Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would also like to thank the witness for his testimony this morning.
No matter where we go, we always learn something surprising. I come from Quebec. We had the impression that the phenomenon of strong economic performance had favoured western Canada. I think that is indeed the case. We also had the impression that the wealth was more evenly split. This time, I see that is not so. This morning, my colleague, Mr. Savage, is outraged, and I think more of us should be outraged at this ongoing situation.
I want to come back to two things that were said this morning. According to Mr. Moore-Kilgannon, the solution has to be a comprehensive one. I want to point out that the House of Commons unanimously adopted a motion in 1989 to eliminate poverty, especially among children, before the year 2000. And here we are today.
Now I want to come back to something Mr. Kolkman said. He pointed out that good economic performance had improved things slightly. That was also the finding of Campaign 2000: poverty improved, in other words, there were fewer poor people, but it was due to strong economic performance. So that means that the measures we adopted were not in vain.
It is my understanding that your concern has to do with the fact that there are no measures that are effective on an ongoing basis. What should we take that to mean? You are on the ground, and you see how things are changing, so could you tell us whether we are in a situation that I would not necessarily call desperate, but where there is no way out? I always come back to what you said about needing a comprehensive solution. What would that comprehensive solution be?