Mr. Chair, I would suggest to our colleague that he simply withdraw the motion. I think we're taking something away from the substance of the proposal. We agree on the principle, but we have a problem with the approach.
We do not feel that any significant progress has been made, at least none that is noteworthy. A commitment was made to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. However, the situation hasn't changed. Poverty among seniors may have declined significantly, but there has been no progress on other fronts.
As for marking this anniversary, the motion would have to reflect a genuine commitment on the part of the government to implement some of the supporting measures that we have come up with and that we plan to recommend. Work in this regard is under way. Otherwise, the motion would amount to nothing more than a symbolic gesture. It would reflect a lesser commitment than was meant to be fulfilled by November 24, 1989. Back then, some parameters were agreed to. The government had taken a stand, set a timeframe and even decided on implementation stages.
That's our position, Mr. Chair, and we will not support the amendments as they now stand. Otherwise, we will move a sub-amendment calling for these amendments to be withdrawn, emphasizing the need to acknowledge that no noteworthy progress has been made and to recommend to the House to implement the key recommendations of our report. To do otherwise would be pointless, Mr. Chair, and we would merely be deluding ourselves once again.