Thank you.
And thank you very much for your insightful presentation. I certainly appreciated hearing from you.
I know--and Claudia mentioned--that we know a significant amount about poverty. It's a question of money in part, and I'm sure it's the case that you could always have more federal dollars. I think it involves more than that. Currently, as you know, under the housing portion of it, we have $2 billion over the next two years, and of course the homelessness strategy has been extended for five years at $1.95 billion. Education is important, as is skills upgrading, and we have $13.2 billion over two years. Of course, with respect to federal programs for families and children, there's somewhere in the range of $13 billion, so there's a lot of money in the pot. You can always use more, but it seems to me that there's also a need for working through the collaborative maze that's required to say how you best use what you have and maybe prevent provinces from clawing back. When federal governments put money in, provincial governments take it back--not all of them, but some of them, depending on their income support programs. So it seems to me it's more than just money, although that is always accepted. The question is whether you can put more in.
I know the federal-provincial-municipal jurisdictional issue is a big deal, and I want to talk about that a little bit, but I'll maybe start by talking to Andrew about the definition again. How would you define poverty, and how would you measure it so that we know what we're dealing with and how we're doing on a year-to-year basis? Maybe you can just address that, and then I'll talk a little bit about the jurisdictional side.