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.