I'll try.
I have a couple of things. A starting point in any discussion on poverty has to be what we're talking about when we're talking about poverty. To me it's frustrating that such a measure doesn't exist. We have a measure that's used more often than other measures, so I think that's the default definition. But for a starting point what I would look to is the basic outcomes of an income program. How much are we talking about for rent? How much are we talking about for food, clothing, entertainment, children's programs, and day care? Often, when we talk about income, I think the idea is to provide income just sufficient to be on the right side of abject poverty. But an income that's consistent with Canadian values would include a number of those other elements that keep somebody from poverty of spirit.
The second point is that it makes good financial sense. Often, when I have conversations with people about homelessness strategies, or an anti-poverty strategy, the idea is that those of us who advocate for that want to spend money willy-nilly. I want to stress that it makes good sense. Take the young boy that Sister Elizabeth was talking about who committed suicide at 15. My guess is that his care from age 4 to 15 was outstandingly expensive. The mental health, the addiction, the physical health issues—these situations are excruciating to watch. On our end, we shake our heads and say it's so much more expensive to be treating the outcomes of poverty than to be treating the poverty itself.
My last point has to do with some of the campaigns that have been attempted in the past, like Campaign 2000. I was thrilled when I heard about Campaign 2000. Then 2000 came, and all of a sudden it went. There weren't a lot of structured mechanisms to identify the success, to monitor how effective Campaign 2000 was, and to keep track of it.
Any federal plan needs to come with strategies, measurement methods, target dates, and assessment techniques. In the past, I think we've shot ourselves in the foot.