Again, this is really the form of a friendly amendment in the sense that it broadens what we would consider to be minimal basic needs, so it's not just food and clothing but also access to health care services, education, and recreational activities. It's basically just understanding that people can't exist in a room. I'm leaning here on the years I had running food banks in Edmonton and Toronto and saying you don't want to have too artificial a definition of “basic needs”, because it is those other things beyond food that are part of people's existence. So while the word “including” is there, this is ensuring that we don't inadvertently--because I think it would be inadvertent--put people in a more narrow strait or circumstance than we wanted to in the first place.
On December 8th, 2009. See this statement in context.