Evidence of meeting #11 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was adoption.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Go ahead, Mr. Cannan.
I think Mr. Cannan was first.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Thanks, Madam Chair. I wanted to clarify, maybe through the clerk or analyst, is this something that the Library of Parliament would look into? Is it something that they do as well?
5:25 p.m.
Chantal Collin Committee Researcher
The likelihood is that we could see whatever is in that performance report. We would call Treasury Board and make a formal request and we would wait for their answer, the same as is being done here.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
5:25 p.m.
Committee Researcher
We could answer part of it in the documents that are made public, but obviously some information is not that readily available, so we would have to call Treasury Board.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Do you have any idea of the time it would take? It's pretty in-depth, isn't it?
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
That's what I'm wondering. What are we going to do with it after we get the information?
5:25 p.m.
An hon. member
Or will it be ready in time?
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
Well, let me just clarify something. The clerk reminded me that actually Mr. Martin did not officially move this motion, so right now we are discussing it, and I guess we have to decide, because it's the end of our meeting, if we want to continue with this discussion in a more formal process where we're actually speaking to the motion and making a decision on it. Is that the will of the committee?
5:25 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
Okay, then, Mr. Martin, would you please formally move this motion? Then we can continue with discussion.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Tony Martin NDP Sault Ste. Marie, ON
I'll move the motion as it reads on the piece of paper that everybody has in front of them.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Looking at the motion, I understand where Mr. Martin is trying to go here. Obviously, to have a very accurate opinion or assessment, we would need to peel back the federal layers, the provincial layers, and the municipal layers to really have a good understanding.
I know that he speaks specifically here about the Government of Canada, but obviously, with provincial transfers... We may have poverty solved before we get the final answer on where these costs are. If there are specific areas that Mr. Martin feels passionate about and wants to know about, as part of our final suggestions with a report, that might be more helpful as a specific piece of it, whether it's the guaranteed income supplement, or housing, or something specific and identifiable that the government staff might be able to get back to us on in a timely manner.
This looks like a lifetime project here, so I think we should take that under consideration.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
I wonder if we shouldn't have this motion held in abeyance to get some understanding of the timelines and constraints involved in getting this kind of information. We committed to doing a report on what we have heard, and this may or may not be an impediment. It seems it may require a lot of work, but it may not. Somebody might know, but it certainly wouldn't be something that we as a committee would be aware of prior to voting on this motion.
In essence, I don't have any direct objection to the information, although it might be more difficult and time-consuming to get than we are anticipating, and I'm not so sure we would want it after our report. I think we're getting close to the place where we'll start considering the report fairly soon. Ought we not to have some basic information first in terms of what's involved in getting this information and how long it may take? I don't know... It's just a thought.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
I don't want to speak to the text itself, Madam Chair. I want to speak to the importance of the idea.
Although there may be arguments about the text--and we will have a discussion on that--I think the idea is an extremely important one. Because we've said as a committee--and I would like to say that all members of this committee at some point or other have made this very clear--that poverty is expensive. Poverty is expensive to the government and, in fact, the government might be saving money by pulling people out of poverty. This is certainly how I interpret Tony Martin's motion.
So I would very strongly urge you to look to the passing of a motion that looks very much like this, because for once and for all we have to make it very clear to people that it's costing Canadians money when so many people are poor. And what we're trying to do is to show in black and white how much it is costing. That is how I interpret Mr. Martin's motion.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
I agree with my colleague for those reasons. We can start wordsmithing the motion and never get it exactly right for everybody. What matters is the intent.
The other reason that I like the idea of including tax expenditures is that it's one thing we never look at. I remember dealing with this when I was on this committee, back in the nineties, believe it or not.
At that time, we asked Finance to produce all of the tax expenditures and they did, but there was very little evaluation as to whether they in fact impacted socially the way they were intended to or were meant to, and what the cost and the real impact were. For instance, certain credits affect only a small number, not what was intended, and what have you. And the cost to the treasury...because it's money that ultimately could be shifted in other ways as we look at a program.
To have this committee understand how the tax expenditures work is very important, I think. Just looking at that one piece, for me, makes this motion worthwhile.