I hear what Mr. Savage is saying, and I was certainly drawn to the particular clause that says “and there not being noteworthy progress towards that goal”, because there has been progress. If that entire portion were removed, this would be something we could support. I recall hearing testimony not only on the improvements Mr. Savage talks about, which relate to the programs he's talking about, the national child benefit supplement and so on, but on the working income tax benefit, for instance, which I recall being a positive step that would take people past the welfare wall. I think even the member from Dartmouth--Cole Harbour commented favourably about that.
We had at our committee Deb Matthews, I think it was, the Ontario Minister of Children and Youth Services, who spoke about WITB. She also talked about the CCTB as being an aspect. Of course, there were enhancements to some of those programs, and there's a child tax credit—there are a number of pieces and programs that are worthwhile and may need to be enhanced—but I think it speaks to the point that there has been work done.
So although I could see myself supporting Mr. Savage's motion, because it's better than what is there now, I would propose an amendment that would take out the words, “there not being noteworthy progress towards that goal”. If that were taken out, it's something I could support.
The other portion that I find we couldn't support is “at three-year intervals”. I'd want that eliminated as well.
If the decision is to vote on Mr. Savage's amendment, fine; then I would propose an amendment after that. Perhaps Mr. Martin would be prepared to take those words out. That would be something that would likely bring some consensus at the committee.