Leon Benoit

[Supply, March 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, normally I say when I start a speech that I am pleased to rise to debate the issue that we are talking about but I cannot honestly say that today.

Had the government done what it should have done, what Canadians said it should do again and again, what we have said it should do again and again, it would not have been necessary to have this debate. I too feel bad that it is necessary to talk about this and to give Clifford Olson the delight that he seems to take from being talked about and being in the media but we have to talk about it.

We have to let the surviving victims of Clifford Olson, the families of those killed, know that we are trying our best to do something that will allow them, as well as they can, to put this aside so that their lives are not totally consumed with memories, with the thoughts, with reliving the horror that they have lived as a result of what Clifford Olson has done. Somebody has to tell them that they care and that they are trying to change things so they will not have this dragged through their lives again and again.

Unfortunately here we are. There are so many things I would like to say on this issue but there are two things on which I am going to focus. The first has become very obvious just from listening to this debate so far. It is the issue of balance in the justice system, the balance between the rights of the accused and the rights of citizens and victims to be protected. That balance is clearly out of whack.

The second issue is in response to the solicitor general's statement in response to my question where he dumped the blame for Clifford Olson having the opportunity to once again present his case on early release on the Bloc. I will deal with that issue first because I want to be sure I have time to do that.

It is true that the Bloc did prevent the bill from going through the normal course and it did prevent changes that would have prevented the fiasco that will be taking place tomorrow of Clifford Olson having a chance to apply for early release. Therefore, the Bloc deserves some of the blame.

However, when we look at what has happened in this place again and again, we know that we cannot allow the Liberals to dump the blame on the Bloc. If things are looked at realistically, the government has again and again used closure to force legislation through the House. The latest closure was on the tobacco bill which was supported by Reform members and most of the government members. Yet the government saw a need to use closure and override the democratic process to force that bill through the House. That was last week.

The Liberal government has done this again and again. It has often used closure to force legislation through. If closure is something that should have been used on Bill C-68, the so-called gun bill, then why was not this change important enough to use closure? I am not advocating the use of closure. It should not be used. It has been abused terribly. However, when we look at the way the government puts legislation through the House, it is clear

that it could have forced this through unamended. It has absolute power.

We do not have democratic process in this House. For example, about 60 Liberal MPs did their homework on the gun bill. They talked to their constituents. They was debate. In many cases they did surveys and found that their constituents did not want them to support Bill C-68. How many actually at third reading voted against the bill? I believe there were three. What happened to them? They were thrown off their committees and punished for doing what their constituents told them to do. That is not democracy.

Then the Prime Minister publicly said that any government MP who ever dared to vote against a government bill again, no matter what their constituents want, will be punished. He will not sign their nomination papers. Their political careers will be over. That is the kind of power the government has. With that kind of power it could have put the bill through in any form it wanted. Therefore, the government cannot dump the blame on the Bloc. It cannot do that in good conscience. The solicitor general knows that.

The second issue I want to raise is the lack of balance in the justice system. We have a justice system that gives too high a priority to the rights of the accused and the criminal. Their rights are put higher than the rights of citizens and victims to feel safe and be safe.

Since Reforms have been here we have been calling for is to rebalance the scales of justice so that the rights of the citizens and victims are to be protected and given a higher priority than the rights of the accused and the rights of the criminal. We want to rebalance the system. It is clearly needed and Canadians have been calling for it for some time.

If the House needs evidence that the system is out of whack, let me use as an example one I have used many times of a women in Montreal who was viciously raped by a criminal who was out on early release. He had viciously attacked women before. All she asked from the justice system was for the criminal to be forced to give a blood sample so she could determine whether he had the HIV virus and then should would know whether she was likely to contract AIDS from this violent criminal. What was she told? She was told the answer was no, because in our justice system the rights of the criminal are placed higher than the rights of the victim. I could cite example after example that would demonstrate this exact point.

Why have we come to this? I can very honestly say that it is as a result of Liberal governments over the last 30 years and Conservative governments did not fix the problem when they were given the time to do so.

I will paraphrase what Solicitor General Boyer said in 1972 in Hansard : For too long we have put the rights of the citizens too high''. He did not even mention the rights of victims.It is time that we place as a top priority in our justice system the rights of the criminal and the rights of the accused''. A very deliberate change was made over the years of Liberal governments and the Conservative governments refused to fix the broken system.

We have been calling for changes that would fix the system. It is clearly out of balance and it must be rebalanced. At present in our justice system, victims have virtually no rights. We have been calling for the rights of victims to be given a higher priority than the rights of the criminal or the rights of the accused. Certainly the rights of the criminal and the accused are important. I want to make it clear I recognize that. We are just looking for a better balance.

A Reform member has put before the House a victims' bill of rights. It passed second reading but has not gone any further. It has not become law because it has not been given a high enough priority by the government. If it had been given a higher priority it could have been passed by the House. It specifies their rights in our justice system.

Some of those rights are worth noting. First, it is important to define victim. When we talk about Clifford Olson and early release and the hearing, the victims we are most concerned about are the families of those who are longer with us, the children who were murdered.

In this victims' bill of rights, a victim is defined as anyone so suffers as a result of an offence, physical or mental injury or economic loss or; any spouse, sibling, child or parent of the individual against whom the offence was perpetrated or; anyone who had an equivalent relationship, not necessarily a blood relative".

Then the 10 rights that the legislation will give to victims their proper place in the justice system are:

First, to be informed of their rights at every stage of the process, including being made aware of available victim services. In regard to section 745 we found that many victims, the surviving families of murdered people, had no idea that this vicious murderer would be allowed to apply for early release after 15 years. So that is an important one.

Second, the victim should be informed of the offender's status throughout the process, including but not restricted to plans to release the offender from custody.

Third, choose between giving oral and/or written victim impact statements at parole hearings before sentencing and at judicial reviews. Give the victims a say in sentencing throughout the process.

Fourth, to know why charges are not laid if that is the decision of the crown or the police. It seems absurd to most Canadians to know that in many cases the victims are not even given any notice. The other important points and rights that we would give to the victims to help balance this justice system are written in the member's

victims bill of rights which has received second reading support from all parties in the House.

The solicitor general cannot lay the blame entirely on the Bloc for the failure to amend section 745 in time to prevent Clifford Olson from receiving these hearings. It is so important to rebalance the justice system where the citizenry and the victims can have a place of higher priority.

[Supply, March 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general has missed the point again. Whether or not Clifford Olson is granted early release there is a hearing taking place tomorrow on the issue. The families of those who had their children murdered by Clifford Olson will have to go through pain again.

I would like to ask the solicitor general a very direct, straightforward question. I hope he will give a very direct, straightforward answer. Have any of the changes the solicitor general and his government put before the House since coming to power in 1993 prevented a situation which is painful to the families of those victims who indeed are victims themselves? Have any of the changes made it so that they would not have to go through the pain of Clifford Olson having a hearing for early release?

[Supply, March 5th, 1997]

He will need the compassion.

[Canada Labour Code, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will speak to the Group No. 9 amendments. Many people over the last four years since I became involved in politics, and even before, have told me that unions are a bad thing and if they had their way they would outlaw unions completely. I have had many people tell me

that unions are so powerful they do extreme harm to the economy. I respond to them by saying that I do not agree at all.

I believe that unions play a very useful role. I believe that collective bargaining must be allowed to take place wherever it possibly can. I believe that under certain circumstances we have to find a more efficient and more useful mechanism for solving a problem. Those are cases when innocent victims are involved who are neither labour or management. Of course several different groups fall into this category, grain farmers among them.

When members of the Bloc say that in all cases labour and management have to work it out no matter how long the strike might last, are they really thinking about the other people who are involved in certain situations? In particular, people who in many cases in the past have lost their businesses, their farms, have suffered severe economic hardship as a result of both sides, labour and management, causing stoppages.

This is the case with grain farmers and any other captive shippers. We have to take a look at solutions to the problem of one disruption after another which are usually settled by back to work legislation. Such legislation without a doubt does not involve labour-management negotiations.

In the grain handling industry 19 times in the last 20 years the House has brought in back to work legislation to end a dispute. Labour and management have given up on the process. We have proposed the use of final offer selection arbitration so that there will be no work stoppage and so that labour and management do negotiate to the final agreement, hopefully never using the final offer selection arbitration. However, knowing it is there is important.

This group of amendments deals with replacement workers. Of course members of the Block feel, and I think I am being fair, that there should be no case where replacement workers can be used. I believe in Quebec it is the law that replacement workers cannot be used.

The legislation does not say that replacement workers will not be used. Instead in a roundabout way it states that the Canada Industrial Relations Board will decide whether replacement workers will be allowed or not. It is very unclear to labour and management what situations would warrant the Canada Industrial Relations Board's deciding whether replacement workers would be used. This kind of uncertainty cannot possibly be good for labour or management. Therefore we cannot support any of these amendments that would outlaw the use of replacement workers entirely.

While we do want the collective bargaining process to take place, I have defended it to many people who say that it should be outlawed, that the unions are just too powerful and harm the economy. I have defended the absolute necessity for collective bargaining to be available to labour and management and I will continue to defend it. However, there are situations where we must be able to get round it.

Certainly this solution of using the Canada Industrial Relations Board to determine when replacement workers should be allowed is totally unacceptable.

It should be obvious to members of the government and of the Bloc that the way to solve the problem is to never have these work stoppages in the first place, especially in industries where innocent victims are the ones who pay the dearest price. Of course, grain farmers are one group that has paid the price 19 times in the last 20 years. It has cost many of them their businesses and their livelihood of choice as a result of these continual work stoppages in which they have no say. They are left out. They truly are innocent victims.

In cases where there is a captive shipper or a group of victims the obvious solution is to never let the stoppage take place. We have suggested using final offer selection arbitration as a way of providing that outcome.

This group of amendments is one that would not be supported by farmers. I do not think we would find one farmer in western Canada who would support this amendment that would outlaw replacement workers.

I have some letters from constituents who said things like this. One is from Myron Zajic from Edgerton, Alberta in my constituency: "I am writing to you in support of the amendments to the labour code which prohibit the longshoremen from striking in Vancouver and Prince Rupert. I am an Alberta grain farmer and I have been appalled by the number of times we have been held hostage over grain handling disputes at the west coast. To maintain our foreign markets and to keep the flow of grain moving and keep our agriculture economy going we must stop these interruptions. Please support this amendment".

The next one is from Dale Hallett from my constituency who made this comment about labour disputes on the west coast: "Labour disputes on the west coast, one, disrupt the flow of grain; two, increase direct cost to grain producers; three, damage Canada's reputation in world markets;" a very important point that he has brought up, "and four, impair the economy of Canada and western Canada in particular". He said support that amendment.

I have a stack of letters of people who have said to support that amendment. They certainly would not be telling us to support Bill C-66 if they knew that part of this bill gave that kind of power, the kind of power to outlaw the use of replacement workers, put into the hands of the Canada Industrial Relations Board. They would not support any piece of legislation that would do that. They will not support this piece of legislation for that reason and others.

If we can get our amendment supported which would put in place final offer selection arbitration, it changes the game. That would prevent many of these stoppages and would help to solve the problem for the long term, not just tinkering. This legislation does provide a bit of useful tinkering in that it would at least ensure that grain which reached the coast would be loaded but it has no impact whatsoever on getting that grain from the local elevator to the coast in the first place.

It does not solve the problem and on balance when we look at this group of amendments and the other group of amendments it is going to take that final offer selection amendment to be supported for this legislation to really provide any positive change at all.

[Canada Labour Code, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Group No. 8 amendments. This group calls for the use of final offer selection arbitration to settle disputes so there will not be strikes or lockouts in the system in the future.

I would like to start by reminding members on the government side of some things that have taken place over the past three and a half years leading to this legislation, how they were dealt with, the impact they had on the farming industry in particular, but also on other industries where there are captive shippers. Then I will talk about what the amendments in this group would do to help alleviate some of the problems caused by the lack of action on the part of this government over the past three and a half years.

Three major pieces of legislation have come before the House which have had a huge impact on grain movement over the past three and a half years. The first was the elimination of the Crow benefit, thus requiring farmers to pay the full cost of freight when they had been paying less than half the cost. When this legislation was passed, we agreed to support it if some changes were made that would make things better.

Later, the new Canadian Transportation Act was passed. Again, my colleagues and I called for some changes that would improve the act so the system would work better. Then came the legislation that led to the privatization of CN. My colleagues and I called for a series of amendments that would have made things work better.

What do we have? We have the Crow benefit eliminated, farmers paying the full cost of transportation. Is the system working better? Ask some of our colleagues from Saskatchewan and Manitoba. They know that farmers once again are stuck with grain in their bins and in piles on the ground because they cannot move it. The system is not working. It is failing from one end to the other.

I have many farmers in my constituency who will not be able to seed a crop this spring because they have not been able to sell last year's crop. The system is broken. Grain is not moving. It is sitting in bins. It is sitting in piles on the ground and these farmers are desperate for money.

What have members opposite done to head off this problem, which was most predictable? I predicted it in committee and in the House when we debated every one of the pieces of legislation that should have made things better for farmers when they are moving grain. They did not.

When the government called for eliminating the Crow benefit, we called for changes that would put competition into the system before the act was passed, before the subsidy was removed. We called for a system of incentives and penalties to be put in place so that we would know grain would be moving as it should be moving. Reform called for changes that would ensure that the system would work before the money was taken away. This government ignored our calls for change. As a result it was very predictable, once again in western Canada, we would end up with a situation where grain is not moving and farmers are wondering where they are going to get the money to seed their crops this spring. There will be many who just will not have the money.

The banks are not going to lend them the money this spring because it has been too many years where grain has not moved and they do not have the money to make their debt payments on time. This year is going to be the end of the line for more farmers in my constituency. I have had some of them come to talk to me about this issue. It is a frustrating feeling when they ask what can be done and I say I do not know.

When the Crow benefit was being eliminated we called for these changes that would have put competition in the system. It would have made the system work better. It would have made it so that if the railways did not deliver we could deal with the problem in a meaningful way.

When the new Canadian transportation act was being put in place Reform called for changes that would allow captive shippers to put pressure on CN to make it deliver. The government ignored those pleas. We called for final offer selection arbitration to be put into that legislation and it was ignored.

When this government put forth legislation to privatize CN we called for changes that would have put competition into the system so that the changes would have been made to make the system work better before the legislation was passed. Those changes were not made so here we are today with Group No. 8 amendments once again calling for changes that would at least help in some small way to alleviate the problems that have arisen. This government has acted completely irresponsibly in the past legislation.

If another example is needed of how the government has acted irresponsibly, at the transport committee the chair, the Liberal member for Winnipeg South, when the change was proposed that would have made it so that farmers would not be held hostage to these huge pilot fees, thousands of dollars a day going to a pilot to help guide the ships through the St. Lawrence Seaway system, and the Bloc MPs said they did not want this to change because it is good for people in Montreal, the chair of the committee and the Bloc left-this was just before the Christmas break-and the member for Winnipeg South made a deal. As a result farmers are still left paying this absolutely atrocious pilot fee for every ship moving through the St. Lawrence system and that is just unforgivable. We have had these things that have been done wrong over the last three and a half years.

I believe that the Reform has put forth constructive recommendations to make things work better. We are doing that once again with these Group No. 8 amendments. At least we can help make up for some of the lack of action over the past three and a half years and make it so that we will not have strikes or lockouts in the system so that farmers' grain and the commodities from other captive shippers will move right through to port and indeed until they are loaded on ships and out of port.

We cannot afford to keep building this reputation of being an unreliable suppler of goods. Things are so bad in the grain industry, because of stoppages, because Canada has not been able to supply time after time grain that the customers have ships waiting for, that customers are giving up on us. They are going south to Seattle to other ports where they know the commodity will be delivered when it should be delivered. Canada is no longer a reliable shipper. Japan and other countries that pay top dollar for our commodities are giving up on us.

So who are the losers? The Canadian business people, farmers and people in other industries who depend on the system to work to get their commodity from the producer to the ships loaded for market.

Western Canadian grain farmers are tired of this happening again and again. It was so predictable and we did predict it. We said changes had to be made to fix up the car allocation system and put in place a system of incentives and penalties as in the case of the privatization of CN and the Canadian transportation act, using final offer selection arbitration to make sure that stoppages are not allowed to happen. That is just about the fairest method we can use.

We are not talking about ending the collective bargaining process. We are talking about making the collective bargaining process work better. That is what final offer selection arbitration does. It gives workers and management a chance to work things through. Hopefully things will never get to a point where there will be a need for final offer selection arbitration.

[Canada Labour Code, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of the amendments contained in group No. 7.

I have received letters from several grain farmers over the past months with respect to Bill C-66. They have said that at the least this piece of legislation would require that grain moves through the port once it arrives there. They said that would help to some extent. There have been many work stoppages over the years. Grain has arrived at port and one thing or another has stopped it from moving. The farmers have said that legislation would help.

Farmers did not know that part of the legislation would make things much worse, the measure to prevent the use of replacement workers. That could lead to a slower movement of grain and more damage to farmers as a result of having their commodity held up en route to port or as it is being loaded on a ship.

Farmers are torn on this issue. I want to speak for them on it. There is a better solution than the one offered in the legislation. The farmers have told me so and I will speak on behalf of the ones who have contacted me.

Grain farmers have suffered for too long. Some have seen their livelihood for an entire year being snatched away due to poor weather conditions. As well, often their grain has either been left on the farm or in local elevators due to some kind of movement disruption. That has happened too often.

One of the first pieces of legislation I spoke on when I came to Ottawa in 1994 had to do with putting grain handlers at the port of Vancouver back to work. It was back to work legislation. We have seen back to work legislation again and again. When we have government interfering, forcing the system to work through back to work legislation, clearly there are problems in the system which have to be dealt with.

I forget the number but there have been something like 20 stoppages over the years I remember. I remember as a very young boy on the farm getting grain ready to go to market and desperately needing the money from the grain to meet day to day expenses, to buy clothes and food for the family. Then I would hear about a stoppage in the grain handling system. There might have been some problem with the railway. More often than not the grain handlers were on strike at the port. Any one of the many links in the system might have broken down. Who paid the price? The captive shippers, in this case the grain farmers who have no other practical way of getting their commodity to the ships so they can get paid. This has happened again and again.

As I said, one of the first pieces of legislation that I spoke on was to legislate the grain handlers back to work. The problem had not been solved.

Will this piece of legislation help? To some extent it will. At least grain that makes it to the port will be moved through the system and loaded on to ships. That is not enough, not close to enough. It is not only grain farmers who are affected by a system that does not come through again, again and again. It is people with many other commodities who have no other way of getting them to port other than by railway. It is a system that breaks down on them again and again and costs them dearly. The legislation does not fix the system.

What has Reform proposed over the three and a half years we have been here? We have proposed many different solutions to the problem. In my second speech in the House in February 1994 I proposed the use of final offer selection arbitration which my colleague has mentioned in the House as a permanent solution to the problem.

Final offer selection arbitration allows for the bargaining process to take place but absolutely prevents a stoppage in grain movement right from the local elevator to the ship. That is the solution farmers need. That is the solution other captive shippers need. Nothing less than that is good enough, and this legislation provides a lot less. With the negatives it is questionable whether it will make things better or worse. On balance it could well make things worse.

We need this change. The Reform member for Lethbridge put forward a private member's bill respecting a final offer selection arbitration some time back in 1994. That bill was debated in the House and I believe it was votable. Had it passed it would have become legislation. Did we get support from the same government that is now presenting this piece of legislation? Did we get support from the Bloc? Did we get support from anybody for that legislation?

We never got support from anybody in the House but we got support right across western Canada from grain farmers who are fed up with having constant disruptions in grain movement that cost them so dearly when they can ill afford it. They are already at

the mercy of the weather and world prices, world prices being low more often than not due to government interference in the market.

It is not just the American government and the European governments that interfere in the market and do not allow the market to work properly. It is also the Canadian government. Canadian governments-Conservative and Liberal-have been interfering for some time. This has led to depressed prices. Farmers have had to deal with all this and with continual disruptions.

It is time for some real change. It is time we put in place final offer arbitration as a way to ensure that captive shippers get their products loaded on to ships in a timely fashion. This legislation will not do that unless we include these amendments and clearly end disruptions in the handling system once and for all. Farmers deserve no less.

In the red book the government included virtually nothing on agriculture. As an afterthought an addendum was added which included a lot of nice things to help make things better for farmers. It is time the government delivered on at least this one.

It is time not to settle for quarter or half measures. It is time to solve the problem. The government has an opportunity to deal with the problem and to say that it will solve the problem completely. Maybe that is overstating the case but it would certainly help in a dramatic way. That is why I speak in support of Group No. 7 amendments. I encourage the Liberal government to finally do something for grain farmers. They are being held hostage by the grain handling system. Right now, once again this year, grain is not moving.

During the elimination of the Crow benefit, the changes to the Canada Transportation Act and the privatization of CN Rail I called again and again for measures, as did my colleagues, that would put competition into the system. It would have fixed the car allocation process. It would have made the system work.

The government did not heed our call for action. Here is a chance for it to make up for that in some small way. It should support this group of amendments that will finally allow for movement of grain right from the local elevator to the ship without disruption. It is the least that farmers should expect from the government.

[Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act, February 20th, 1997]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-375, an act to amend the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to introduce my private member's bill, an act to amend the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act.

The agreement on internal trade that was signed nearly three years ago was a start. However, it has not yet been completed. The main obstacle to the completion of this agreement is the use of the term consensus as it has been used by the negotiating committee comprised of cabinet level representatives from federal, provincial and territorial governments.

This committee has interpreted the definition of consensus to mean unanimity. Therefore, any one government, regardless of population, can impeded the progress of the agreement, and indeed that of the Canadian economic union.

My bill will allow the federal government to use its constitutional responsibility under sections 91 and 121 of the Constitution to complete sections of the agreement on internal trade. It is important to note that this action will be taken only in situations where co-operative agreement between the provinces has been sought and not reached.

This proposed approval formula will require agreement among at least two-thirds of the provinces that have at least 50 per cent of the Canadian population. This provision will facilitate the removal of internal trade barriers and present growth opportunities to Canadian businesses which previously have been restricted by these barriers.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[The Budget, February 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in the hon. member's presentation, he talked about how the government is quite proud of its record on health care, education and jobs.

The finance minister, of course, expressed that this morning. On a CBC television program, he said: "We are going to focus our spending on things that really count to Canadians. That is what our values are: health care, education, children and job creation". I guess the two are giving the same message.

Those words are quite nice but when we look at reality and the record of this government on those issues, it is quite another story. When it comes to health care, we have seen a 40 per cent reduction in spending. There was a 40 per cent reduction in transfers to the provinces. Mr. Klein said 42 and that might be closer. I am not sure. That is the reality.

It is the same thing for education. There has been a 40 per cent reduction in transfers to the provinces.

With respect to job creation, unemployment rates are still at almost 10 per cent, compared to Japan at 3.4 per cent and the United States at 5.4 per cent. The record of this government on jobs is totally unacceptable.

Beyond that, the hon. member talked about how the unemployment rate has actually dropped somewhat since the government took office. That is true, but we are looking at a larger than ever portion that is underemployed. There are far more people underemployed than under the Conservative government and there are far more people who are afraid of losing their jobs. The record on jobs is nothing to be proud of.

I would like to ask the member to respond to the clear difference in the words, the actions and the record of this government.

[The Budget, February 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe there is some rule in the House about just how far a member can stretch the truth before it is no longer acceptable?

[The Budget, February 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the member just described what Liberalism is all about. He said virtually the same thing as the finance minister said this morning on CBC television, which was that they are going to focus their spending on the things that really count to Canadians. He said that their values are health care, education, children and job creation. Those are the same things which the hon. member said.

Those are the words, but I want to ask the hon. member about the actions and contrast them to the words.

When we look at the action on health care, in fact federal spending has been reduced by 40 per cent. That is a fact. That is reality.

Unemployment has remained above 9 per cent for many months. The unemployment rate is almost as high as it was when the government took office in 1993. Not only are there 1.5 million people unemployed, there are another two million to three million who are underemployed, and fully a quarter of the workforce is afraid of losing their jobs. More important than the actual unemployment rates, bad as they are, is the fact that Canadians are having to worker harder than ever just to make ends meet. That is

making their lives very difficult. It is creating child poverty and problems within families.

Education funding has also been cut by the federal government by 40 per cent. That was the action. That is a fact.

The government shows its concern for children by reducing the average family income by $3,000. I am talking about take home pay. That is the pay which families have available to look after their kids. That has been reduced by $3,000 since the government took power. That is how the government shows care for children.

I would ask the hon. member to respond to the clear difference between the words that he and the finance minister speak and their actions over the last three years.