Madam Speaker, first of all, I wish to thank members who took part in the debate. It is a shame that we did not have more than one hour to discuss a problem as serious as poverty.
I will reply to the first question by the Reform Party member, who said that a poverty commissioner is no substitute for the assistance that the public should provide to the less fortunate.
I could not agree more that a poverty commissioner is no substitute for what each one of us should be doing to help those in need. However, a poverty commissioner is one means by which parliamentarians could keep tabs on what this government is doing.
I find most unfortunate the remarks of the Liberal member, who has rhymed off a long list of programs that have an impact on poverty. This is precisely the problem: we are not able to measure the full impact of all these measures. The HRDC scandal has made that abundantly clear. There were programs to help certain areas in various regions. We know how the money was spent and how effective the programs were.
I find the self-serving remarks by the Liberal Party member an even greater incentive to call for the creation of a position of poverty commissioner. The type of management under the Liberal government, the management of the Department of Human Resources Development, is not a recent development; it goes back some years. In 1987, a journalist wrote an article about this government's tax measures; in his view, those measure were catastrophic. So it is one failure after another. It is a massive machine, I agree. We should not be commenting on the track record over five years. This should be done every year for every measure. I think there has to be a better assessment of what should be done and what is being done.
I have heard from several national groups in Quebec and in Canada, who support the creation of a position of poverty commissioner. It was mentioned that such a resource does not exist. We talked about the Canadian Council on Social Development, which gives advice to the government, but the poverty commissioner would have much more authority and would have greater access to the government's management than any outside consultant.
While the figures provided by the CCSD are relevant, a poverty commissioner could ensure government effectiveness. He could give advice to the government and he could even hold public consultations to assess the situation.
I am very concerned. It may be that, ten years from now, I will no longer sit in the Canadian parliament. However, I am concerned about the fact that ten years ago we were deploring the way in which the government was managing public finances. This year, we have a scandal with Human Resources Development Canada, and we know that some communities are being excluded from these federal grants because things are done very much at random.
We could use the examples from Human Resources Development Canada and from the billion dollar gap created in 1983 by a few measures adopted by the then Liberal government.
This year, when we say we need more money and families can not make ends meet, it is precisely because there were not enough watchdogs to keep a eye on public finances. It is about time that parliamentarians decide to put their financial house in order and that the government's wealth is available to share around.
The problem is not that there is no money. What is important is how that money is spent and to what end. When policies are developed to prevent tax avoidance, when some companies which are are friends of the ruling party have better access to government grants, it is time to worry.
Unfortunately, I have used up all the time available to me to talk about such an important issue as increased poverty.