bring some consensus at the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I want to recap what we have here.

We have a motion on the floor by Mr. Martin. We have an amendment by Mr. Savage. We have a subamendment by Mr. Komarnicki now, who is suggesting that you want to leave in Mr. Savage's amendment, but after “2000,” strike out “and there not being noteworthy progress towards that goal”. You also want to strike “at three-year intervals”. This is just to ensure that I'm correct.

Now we're talking about the subamendment, which includes those other things, so if there's any discussion, we're going to be talking about what Mr. Komarnicki has right now.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I'm not sure that it reads right, if we take these words out, because the next portion starts “while”. We may have to take that out and say, “there being significant progress”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay, sure. It would be, “there being”.

All right. We're going to have to talk about the subamendment the way it has been presented. We're taking names.

I have Mr. Lessard, and Ms. Minna after that.

Mr. Lessard.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would suggest to our colleague that he simply withdraw the motion. I think we're taking something away from the substance of the proposal. We agree on the principle, but we have a problem with the approach.

We do not feel that any significant progress has been made, at least none that is noteworthy. A commitment was made to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. However, the situation hasn't changed. Poverty among seniors may have declined significantly, but there has been no progress on other fronts.

As for marking this anniversary, the motion would have to reflect a genuine commitment on the part of the government to implement some of the supporting measures that we have come up with and that we plan to recommend. Work in this regard is under way. Otherwise, the motion would amount to nothing more than a symbolic gesture. It would reflect a lesser commitment than was meant to be fulfilled by November 24, 1989. Back then, some parameters were agreed to. The government had taken a stand, set a timeframe and even decided on implementation stages.

That's our position, Mr. Chair, and we will not support the amendments as they now stand. Otherwise, we will move a sub-amendment calling for these amendments to be withdrawn, emphasizing the need to acknowledge that no noteworthy progress has been made and to recommend to the House to implement the key recommendations of our report. To do otherwise would be pointless, Mr. Chair, and we would merely be deluding ourselves once again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

So far I have Ms. Minna and Mr. Martin on the list.

Ms. Minna.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I understand Mr. Lessard's comments with respect to recommending that the House implement our report, although that report is not yet done, nor is it written, so it's kind of premature to actually make that recommendation. It might be more appropriate to do so at the time, because right now we're recommending something that the House has not yet seen, nor will the House see it for a little while yet--but definitely before Christmas.

To go back to the motion, to my mind, I think there are two things that we're trying to capture here in regard to what both Mr. Martin and Mr. Savage have said. We want to acknowledge that it's been 20 years, and the progress, while we've made some, has not been good enough to eliminate child poverty. We haven't eliminated it, and I think maybe we need to just say it in those exact words, but also, to encourage the government, we need to note that government programs do work.

We say that with respect to the seniors, but it doesn't hurt to say that with respect to the comments made by Mr. Savage with respect to the child benefit. For the programs that do work, we want to make sure they're not weakened or undermined. We want to make sure they're strengthened in some way, in fact, to do the job they need to do. Then there are other programs like housing and what have you. If they have prevented a 30% increase in child poverty, that is not what we're looking to eliminate. It's at least a move forward.

So I would support the amendments or the suggestions by Mr. Savage, only because for me it's important to ensure when we're talking about government programs that we keep reinforcing the fact that government programs do work. In this case, they were't perfect because they needed a lot of other stuff for them. They needed child care and housing. They needed a proper plan for an integrated strategy to eliminate poverty in the country as a whole, which of course would also affect children. That didn't happen.

The recommendation does mention an integrated plan. I don't have a problem with the timelines given. I just think it's important to note that government programs do work, and that while one of them, the child benefit, in and of itself didn't do all of the job, it needs to be increased as well. Many people know that at least they'll have $5,000. It was a good beginning. I would encourage us to leave that in, because it encourages governments to accept the fact that their programs can work if they're willing enough to put them on the table and make them work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thanks, Ms. Minna.

We're going to go to Mr. Martin, Mr. Savage, and Mr. Lobb. That is who I have on the list.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

In the interests of trying to build some consensus here, I'd certainly be willing to support adding, “in spite of certain improvements such as the national child tax benefit, the child benefit supplement, and the working income tax benefit”, because that is certainly something that, even though very minimal, was welcomed. As Mr. Lessard said, I think you would gut the bill completely if you took out the section about there not being “noteworthy progress” towards that goal. I would want to leave that in.

Also, I have no difficulty taking out the last piece about the three-year intervals because we'll come to some of that kind of detail in our report.

So I would actually recommend, since we are amending, that we knock off “with interim targets and measures, at three year intervals, to eliminate poverty in Canada”, because actually “to eliminate poverty in Canada” is redundant. It has already been said once.

Perhaps I might just read what I am suggesting here:

With November 24th, 2009, marking the 20th anniversary of the 1989 unanimous resolution of this House to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000, and there not being noteworthy progress towards that goal, in spite of certain improvements such as the child tax benefit, the child benefit supplement, and the working income tax benefit, while the significant progress in eliminating poverty among seniors shows that government programs can be effective in addressing poverty, be it resolved that the Government of Canada develop a plan now to eliminate poverty in Canada for all.

And that the committee report this decision to the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I want a general consensus.

I have other people on the list.

We need to go back and vote on his subamendment, but I'm also trying to see if we have some consensus at the same time.

[An hon. member]

There could be a friendly amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

They're all friendly, but my question is this. Is there a consensus from the Conservatives, the Liberals, and the Bloc that this would be okay with what Mr. Martin just said? If it is, we can talk about that. If not, we'll go back to voting on Mr. Komarnicki's point, and then we can add another subamendment.

My question is, do we have a consensus? If we don't and you're thinking about it, I'll just continue along with the speakers I have here.

Mr. Savage, and then we can come back to see if we have some consensus.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

It's tricky for me, Mr. Chair. I do think we're getting there, but Mr. Lessard makes a very astute point that you can't, on the one hand, say that we haven't had progress, and on the other hand add a whole bunch of different things. The national child tax benefit and the national child supplement are particularly good, and the WITB has the potential to be good. I don't think it helps enough people yet. It's not coordinated with all the provinces yet, but it's a mechanism that could work.

I remind committee members of the response of the Government of Canada earlier this year in reaction to the recommendation at the United Nations Human Rights Council's universal periodic review. Canada specifically indicated that they do not accept recommendation number 17, which is that we should have a national anti-poverty plan. The Canadian response indicated provinces and territories have jurisdiction in the area of social policy. They have developed their own programs to address poverty. This committee was doing this study on developing a plan to reduce poverty in Canada, to come up with an anti-poverty plan, while the government was specifically taking it out of recommendations from the universal periodic review of the UN.

It seems to me this motion has to correspond to the work this committee is doing. We undertook this study a year and a half ago or longer. This has been floating around for a couple of weeks, and I understand we're getting frustrated with some of the language, but it does seem to me that this has to relate to the work of this committee. We don't want to call upon the government to come out tomorrow with an anti-poverty plan, because it won't mean anything. The work we are doing in this committee should be connected to this motion in some way. I wonder if that is felt by other members.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'm going to keep going. We have a list. Maybe we can see if we have some consensus or if we need to go back and start voting on the subamendment and then the amendment.

Mr. Lobb.