Evidence of meeting #56 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was november.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Out of respect for Mr. Vellacott, I half agree with him.
I want to go to this idea, because it's central to the question on Mr. Komarnicki's amendment. He again is suggesting that this 50% is an unsubstantiated number. I don't think it is. I'm not sure if he was on the committee when we actually heard from officials from the U.K. and Ireland and looked at reports from other countries and other provinces. There are people who are reducing poverty by significant percentages. They did it starting in the 1990s, and they have had significant reductions.
You could call the Caledon Institute before us, and they could probably tell you what percentage of families are lifted out of poverty because of the child tax benefit. We haven't reduced poverty to the level that we should, but there have been measures in there, nuggets that have been very important to the social infrastructure of this country. We have reduced poverty among seniors because of the guaranteed income supplement combined with the OAS. There is empirical evidence that we can substantially reduce poverty, and although a part of this may be aspirational, I don't think there is anything wrong with that either.
We need to have some target that says this committee and, by extension, the House of Commons are committed. We made a statement back in 1989 and we didn't achieve those targets, but it doesn't mean that everything was wasted. It just means we have to do better, we have to do more, and perhaps we have to be more specific. That's why I support the 50%.
I also want to make another point, Madam Chair. It is that if we can't come to some agreement among us, then we should defer it. I think we should look at this next Tuesday, which is exactly the 20th anniversary of the declaration of the House of Commons. That is the time to make a decision on this; if we can't come to terms on it, then we'd look at something else, but there is no point in voting on it today if there is no consensus.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Raymonde Folco
I'm sorry, Mr. Cannan, I did say that we would vote after Mr. Savage. Unless this is something you think is absolutely important to say, I would really prefer to vote on the amendment now.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
I just wanted to comment on the fact that we had consensus on the analysts' amended motion from our earlier deliberations, and it didn't include the 50%; now, all of a sudden, it does. It is ironic that he changed his mind--
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
On a point of order, Chair, I specifically said that I wasn't prepared to go with that, and that there were other people I wanted to consult before I agreed to that weak-kneed motion.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Raymonde Folco
We have an amendment before us, which is to omit from Mr. Martin's motion the words “starting with achieving a 50% reduction in poverty by 2020”. In French it would be
“...et dont le premier objectif serait de la réduire de 50 % d'ici 2020...“
All those in favour, please raise your hands.
(Amendment agreed to)
We have now before us a motion. It is Mr. Martin's motion, except for those words that have just been taken out by amendment.
Mr. Martin, do you wish to say anything on this?
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Tony Martin NDP Sault Ste. Marie, ON
I'm just watching how this unfolds. I can read the writing on the wall the same as anybody else. If we move a motion to postpone the vote on this until next Tuesday, it will probably lose, because we don't have the numbers here today to have it passed. Rather than lose the motion, I would like to make a friendly amendment that I think would pass the test of consensus: “and that this decision be reported to the House on November 24”.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Raymonde Folco
Is that acceptable to everyone, without my having to go through the amendment?
Excuse me, Mr. Savage, if you have something to say, make sure everyone hears it.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
I'm wondering if Mr. Martin has the option to table this motion for now and not have a vote on it right now? Or does that need unanimous consent?
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
I'll answer that.
If we're prepared to have all kinds of meetings next week for Bill C-56, I don't think anybody would object to 10 minutes to have a vote.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Raymonde Folco
I'm bringing that up so that everybody can see what's in front of us.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Raymonde Folco
No. I don't think you do, Mr. Savage, I'm sorry. I'm going to give Mr. Cannan the floor, then Mr. Komarnicki, and then I'll come back to you.
Mr. Cannan.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Thanks, Madam Chair.
I just want to clarify. Mr. Martin was just asking that we report this to the House on November 24. Is that correct?
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Yes, I just wanted to clarify that. It's no problem.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
I think it was a reasonable thing to do, and we're prepared to say that, or I could have withdrawn the motion altogether, which wouldn't have been helpful. I think that's fine. November 24 is a reasonable report date, and we can go along with that amendment.