I agree with Laura that Canadians feel this is very important. We believe basically that if the government leadership can assume this as an issue that they really find important--if they agreed this is a priority and set a priority that's achievable--it would be an important step. That's why it's only 9.9%. I'd love to make it 5%, but let's take what we can do. If you set it that way, and then by a combination of wage security, child tax benefit, and ability to work together with both the provinces and the cities for housing and with industry for stable employment--rather than part-time employment with people putting together two or three part-time jobs to try to have an income--and if there could be a commitment to those identified ways of doing things, policy issues, then you could begin to achieve the targets. Once you have reached the first target within an acceptable period of time--which is why we've made it so broad, with a 9.9% target by 2010--then you set the next target.
England after Thatcher was at a 25% child poverty rate. By setting these achievable targets and reaching them and feeling that this was an important achievement and moving on to the next and reaching that, they are now at the 5% level. That is a doable thing to do. That's why we have put it at that mark. We'd love to make it lower, but you can't be too pie-in-the-sky.