Paul Crête

[Millennium Fund, February 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the Minister of Human Resources Development made the following comment regarding the Millennium Fund: “We will strive to avoid any duplication of the services provided by the Government of Quebec”.

Will the minister admit that the only way to avoid any duplication of Quebec's financial assistance program is simply to give directly to the Quebec government the moneys that it is entitled to, instead of setting up any new structure?

[Supply, February 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to comment on the speech by the member for Berthier—Montcalm and that of the leader of the Bloc Quebecois.

Today is an historic occasion, as both speeches made very clear. The appeal to representatives of other parties is important because there was a very significant parting of the ways in Canada in 1982, and there will be another even more obvious one today if the other elected parties in the House decide to vote against the motion and allow the Supreme Court's decision to take precedence over that of the Quebec people.

This is why I would like the member for Berthier—Montcalm to be able to make all Canadians and Quebeckers understand why democracy must take priority. What in particular should Quebeckers and Canadians understand about our motion so that their decision is a clear one and so that the Canadian public, which has seen three referendums since 1980, can be sure that here in the House, which is a symbol of democracy, all parties act with respect for this democracy?

[Middle East, February 9th, 1998]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, that is what I originally thought. This will allow me enough time to further develop my argument on this situation.

In the present situation, looking at the positions adopted by the international community, on the one hand we have the United Kingdom, for example, which is clearly alongside the Americans in this crisis. It is the most staunch of Washington's allies.

On the other hand, France is not keen to participate in a military operation against Iraq. It continues to exercise diplomatic pressure for Iraq to give in and allow unconditional access to all of its sites.

There may be an approach that could be used. Might we not have a sort of task force made up of countries with attitudes similar to France's, which could intervene, serve as a mediator in this situation, so as to come up with a solution other than a military strike?

As for Russia, they say President Yeltsin is strongly opposed to military action against Iraq and is making statements which may seem a bit hotheaded concerning the possibility of a third world war. That does, however, give us some idea of the impact of a too hasty authorization for an American attack.

Then there is China, which is opposed to any military action against Iraq. The majority of the Arab countries are opposed to military action. These are forces that may play a significant role in the present situation.

I think there is still time. There are a few weeks left for a diplomatic offensive, with a difference. In the future, there should be a call for a joint effort by those who want to avoid a military offensive and for an in-depth look at the issue.

At the start of my presentation, I was saying that it was interesting the government should consult Parliament before taking a definite position. If in fact the government has the wisdom to find a consensus from the debate here, which is not immediately obvious, let us look at it in detail.

For example, the New Democratic Party opposed any military intervention.

Would the New Democratic Party not be prepared to say “Let us undertake a diplomatic offensive and we will have another debate afterwards”? If there are no results, it could then reconsider its position in the light of the efforts made and the results achieved.

The Reform Party quickly indicated its readiness to support the American position. I suggest it join with the consensus for an all-out diplomatic approach and then, if it fails to achieve the desired results, we can reach a consensus on the need for a strike. The Conservatives' attitude is similar.

I understand that the position of the Liberals presented at the moment is not necessarily that of the Liberal Party or of the government as set out in the Prime Minister's speech in this debate. I think the conditions are there for an acceptable outcome, one that truly reflects the will of Canadian parliamentarians and thus of Canadians.

So all the positions set forth here could be elements of a consensus, which would look a bit like the Bloc's position. In other words, strikes if necessary, but on the basis of decisions by the UN Security Council once it has decided that all diplomatic avenues had been pursued without success. Above all, there must be another debate before any decision is taken to have Canada provide military support against Iraq, because we would then know whether or not the strike was supported by the UN Security Council. We would know whether or not all nations felt that diplomatic efforts had failed.

Perhaps three weeks after these efforts, a solution will be reached. Perhaps not, and the countries who now oppose a military strike will reach the conclusion that one is necessary because no other course of action remains. Once again, this could give peace one last chance.

I will conclude, and it will only take a few minutes. I think this issue must be approached with great modesty, with great respect for human life, with faith in the diplomatic tools available to us, and with our eyes wide open of course. We are in a situation where there is a history, a particular reality, as well as a need to find compromises. If the real objective is to allow inspection of all sites, would there not be a possible compromise whereby these inspections could be carried out by representatives of nations acceptable to both parties? Does this not hold out some possibility?

Having seen some of the aftermath of the Gulf war, where the Americans won a military battle, I think that the first priority in defining Canada's position should be the human beings affected by that war. In deciding on a course of action, we must ask ourselves how we can ensure that the people of Iraq, the inhabitants of that country, have the maximum chances of building a decent life in the future, and leaving behind this constant threat of military intervention.

I am not judging the Americans and Iraqis. I am, however, pointing out that there are civilians in the middle of this battlefield who are not necessarily responsible for the actions of the Iraqi government. I think this has to be the key criterion in the position adopted by the Canadian government.

I hope all parties will agree to the consensus proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, which I will summarize as follows: strikes, if necessary, after the decision has been made by the UN Security Council and after it has been established that all diplomatic efforts have failed. Then we should have the opportunity, in a second debate in the House, when all the efforts made have been analyzed, to determine whether such strikes are necessary.

I urge this House and the government to take such a responsible attitude so that Canada can emerge from this situation with an even better international reputation. I particularly want the people who could be affected by a military strike or by a peaceful diplomatic solution to this problem to be able to say that parliamentarians who had to debate this issue in the various parliaments around the world took a responsible attitude. That is what I want to see happen in this Parliament.

[Middle East, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to emphasize the appropriateness of consulting parliament today on this very important matter. This is an emergency debate on possible Canadian intervention in Iraq.

Having been a member here since 1993, I believe I see a progression in the government's attitude that bears pointing out. In my opinion, it is indeed very important for parliament to be formally consulted before the government takes a position, when there is no immediate emergency forcing a very rapid decision. In the present situation, and other similar ones, I believe it is important for the government to take time to find out what all parties think of the situation.

Unlike matters of internal policy, often the strength of consensus that can could come out of such debates would further strengthen the Canadian government's position in international policy.

The attitude evident in this consultation of parliament today on this important matter, intervention in Iraq, would have to be repeated in the position adopted by the Government of Canada.

Let us recall that the current situation is the result of the Gulf War. As a result of that war, the UN imposed some quite severe conditions on Iraq, arms destruction, compliance with certain requirements, with a view to ensuring that the war could not resume and that the same situation would not repeat itself.

That position was taken by the UN. It is under the responsibility of the UN Security Council. I feel that care must be taken to respect these authorities. The United Nations Organization is a body that can be a worthwhile tool in crisis situations, provided its power is acknowledged and provided that, each time there is a crisis situation, we do not decide to act in parallel, thus exposing its powerlessness.

Therefore, the government's position will have to take into account respect for the United Nations. In its past diplomatic efforts—going as far back as the Suez crisis—our country has, more often than not, respected the UN's moral authority as much as possible. Sometimes it did not do so, even though it should have, and we should reflect on this.

One wonders why we are again facing such a problem following the gulf war, in which thousands of people died. When human lives are sacrificed in a war, regardless of the motives of either side, the losers are those who died and their families.

In a debate like this one, we must be careful not to behave with triumphalism, or think we have all the solutions. We should be modest and try to make sure the actions we are going to take are appropriate. We should take our time and be careful not to do things because we are angry or in a show of force, since the consequences could be very negative.

Therefore, every diplomatic effort must be made regarding the situation in Iraq. Several members of the international community hope that every diplomatic effort will be made. They hope an innovative approach can be found, that we can call on countries that may have better relations with Iraq. It is important to exhaust all diplomatic channels before resorting to a military intervention. However, should diplomatic efforts fail, it would important to come back here to make sure our position would be based on all the available information.

I do not think that anyone in the House disputes the fact that Iraq must comply with the UN resolutions, must meet the conditions laid down, because international peace demands that there still be respect for the mandate the UN has been given and is responsible for carrying out. It is there to speak for the world community and I therefore think we must ensure that the decision taken in respect of Iraq is complied with. No one disputes this.

We may, however, want to ensure that there are no sanctions, such as military strikes, which will obviously have very painful consequences, including for the civilian population. It is very rare that wars can be conducted without civilian casualties. I think this aspect deserves considerable attention.

How can we be sure that agreements will ultimately be respected and that there will be an end to the present opposition between a country such as Iraq, which is a middle power, and a giant like the United States, so that we do not find ourselves facing a crisis such as this every four or five years? There are lessons to be learned from the past. Why was the Gulf War not conclusive, and what is the reason for Iraq's present attitude? I think it is important to try to understand this perception, the deep motivations of a country such as Iraq, so that the solutions to the crisis truly address the root problems.

There are therefore objective players that must have a role in this diplomatic offensive—I am thinking in particular of all the Arab nations, of Russia, and of all countries with possible special links with Iraq, which have had more direct contacts—in order to persuade Iraq to comply with the UN conditions.

The Bloc Quebecois indicated it would be appropriate for the position that the government will probably take tomorrow or in the coming days to be reassessed later on, should diplomatic efforts not be as successful as anticipated. I do not see any point in painting ourselves into a corner right away and making a final decision that would automatically lead to military strikes.

Even if no Canadian troops were involved in direct combat, Canada would still have to accept the consequences of supporting the strikes. This support could have a positive effect in helping to resume negotiations. On the other hand, it could lead to the strikes themselves, the results of which remain to be seen in terms of military effectiveness and impact on civilian populations.

All these factors must be considered in assessing the current situation. I feel it is important to make one thing clear. The United States apparently claims to have the right to act without having to go back before the security council. A closer look at the conditions imposed on Iraq by the UN Security Council shows that the current situation implying an automatic right to military retaliation is not included.

Before making its position final, I think that Canada should take this into account and, before supporting any military strikes, make sure that they have been approved by the UN Security Council and that the council has confirmed that all the conditions have been met.

Mr Speaker, I see that you are telling me that my time is up. I will therefore conclude by saying that, before taking a definitive stand on this—

[Trans-Quebec And Maritimes Gas Pipeline, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, a $50 million contract has been awarded to the Texan firm Saw Pipes USA and the Japanese firm Kawasaki to supply the steel required for construction of a 225-kilometre long underwater natural gas pipeline in Canada. The bulk of Canadian spinoffs from this project were related to this contract.

Will the Minister of Natural Resources admit that the federal government decision to authorize the Mobil Oil project without allowing an assessment of the Canadian backed trans-Quebec and maritimes project will have disastrous economic consequences on job creation?

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, February 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the name of my riding is indeed quite long. It is Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques. It is the name of an area in the lower St. Lawrence region.

I am pleased to speak on Bill C-28. Since it deals with measures announced in last year's budget, we are already in a position to assess how effective this budget has been. In Canada and Quebec today, I think that what matters most to taxpayers in assessing their governments' effectiveness is whether the government measures put in place to fight the pervasive spread of poverty in every province are working.

Because of some kind of arbitrary division, the gap is growing between the higher income earners and the people left on the scrap heap at the bottom of the income ladder, those who are affected by the measures contained in this budget, those who must face the so-called spring gap when EI benefits run out. Having decided that seasonal workers become unemployed by choice, this good government figured that cutting their benefits and benefit periods would automatically make them find work and increase their availability for work.

But that has nothing to do with real life. In Quebec and Canada, there are seasonal industries that will remain seasonal, and workers whose expertise is in these industries are not necessarily prepared to switch overnight.

In our society, if there is a way to fight poverty, it is through employment. To say that this is the key does not mean much. Everyone knows that it is the key. But to make things happen today, in our society where a rather significant number of jobs are created for people with the right education and training, who even take the jobs of their less educated fellow citizens, we must admit that this creates a shortfall of jobs for individuals with much less formal education.

On this point, we can say that clearly the current government and its budgetary measures fail to meet people's needs. We have all seen in our riding offices an increase in the number of people coming to see us who have reached a point of desperation because of the federal government's restraint programs. People are not always aware that cuts to provincial programs are caused by provincial transfer payments. However, we members of Parliament all know that the fight against the deficit took place primarily on the backs of the unemployed, low income earners and people who need the services provided, such as health care.

The member preceding me cited the importance of respecting the five criteria in the Canada Health Act, but there is no need to be hypocritical about it. One cannot ask that certain criteria be respected while systematically cutting the funding available for such things.

The federal government had planned to cut over $48 billion in all forms of transfer payments, from the early 1990s. Last year, they decided to make a big deal of the fact that they would be cutting only $42 billion. However, $42 billion in cuts is $42 billion in cuts. It means that the people who benefit from the various forms of transfer payments will do so no longer. It means that provincial governments are forced to make do with less money and to make financial choices.

In judging the actions of the federal government, therefore, one can say that, yes, the deficit must be attacked. Perhaps it ought to have been done differently. Perhaps there are places cuts could have been made in a far more worthwhile way. Looking at decisions like the one on the helicopters, we how to wonder why, a few years down the road, we have come back to solutions very similar to the ones the Conservatives opted for. The taxpayers of Quebec and of Canada end up footing the bill.

Again, looking at what it cost to buy silence in the Pearson airport affair, we have expenses that could have been avoided if more effective policy decisions had been made. When money is spent like that to buy peace, for compensation, it means that less is available to put into the marketplace, less of the government's wealth is available to share around.

That function of our system is, unfortunately, very complicated. If there is one shortcoming in the Canadian federal system, this is it. Despite what may be said in Canada, the federal government has always been a kind of distributor of wealth. It has, particularly, been the one behind the deal giving Ontario most of the industrial and manufacturing sector, while the Atlantic provinces and Quebec had far more of the transfer payments. A few years ago, this sort of tacit agreement that had been maintained by the federal government for a number of years was no longer able to stand up to financial pressures, and a solution to the problem was found.

Rather than deciding to boost regional economies by means of transfer payments, they opted to simply pull the plug, leaving people in the regions with the most primary industries in a crisis situation.

Today, in the maritimes, people are wondering if they will have enough money to get through the fall. We have had to make representations, to the fisheries committee in particular, to extend the TAGS, because what had been set up by the federal government as a means to diversify the regional economy had become nothing more than a subsistence program. Nobody is saying that people do not need money to survive, but the federal government has not yet looked into the solution of diversifying the economy. The best way of doing so is for it to get out of areas of jurisdiction that do not concern it and allow the governments with responsibility in these sectors to take action.

I have one piece of advice to give the federal government for the next budget, as a result of the prebudget consultation I did in my riding. All told, 500 people responded to the survey I had conducted. A number of community groups representing various sectors came to see us. A spokesperson for the KRTB community development corporation said: “The danger after a period of economic restraint is that the government will start spending again to please the electorate”.

In other words, we do not want the federal government to add new programs to those already in place, merely to raise its profile, to get exposure, or to look good. What we want is the money to be given back through transfer payments, so that the provinces, which have jurisdiction over education and health, can act efficiently.

We also heard the following comment from someone representing the unemployed: “We ask that the EI benefit period and amount no longer depend on the financial needs of the government but rather on those of the workers, who pay for insurance in case they lose their jobs”.

People in our region clearly understood that the employment insurance program has become the federal government's most effective tool to collect money in order to reduce the deficit. This has nothing to do with the program's objective. It is merely a way to collect money through regular source deductions, which are great for raising funds. The government has not yet taken measures to set up a separate account, as asked by the Auditor General of Canada.

People who have to draw on employment insurance, who make contributions to entitle them to do so, are asking that the plan serve as it was intended. In this regard, the Bloc Quebecois made a major contribution in the fall. It was very well received all round and even received the support of the NDP, especially the NDP members from the Atlantic region, where people are affected by this problem.

We hope the Minister of Human Resources Development will consider the six bills we introduced so that the reform may be changed. It may have been appropriate to go from weeks to hours, under the reform, but there are a lot of negative elements to the reform, things that must be changed, including monitoring of the fund in order to ensure that the money is really being used as intended.

We are on the eve of a new budget, which will be presented at the end of February. The message from the people was clear during consultations. I asked my constituents the following question in the survey: What should the federal government do with the expected budget surplus? Here is how they responded: 12% wanted lower employment insurance premiums; 20% wanted improvement to the situation of seasonal workers and those starting to work; 28% wanted funds transferred to Quebec and the other provinces in Canada for health and education and 18% wanted reduced taxes.

My constituents recommend, and I will conclude on this point, that the budget surplus go primarily to those who contributed most to the fight against the deficit for their efforts and that we return as quickly and as best we can to fairness in the way government distributes wealth within Canada.

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it seems funny, but it is sad, because the speech I just heard is what my father used to say to me in the 1960s. The Conservative slant, the new joint management slant. It is the same bloody system with the federal government running the show.

It is exactly what we heard from the Minister of Human Resources Development on the Canadian social union. This proves once again that the federal Conservatives and Liberals are one and the same.

I am one of the 80% of Quebeckers they say are tired of constitutional debates. We are tired of constitutional debates, but we want the choice of Quebeckers to be made democratically. We reached 49.4% last time, and we are carrying on the democratic battle. More and more Quebeckers understand that the federal system does not work.

There is going to be another two day federal-provincial conference, where the federal government's centralizing power, as soon as money becomes available, will again want to put it somewhere, which is the very same formula as the Conservatives'. The Conservatives' joint management approach was not, in the last election program, chosen by the majority of Quebeckers as far as I know. They have 5 members in Quebec, while the Bloc Quebecois has 44. That is the quantifiable and official result.

Mr. Speaker, I agree I must conclude my response, but the comment took time. I can tell you that the greatest service Quebeckers and Canadians can offer each other is to decide to resolve the constitutional debate so that in the future we can debate social and economic choices and no longer need to deal with the issue of the country's architecture.

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you for the way you said the name of my riding, which truly represents the four regional county municipalities that it covers.

We are discussing the prebudget consultations whereby the government is asking the House its opinion on the report submitted by the parliamentary committee. I would like first of all to mention the consultations that I carried out in my riding, which were submitted to the committee and which are included in the report.

Among other things, I will quote some of the people who participated in the debate. These are people who are experiencing these things in their daily lives and who are in contact with the population.

For example, Mrs. Bilocq, of the KRTB economic development corporation, said “The danger, after a period of economic restraint, is that the government will start spending again to please the electorate”. I think the federal government has clearly demonstrated that it cannot shed its old habits and that, as soon as it has money available, it cannot refrain from dishing it out in its programs in the hope of gaining votes.

True, the Canadian federal system is rather pitiful. The federal government might have less visibility than it wants if it limited itself to its responsibilities as defined in the Constitution, but that is what it should be doing. It should ensure that it does not invest in areas where the provinces already have jurisdiction and where they have developed programs. What the provinces really want is that the money be returned to them so that they can invest more in their own programs and in the strategies that they are currently developing.

They can say that it is the nasty separatists who are saying this, but this week, unanimously, the provincial finance ministers gave a warning to Mr. Martin, the minister. “Ottawa must resist the temptation to get involved piecemeal in programs with isolated initiatives in areas under provincial jurisdiction like home care services and pharmacare, for example”.

So this message is not coming from sovereignists, it is coming from Canada's finance ministers, who remember. If they were not there themselves, they remember what happened during the seventies in the Trudeau era. The federal government started to spend left and right to give its members more visibility, to give itself more visibility as a government, and the result was the financial situation we had in 1993.

That situation has now been remedied, to a large extent on the backs of the people who are paying employment insurance, both employers and employees, and also on the backs of the provinces through cuts in transfer payments, but the government should not revert to its old habits. If, in 2000, 2001 or 2002, we have to say once again that the federal government should not have invested in this program, that we are in the red once again, we will have failed to learn the lessons from the past.

I will quote another person who spoke during the consultations, Benoît Aubut, who represents the unemployed. He said: “We ask that the EI benefit period and amount not longer depend on the financial needs of the government but rather on those of the workers, who pay to be covered if they lose their jobs”.

This week, the Bloc Quebecois made a very constructive proposal. We have introduced six private members' bills from six different members clearly showing what needs to be changed in the employment insurance legislation. We were even so lucky as to have the support of the NDP. Again, this is an issue on which the big, bad separatists could have made suggestions that might not have been good for Canada, but as it turns out, members of another party sitting next to us—and I am referring to the NDP—also found the idea interesting because they have been elected to teach the government a lesson and tell the government: “The changes you made to the employment insurance plan one or two years ago are unacceptable. We in high unemployment areas cannot live with that because workers are not assured of a sufficient income between two jobs.”

That is another very concrete quote on a very concrete problem that the government should address as soon as possible.

By lowering EI premiums by an amount equivalent to the increase in CPP contributions, the government acted on part of a recommendation made by the Bloc. I think this must be applauded. We made this recommendation in committee before any other party, and the government took our lead. There is, however, still room for improvement in the employment insurance plan.

About the EI reform, even though the chief actuary said that the system could be self-sufficient with premiums of $2 per $100 of insurable income, premiums will be set at $2.70 as of January 1, 1998. So there is a 70-cent margin of manoeuvre. The Conservatives would like to see all of that used to decrease contributions.

We, on the other hand, would rather cut contributions by about 35 cents, or half of that margin of manoeuvre, and earmark the other half for improving the system so that unemployment insurance can resume its function of stabilizing the economies of high unemployment regions and become a true tool in the battle against poverty. That is all we hear about these days, the battle against poverty, against child poverty. The federal government absolutely wants to have a cheque with a nice Canada flag in the corner, whereas there is a proper way of doing things, with tools over which it has complete control, and over which it would have full jurisdiction. We could talk about that this afternoon and tomorrow morning if that is the hon. members' wish.

The employment insurance program could be modified and its human face restored, making it into something which could, for instance, eliminate the so-called spring gap. With the new reform, few seasonal workers can get employment insurance to tide them over for the entire period they are without work until they start up again the following year. We want to see that corrected.

We also want to see the intensity rule done away with, which reduces rates by 1% each time 20 weeks of employment insurance is used. That was part of the principle of the former Minister of Human Resources Development, but he got the message—very emphatically—on June 2, 1997, when the people of his riding told him that, no, they could not live with such a thing, that it offended their dignity, that they no longer wanted a minister who was capable of doing such a thing.

Should the government, which will be producing its legislative progress report within a few days, not have addressed the real problem? The first message it got in the June 2 federal election was that the high-unemployment regions are seriously dissatisfied with the employment insurance program imposed upon them. Budget choices will have to be made. We are debating pre-budget consultations and I trust the government will be capable of heeding what has been said.

The people we heard from in committee on November 12, 1997, also told us that it was important that those who have contributed the most to bringing down the deficit should be the ones to benefit from the fiscal dividend. Here again, the reference is to EI premiums, but also to provinces that have had to manage with cuts in transfer payments. It was not their idea to make these cuts, but they are the ones who have to live with them, who have to contend with the impact on hospitals, CLSCs, home-care services. Many of the decisions taken were the result of these cuts.

So, many social stakeholders did not make extravagant demands. They want the money to go towards existing programs. They told us, for instance, to use it to consolidate existing organizations and to resist the temptation to woo voters by creating new programs.

Yesterday again, this was brought home to us in caucus. We heard from Canadian women's groups, who told us that what they want is not money to duplicate provincial programs, but satisfactory funding for women's groups in Canada. The present government should listen carefully to this request because it is another way to fight poverty. If children are poor, then you can be sure that many women in Canada are poor as well. They must have the means to escape this poverty, and be represented and be able to conduct their lives with dignity.

People in my riding also tell me they do not want to see more federal interference in provincial areas of jurisdiction, because this leaves the public confused and always trying to get the best deal. People are not stupid. They have seen what has been going on for the last 25 or 30 years. I will conclude on this. People have been perfectly aware of the competition between the two levels of government over the years, and they want no more of it. They want each level of government to stick to its own area of jurisdiction until such time as there can be just one level of government. In addition, when they elect representatives, they want to be able to know exactly who is responsible and that they can re-elect the government they have chosen, or not re-elect it, in the knowledge that they are fully responsible for their choice.

This is one of the fundamental reasons we want to leave this madhouse. The Canadian federal system has resulted in such confusion in Canada that voters are unable to make logical choices.

In conclusion, we should listen to what the public is saying. Each of us should take his or her responsibilities and the federal government should mind its own business.

[Employment Insurance, December 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister think he could sell that technocratic speech to the people lined up at the food bank because they have been denied unemployment insurance?

[Employment Insurance, December 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, through his reform, the Minister of Human Resources Development has made access to employment insurance more difficult and cut the number of weeks of benefits as well as the amount of benefits paid.

Will the minister admit that his reform has greatly increased poverty?