Thank you.
We agree on setting a target. That seems to us to be the logical result of what we have done up to now. With all respect, I do not share Mr. Komarnicki's view that there is no evidence for the need to set a target. There is the fact that very close to a million people in Canada are going to food banks, and that two thirds of them are children, and that Canada still has a shortfall of 445,000 homes. I could go on. That is the evidence of poverty.
I have also heard government members recognize that more should have been done to successfully reach the objectives that we set for ourselves in 1989. We had targets back then. Is it too soon to set objectives, or should we wait for the results of the committee's work? In light of the discussions we have had, I do not think that the work of this committee will determine the objectives, because the scope of the task is well known. The consultations will have to determine which measures we must take in order to achieve those objectives.
That is why I say that there is a logical progression. At the moment we finish our work on poverty, we will have to be accountable for the objectives we have set for ourselves. If we do not, the opposite will happen; we will provide means that are so inadequate that we will not achieve our objectives. As I understand it, this approach is a little different from what was done previously.
Madam Chair, I move that we take the analysts' version, which they feel is appropriately drafted, and we include the two specific measures, the 50% reduction and the 2020 deadline. Immediately afterwards, the federal government could reduce...