Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I want to come back to the elephant in the corner—and thank you for answering my questions on softwood. The elephant in the corner is the difference or the disconnect between the principles of our trading policy and the implementation of our trading policy, in terms of economic betterment.
We went through the Canada-U.S. free trade debate. We went through NAFTA. We're now going through the SPP debate—at least sometimes, when we actually hold committee meetings. In each of those cases, when we've had representatives of the ministry coming forward, they've always started with Canada's seeing unparalleled prosperity. Mr. Cannan referred to that now. In his part of the world everything's fine. He actually comes from the province that has the highest rate of child poverty in Canada.
We know that most jobs that are being created now and that have been created over the past few years are temporary and part-time in nature. Statistics Canada tells us—and another report came out last week—that most Canadian families are earning less in real terms than they were in 1989. It's the elephant in that corner. You don't see it in the business press. The National Post won't report on it. The Globe and Mail won't report on it. You don't see it on any of the television networks. But it's the reality. Most Canadians are poorer now than they were in 1989, and that has to be the bottom line if we're talking about implementation of trade policy. I think we would all agree that if most Canadian families are poorer, there's a serious problem.
My question is to both of you. If we're failing on that bottom line, if most Canadian families are earning less now than they were in 1989, do you not agree with me that we have to look at the basic fundamentals of our trading policy to see what we're doing wrong if we're reaching a situation where this huge prosperity gap—indeed, prosperity gulf--is actually engulfing most Canadian families?