Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this private member's bill presented by my colleague from the Bloc. It is a bill to amend the Auditor General Act to appoint a poverty commissioner.
The purpose of this bill is to create the appointment of a poverty commissioner for the purpose of reducing or eliminating poverty in Canada. The poverty commissioner would report to the auditor general and through him annually to the House of Commons. The bill gives the poverty commissioner powers to study the causes and effects of poverty, to recommend courses of action to the government, to hold public consultations and to evaluate the effectiveness of measures taken by the federal government.
I have worked with the member and I know she has a heart of compassion for people and a real desire to see people in distress have some measure of assistance and have their concerns addressed in a meaningful way. I commend my colleague for her caring and compassion. When we are in public office we need these perspectives in order to have practical measures to address the concerns of a wide range of Canadians, including those who live in poverty.
There are members in this House who have probably experienced a measure of poverty in their own lives. Some have been more fortunate but we all know that we are responsible to assist each other when we are in need and in distress. This is a proposal whereby we can be of practical assistance.
There is a point of debate here, and I welcome the opportunity to participate as my colleague has invited us to, as to what degree we are personally responsible to be involved in the lives of other people. The poverty commissioner to some degree may allow some of us as Canadians to feel that we do not have to become personally involved in empathizing and caring for the needs of each other because there is an official to do that. My colleague will possibly address this concern when she makes her summary remarks.
We would want to make sure that in taking official measures to address the needs and concerns of our fellow citizens that we do not forget our personal responsibility to reach out to others to care for them, to give them that kind of person to person assistance. That would be more meaningful than all of the debates, studies, interventions, lobbying and papers could ever be.
I wonder whether the member would consider adding an element to her bill. The poverty commissioner she is proposing would also propose, suggest and advocate ways in which we as citizens could personally reach out to each other in a meaningful way.
As she has pointed out, there are many causes of poverty. I would suggest that to some degree when Canadians are in circumstances of distress, someone reaching out to them in a personal and caring way can make a tremendous difference. The encouragement and the interaction during circumstances of distress can give a lift that more official measures will not do. Perhaps my colleague would consider that as an element of her proposed plan and of the work of the poverty commissioner.
We could get into a long debate about the definition of poverty. I am not sure that would be particularly fruitful at this time. At some point we would want to make some distinctions between levels of poverty. There have been a number suggested.
There is the low income cutoff in Canada below which everyone is considered to be of low income or in poverty. However, that level keeps riding as the standard of living rises and perhaps is not a measure of poverty in its truest sense.
The social union and the talks between the provinces and the federal government have suggested a market basket approach. Poverty would be measured by an individual's or a family's ability to afford the necessities of life such as food, clothing and shelter.
These things can be debated. I think my colleague would agree that is not the point she is making at this time. It is not about splitting hairs or becoming technical in the definition of poverty, but about a more meaningful approach in extending practical assistance to people who are in distressed financial circumstances. If she agrees with that, and I think she does, then possibly at this point we could leave aside that element of the debate.
In a country as rich as Canada, it is inconceivable that there are not the resources to ensure that all of our citizens have the necessities of life. My colleague has made that point very eloquently. This country has the resources to provide people with the necessities of life when they are unable to secure those necessities themselves. It also has the resources to provide them with access to education, health care, transportation, housing and learning information because we need knowledge in order to build skills to provide ourselves with the means to secure the necessities of life and more.
It is a point well taken. It is disturbing that in a country like Canada we would have to debate this in the House of Commons. We have seen on our television screens the horrific scenes from countries like Sudan. That is something that goes beyond poverty to tragedy. In a country like Canada we generally do not think in terms of that kind of need. We should not have to think in those terms. It is important that we realistically address the expectations we have for all of our citizens and not just for some.
I have a suggestion for my colleague who has made this proposal of a poverty commissioner. There needs to be measures whereby people can move from the category of poverty to, shall we say, more desirable circumstances.
Many of us were impoverished students at one time. We were barely able to afford one meal a day but we knew that was temporary. We did not consider ourselves to be impoverished because we knew it was a temporary step before we gained the skills and employment we needed in order to have much better circumstances.
Similarly there are people who are new to our country and who are becoming established. They are in very straitened circumstances, to use an old fashioned word. Again they know it is temporary and they look forward to entering our country's economic life and succeeding.
There are individuals who technically but temporarily are in poverty. However I think the member is referring to people to whom poverty all too sadly is more or less a permanent way of life. We need to address this in a coherent fashion. We have piecemeal approaches, some of which, as the member pointed out, have just recently fallen under some cloud. We want to have a very comprehensive way of addressing serious issues like this one.
I commend the member for her efforts. I hope that these remarks will be of assistance to her.