We realize how difficult and how expensive this is to do, so there are no illusions about that. We're very concerned that the decade that ended with the beginning of the recession was a decade of great economic growth, most of which went to the incomes of the upper decile of Canadians. Manitoba is actually worse in that regard than the rest of the country. So our argument would be that the federal government should articulate a comprehensive plan and that it absolutely must contain interim targets and timelines for the accomplishment of those targets.
We'll note, for example, that in the United Kingdom such a plan was put forward. Under the Blair government it was clearly acknowledged when there was progress. The Rowntree Society issued a report this past week pointing to the fact that under the Brown government there has been a failure. Big surprise: the investment was decreased and the poverty rates, especially the child poverty rates, tragically have gone back in the U.K. to where they were a decade ago.
One of the things we would say is that it's good that this measure was put forward by the government so that their failures, as well as their successes, could be pointed to. But our argument would be that the plan should be comprehensive and articulated at the beginning. The implementation, of course, would have to be over time. We would have no illusions about that. There should be clear targets and timelines over time. As you know, Campaign 2000 would favour a reduction by 50% of poverty in Canada for all groups by the year 2020.