Human Resources Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2009

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I'm pleased that Mr. Martin took out the last bit about targets and measures at three-year intervals as a means of eliminating poverty in Canada. Part of it was duplication of the sentence it's attached to. The part about targets and measures could be questioned, since there is still no universal measurement system for poverty in Canada.

In regard to Mr. Savage's comments, I would suggest that we take all that out. You end up having a competition over what else you want to put in. I'd like to see the universal child care benefit put in, and I'm sure everybody has one they'd like to include. You could probably figure out for what reasons and why. So it might be an opportunity to just take it out. My suggestion would be to leave the first sentence in to the point where it says “by the year 2000” and stroke the rest of it out, right to the point where it says, “Be it resolved that the Government of Canada develop a plan now to eliminate poverty in Canada.”

So you're ending the first sentence at “2000”, and you're beginning the last and second sentence at “Be it resolved” and ending it at the part where it says “eliminate poverty in Canada”.

The idea behind a motion is to make a suggestion to the government. Some may feel that we'd be taking a lot out, but it's saying that this is a 20th anniversary, and we as the committee, or we as Mr. Martin, want to see a plan developed to eliminate poverty. So I think that takes out a lot of the other parts that just don't work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'm not sure we have consensus on that one, but we are still going to go back. I'm going to finish who I have on the list. I appreciate Mr. Martin's thoughts on a consensus. We don't seem to have consensus on that, though. We're going to have to go back. You have the floor now, so go ahead.

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

Maybe we're building a consensus. Our issue is that Mr. Martin says there is not noteworthy progress towards the goal. In my estimation, there is noteworthy progress but not sufficient progress. So taking everything out of the motion after “2000” eliminates the quibbling. The point is resolving the Government of Canada to develop a plan, and that's what needs to happen. The word “now” doesn't address the fact that we're studying this very issue and have some recommendations. If we change the word “now” for the words “taking into consideration the committee's report”, then I think we'll have it covered. We're not getting into the specifics of whether we have made progress or how much progress we've made. We're saying we want to have the government's report, but only after it has taken into account what we're going to recommend.

So I would suggest we could reach a consensus by eliminating, as Mr. Lobb said, all that portion after “2000”, taking the word “now” out after “be it resolved that the Government of Canada develop a plan”, and by adding “after taking into consideration the committee's report, a plan to eliminate poverty in Canada”.

So maybe there is room for a compromise, and it would be a good compromise to make a statement in time for Mr. Martin.

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

Can you read that again?

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

It would now read:

This 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, be it resolved that the Government of Canada develop, after taking into consideration the committee's report, a plan to eliminate poverty in Canada for all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Lessard.

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

This is a laborious process.

We need to make an effort to reach a consensus, Mr. Chair! I think we need a consensus in the case of a motion like this one. We are prepared to consider the approach advocated by Mr. Lobb and Mr. Komarnicki—I don't know how the Liberals will feel about it—, but we would add a stipulation to the motion, so that it would read as follows:[...] be it resolved that the government of Canada develop a plan now to eliminate poverty in Canada for all, while respecting provincial jurisdiction, with interim targets [...]

I think it's appropriate to add this stipulation, Mr. Chair, since many of the measures must be taken by the provinces. When we make our recommendations to the committee...I think it's wise to defer to the committee's recommendations, as Mr. Komarnicki's pointed out. Another thing we need to consider is that recommendations can fall within two jurisdictions. I think we need to realize that. Then, we could consider supporting such a motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

It sounds to me that we're getting closer.

Tony, it was your motion originally. What are your thoughts on that?

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

Let me reflect what I think I've heard. I'm happy with what I'm hearing.

There was a suggestion that we go with the following:

Whereas November 24th, 2009, marks the 20th anniversary of the 1989 unanimous resolution of the House of Commons to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000, be it resolved that the Government of Canada, respecting provincial jurisdiction, develop, after taking into consideration the committee report, a plan to eliminate poverty in Canada.

And that the committee report its decision to the House.

That will give us all a chance to put a few words on the record.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'm seeing some consensus.

Go ahead, Mike.

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

Even though I get a little defensive about this, I do think there has to be some statement here that we didn't reach that goal. We didn't. Whether you say it's not noteworthy progress or significant progress, I think we have to do something that indicates that there was a failure here. I blame the parliamentarians from 1989.

I don't want us to just say, okay, it's the 20th anniversary, so let's punt the ball for the next generation. Something has to happen now. And that's suitable, because our committee is doing this work. I think that's important. It has to recognize this committee.

I'm wondering, since Tony is getting close to this, and it was his original motion.... We don't have to vote on this today. We have two committee hearings on Bill C-304. We should be able to squeeze 10 or 15 minutes out of one of those. Perhaps Tony could go away, communicate with us, and then come back with a motion. If he could try to get it to us by tomorrow, we could consider it in advance of the committee meeting on Thursday.

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

Mr. Chair, further to what Mr. Savage stated, he may want to say something like:

With November 24th, 2009, marking the 20th anniversary of the 1989 resolution of this House of Commons to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadians by the year 2000, a goal that has not been achieved....

And then carry it on. I think if you put that in there, we know we're not there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Go ahead, Madame Folco.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

I would like Mr. Komarnicki to read what he added about the committee's report, immediately after what was just read.

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

It was:

Be it resolved that the Government of Canada, after taking into consideration the committee's report, develop a plan to eliminate poverty in Canada for all.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

I know it's a picky point, but seeing that the report has not been tabled, that it's really in our heads right now, I would suggest using “proposed report” or “future report”, because such a report does not exist.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

The report of the current study...human resources.... This is the language that I think somebody has to take away and fix up.

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

No, that's fine. I understand that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Lessard.

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

I want to be sure that we understand each other. Ms. Folco has invited you to read your motion.

Am I also to understand, further to the summary given by Mr. Martin, that we could also include the stipulation I suggested, “[...] while respecting provincial jurisdiction [...]”?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Most definitely. I believe we had a consensus on that, Mr. Lessard.

Let's see if we can clean it up right now while we have it here. We have added a couple of things that are good and that I think we could move forward on.

It starts:

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, which goal has not yet been achieved....

Then we jump down to:

....be it resolved that the government of Canada develop a plan taking into consideration the current study being undertaken by the HUMA committee to eliminate poverty in Canada, while respecting provincial and territorial jurisdictions.

And that the committee report its decision to the House.

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

You missed the words “for all”. Is there a reason?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

No, I missed that.

I'll repeat it again:

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, which goal has not yet been achieved, be it resolved that the government of Canada develop a plan taking into consideration this current study, work being undertaken by the HUMA committee to eliminate poverty in Canada for all, while respecting provincial and territorial jurisdictions.

And that the committee report its decision to the House.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

The thought is there, but the grammar is a little tricky.

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

Dean, after “eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000”, you say “which goal”. Could you take out “goal” to say “which was not achieved”.