Debates of Dec. 11th, 1995

Employment Insurance Act

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I want to join all my colleagues who asked that Bill C-111 be referred as quickly as possible to the standing committee of the House, so that all Canadians can soon participate in the development of the bill, and eventually in its implementation.

At the same time, I want to refute many myths concerning this bill, particularly as regards part time workers.

A moment ago, I was listening to our Bloc colleague, the member for Quebec, talking about what else but the big bad federal government which is responsible for all ills on earth and in heaven, and all over the planet. She mentioned constitutional interference and injustices against Quebec. When I listen to the Bloc members day in and day out, it seems to me that they would like to continue and perpetuate the referendum debate for ever.

If I may, since I live in the Montreal area and see it daily, I would like to point out the political, social and economic instability which is now pervasive in our area as a result of this sterile and divisive debate we are compelled to by the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois, and their obsession for a separate Quebec. The Montreal economy is sick due in part to this instability which scares away investments and jobs. This is a reality we need to talk about.

I would like to mention the workers who, either by choice or through no fault of their own, are working part time. Bill C-111 was drafted, in many ways, to held part time workers. We heard claims that Bill C-111 was a new tax on workers, or that it was tightening eligibility to such a degree that workers most in need would never qualify.

It is important to compare the provisions in Bill C-111 with those of the old system.

During the last two decades almost half of the new jobs created have been what economists call non-standard jobs. Most are part time jobs. By 1994, 17.3 per cent of all jobs in our country were part time jobs. Sadly, women filled 70 per cent of those part time jobs. Studies show that more than one-third of all part time workers actually seek and want full time work. Once again, more than two-thirds of the part timers who seek full time jobs happen to be women.

We should ask ourselves: Has the old approach to unemployment insurance benefited part time workers? The answer is no. Under the old system a worker needed to work at least 15 hours or earn a certain amount to have his or her earnings insured. In 1995 that amount was $163. The old system has frozen out 500,000 Canadian workers. Many employers have deliberately held workers to less than 15 hours. This has kept their wages lower. After all there can be no employer share of unemployment insurance premiums for uninsured employees. The result has been that these workers have not been eligible for any benefits if they lose their job.

But there is another aspect to that unfairness. A recent study by Statistics Canada revealed that 653,000 Canadians have more than one job. That is definitely not a normal situation. More and more people now have two or even three part time jobs, but many of them are still not covered by the present plan. That is absurd and unfair.

Then we have people who work more than the minimum some weeks but not other weeks. They have only partial coverage. That shows why we need this change. One central objective of Bill C-111 is to get rid of the artificial notion of a work week. By using hours as a measuring device and by making every hour count, part time workers earn coverage at the same rate as every other insured worker.

A person who loses a part time job will be treated the same as any other worker if he or she has enough hours of work. This is fair. We have set a reasonable standard regarding the number of hours a person has to work to be eligible for benefits. That underlines our

goal to make work pay. It is a necessary step that helps us to meet our fiscal targets through Bill C-111.

Many part time workers amass very few hours. They may be students. Some may be in seasonal work. They may have only a little part time employment or maybe only a few weeks of full time work. This bill understands that reality. It exempts people who earn less than $2,000 a year from employment insurance premiums. These people will have premiums deducted from their paycheques just like everyone else but that money will be returned to them through the income tax system.

There will be no tax grab from our lowest income workers. This will have a significant effect. The Department of Human Resources Development has determined that more than three out of every four of the newly insured workers will have their premiums refunded. Another 920,000 low income workers who now pay premiums will see those refunded. Altogether that is equivalent to 1.3 million workers who will not have to pay premiums because their earnings are too low. The government has built a system based strictly on fairness.

What will the impact be on part time workers? They will pay $14 million less in premiums, and a much greater number will qualify for benefits if they are unfortunate enough to lose their jobs.

It reflects the balanced approach this bill takes to the needs of people in seasonal work. The government clearly listened to the recommendations of the working group on seasonal work and unemployment insurance. These recommendations called for an hours based system. They called for an increased clawback. They called for steps to keep young people from leaving school for a cycle of unemployment insurance dependence.

Despite the claims of the opposition, these are the facts. Part time workers will see less off their income in premiums. They will have more access to benefits.

In contrast, the Reform Party has been pounding away at its claims that extending employment insurance to part time workers will lead to untold numbers being fired by employers. I use the word untold for a reason because I have never heard Reform members offer any credible statistics to support this claim.

Under the new system, part time workers who have been eligible for insurance benefits at any time in the previous three years will have the same opportunity for employment benefits as other eligible workers.

To conclude, I would like to reiterate my firm support for the motion of the government that Bill C-111 be referred as quickly as possible to a committee so that the serious consultations Canadians expect can get under way, and that Bill C-111 can be enacted as soon as possible.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, is it my turn for debate? Ten minutes? I thought I could put questions to my colleague opposite.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

No, we have been gagged.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

We have been gagged. That is the new way of doing things. It means that the government does not go only after the victims, but also after the members who represent the victims, as my colleague for Portneuf put it.

I am not pleased, but rather deeply saddened to rise today to speak on a bill which is so tough on the unemployed, on the jobless. Instead of tackling the problems and trying to find work for the people who live in the regions, the government is going after what little they have left.

What is this bill all about? As we say in French, and especially in my region of Gaspé, it is first and foremost a deficit insurance plan for the government, since it would save about $5 billion. It is not the jobless who will benefit from this, but the government. So, first and foremost, the reform proposed by the minister is a kind of insurance program for him, for his deficit, and not an employment insurance system, as he would have us believe.

I was regional critic for the Bloc Quebecois this last year, and I still am, unless changes are made, and the people in areas like the Gaspé Peninsula and the Magdalen Islands are being dealt a double blow by this bill, since the vast majority of the unemployed in these areas are seasonal unemployed. One of the first measures that will be applied by the government is the 1 per cent penalty for recurring unemployment. This means that each time an unemployed person in our regions receives UI benefits for a period of 20 weeks-20 weeks, not a year-that person is given a 1 per cent penalty applicable to his or her future benefits. That hurts.

Then, when you look at how the system works, we know the present rate of benefits is 55 per cent of the gross salary. This means that, once they have accumulated five periods of 20 weeks of UI benefits, these persons will no longer get 55 per cent of their gross salary, but 50 per cent. That hurts, and is discriminatory. It is not their fault if they work in an area that has to follow the seasons. But, nevertheless, they will get a 5 per cent penalty. That is one thing.

Also, benefits are calculated not only based on the number of hours, but also based on the number of qualifying weeks. First, the benefits will be divided by 14 and subsequently, in 1997 or 1998 I think, they will be divided by 16.

This means that if I manage to accumulate the required 420 hours in a period of 10 weeks, the total amount of benefits I am entitled to will be calculated and divided by 14, as if I had accumulated the required number of hours over a period of 14 weeks.

That is another reduction of the UI benefits to which these unemployed people would normally be entitled. What should we think of that?

But the funniest thing or should I say the saddest thing about this-and I am sure all the people from the Gaspé Peninsula and the Magdalen Islands who are listening to this will demand an explanation from their member opposite-from what I understand-and I hope someone will be able to give me an answer at some point-the 420 hour minimum requirement must be met within a period of 14 weeks. Let us take for example a worker in a lobster plant in our area of the Gaspé Peninsula, who works mainly in May and June.

Suppose this worker manages to accumulate only 400 hours over this work period. According to the rules, he or she must accumulate 20 hours more in order to become eligible.

If that worker is unlucky and cannot find work for his last 20 hours before fall, let us say September or October, what will happen between the end of his first job, in June, and the beginning of his new job, at the end of September? He will be out of work and will receive no benefits of any kind.

I have read the regulations and, from what I understand, the UI commission will calculate like this: let us suppose he worked 20 hours at-I will be generous-$20 an hour, that makes $200 during that period. When the number of hours of work reaches 420, the amount earned is averaged over the last 14 weeks. Since the worker in my example did not work in July and August, because he lives in area where work is seasonal, his earnings during his qualifying period would be $200 and it is that amount that would be divided by 14. What, then, would be the amount of his benefits? It would be $1.25 or something like that. This is unspeakable.

I hope that I am wrong and that my office will receive a fax telling me that I made a mistake. I just hope that we can at least make the minister and the deputy ministers who came up with this scheme understand that in areas like the Gaspé and the Islands, where people need unemployment benefits to make ends meet, they are very edgy about these changes to the program. People try very hard, but nature imposes its work schedules on humans.

Mr. Speaker, did you ever try to go strawberry picking or lobster fishing when there is three feet of ice? It is not easy. What can we do? Should we ask our viewers across Canada to give up strawberries and lobster forever, because people are no longer be able to stay in their region for lack of unemployment insurance benefits, and have to move and find other jobs? Is that the message?

I am afraid we will see some trades and occupations disappear because they are limited to some periods of the year. This is unthinkable unless, once again, the member for Gaspé is wrong.

Is the Minister of Human Resources Development keeping a bargaining chip up his sleeve? I have not yet seen what regulatory amendments the Governor in Council can make in the area of unemployment for fishermen and seasonal workers and I do not know if he can make some other changes. However, the core, the basis of this bill is a slap on the wrist right from the start.

I cannot believe how fast time is going by this afternoon. But in the main, I have made my point. Canadians and Quebecers must be wary. The minister is proposing a very fundamental change, and he is the first one to dip into the pot of this insurance which I call the deficit insurance. I ask the minister to protect the lives of those who live in the regions.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before recognizing the member for Calgary North, I woulk like to say to the member for Gaspé, if I understood him correctly, that he used the word "gag" at the beginning of his speech. I will allow him to reply, but I must advise all members of the House that we are now under Standing Order 73(1)(c) which states:

(c) no Member may speak more than once nor longer than ten minutes.

I can assure the member that I have no intention of gagging him, or any other member. However, we are now proceeding under that rule. If the member wishes to reply, he can.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I had no intention whatsoever of implying that the Chair wants us to do certain things. But if I had the right to make a ten minutes speech, I thought I would also have the right to comment after the ten minutes granted to the other member.

This was to make our work interactive in the House: questions, answers. That allows us to understand certain things.

In my opinion, what Standing Order 73 does, if you will allow me to say so, is gag us.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as the Reform Party's Atlantic issues critic, I have met with and spoken to Atlantic Canadians from all walks of life, including those with, to them, an unwelcome dependence on the social program known as unemployment insurance.

It is the future of this social program that we are debating today. Reforms to the program are long overdue. It is a prize understatement to say that there is an unemployment problem in the Atlantic provinces.

The latest unemployment rate in Newfoundland is 15.9 per cent. In P.E.I. it is 12.2 per cent; in Nova Scotia it is 11.2 per cent and in New Brunswick, the lowest of the four Atlantic provinces, it sits at 11 per cent. By contrast the national unemployment rate for Canada is 9.4 per cent.

It is ironic that the Liberals are now going to call the system in which these disastrous rates of unemployment are flourishing, employment insurance. They have certainly done anything but foster employment for Atlantic Canadians in the past. What they have done is foster an unwelcome dependence on politicians, their programs and their promises.

In 1994, the Atlantic region, with 8 per cent of Canada's population, collected 16.6 per cent of UI benefits. Also last year, $15.8 billion was paid out across the country in UI benefits, $2.6 billion of which ended up in Atlantic Canada.

This is a huge chunk of our national wealth. The tragedy is that so many of these hard earned dollars do not end up in the hands of those who really need assistance. The distribution of these moneys is too often governed by political considerations rather than sound planning.

The great seaworthy vessel known at Atlantic Canada is in need of a major refitting. The weight of dependence on political intervention has punched a very large hole in the bottom of the boat.

Now the ship is taking on water at an alarming rate and who is at risk of drowning? First, our young people. In some fishing communities it is not uncommon for teenagers to drop out of school to take a position on a fishing boat because it gets them enough weeks of work to qualify for UI. The result is one less person in the school system. In the end, one person has been robbed of an opportunity to receive an education.

Young people like this are suffering twofold. On one hand, they will be penalized for being labelled a frequent user. For years, they were led to believe that the UI benefits would always be there. Now, in a cruel twist of irony, they are also feeling the brunt of the years of mismanagement of the oceans' fish stocks which have disappeared.

Also facing the risk of drowning from the foundering ship of UI are the communities dependent on this social program, communities where the dollars from UI have literally kept the town alive. In the past the government has tried to bring in training programs to help workers move out of failing industries. The Liberal government is trying this again. Unfortunately, the job training programs, by the minister's own admission, have failed to deliver in the past.

As the hole in the bottom of Atlantic Canada's economic ship grew and as more water poured in, the people who could save the foundering ship were also penalized by the government. For years small business, the driving force behind job creation, has asked for relief from UI payroll taxes. Now, as the UI surplus fund grows, the government is offering a small stipend to the business community. The amount a business will pay in UI taxes will drop by one-twentieth of 1 per cent. This means that for every $100 of earnings it will drop by 5 cents. This is a very frail tool to hand to our economic builders.

The ship that foundered over the years sank steadily through debt, mismanagement and abuse. As the hole in the bottom of the ship grew wider, successive governments tried to lighten the weight of the sinking ship by throwing overboard a couple of deck chairs, rather than by repairing the damage.

The Liberal government still has not moved to repair the damage caused by the heavy borrowing of its own and previous governments. What the ship needs is to be repaired, to be pulled into drydock for a short time and to be made seaworthy again.

Think of the possibilities of putting back to sea in a fully seaworthy ship. We can repair the ship and our social programs by making tough decisions now, saving them from being made for us down the road.

The international community, whether we like it or not, is watching what we do very closely. By bringing financial spending under control, the economic ship can be rebuilt and put back to sea. It will be a refitted ship, able to withstand the storms of the open ocean of global competition and avoid the rocks along the coast of variable interest rates and currency fluctuations.

The ship that is repaired and put back to sea has a host of ports to head for. The ports of possibility for Atlantic Canada are bountiful. By moving on the Reform Party's policy initiative Atlantica, the Atlantic provinces could open up new markets and a new north-south trading arrangement with the New England states, a market of 15 million people. Let us not forget the opportunity of tapping into the European market. By capitalizing on their unique proximity to other trading partners, the people of Atlantic Canada will be the real winners. The people who helped to carve out a country and a harsh new world 200 years ago can compete in the 21st century.

Sending a pile of cash in to try to solve the problems of a region does not work. According to the auditor general it never did. Programs designed to create employment, growth and prosperity, such as those set up by the Atlantic Canada Opportunity Agency, have shown questionable results at best. The importance of good,

solid infrastructure to enable movement of products for businesses with initiative cannot be stressed enough.

ACOA has often been used as a means to create competition to successful enterprises by funding grants to new but unviable enterprises. This has had the effect of setting up the new for failure and at the same time damaging the success of the old.

The people of Atlantic Canada need ways and means to become self-sufficient. A region with natural resources such as lumber, fish, mining, Hibernia and Voisey Bay has opportunities to rival those of any other part of Canada if the shackles of government restriction, red tape and taxes could be thrown off. The federal government must free up the governments of Atlantic Canada and its citizens by giving them the opportunity and their own resources to manage and make decisions on the areas they see as being needed most. A move toward creating real jobs, not the make-work projects of the past, is what Atlantic Canadians need and want most.

What the government needed to do and failed to do with this bill was to send a message to Atlantic Canadians that there is hope. There are ways to lessen dependence and restore self-sufficiency. We should not have to depend always on the ill-conceived training programs which in the past have not worked. Politicians can trust the initiative of working people.

Atlantic Canadians want to work. They have a right to go to work but have been prevented from doing so by the very governments they say are trying to protect them. They have been taxed out of jobs. While the federal government increased taxes over the years, the provincial governments followed suit. Borrowing money and taking out a mortgage on our children's future is not the way to build a strong country.

Atlantic Canada is a region of the country which feels that the debate on this topic over the next few weeks is one that will have a very strong impact on them. I urge the government to take measures which will give this part of the country the long term plan and hope it needs to build a strong economic future and not tinker with programs which have no long term plan or benefit.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Dear colleagues, pursuant to Standing Order 73, as I mentioned earlier, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings to put the question now before the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion, the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the division bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a) I have been requested by the government whip and the opposition whip to defer the division until 6.30 today.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-110, an act respecting constitutional amendments as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Constitutional Amendments Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

There are two motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-110, an act respecting constitutional amendments.

Motions Nos. 1 and 2 will be grouped for debate, but will be voted on separately.

I now propose Motions Nos. 1 and 2 to the House.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-110, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 13, on page 1, with the following:

"to by at least two-thirds of the provinces that include".

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-110, in Clause 1, be amended: a ) by replacing line 16, on page 1, with the following: c ) British Columbia; d ) two or more of the Atlantic provinces''; b ) by replacing line 21, on page 1, with the following: e ) two or more of the Prairie provinces''; c ) by replacing line 25, on page 1, with the following:

"the Prairie provinces."; and d ) by replacing lines 5 to 7, on page 2, with the following:

""Prairie provinces" means the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta."

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, at report stage of Bill C-110, I will discuss briefly some of the amendments which have been put forth, including the one in my name. As well I have some general comments about the committee and report stage.

The amendment I have moved today seeks to replace the words "by a majority of the provinces" on line 13 with the words "by two-thirds of the provinces". I suggest this to the government really as a matter of drafting. On looking at the the bill one will see that the bill as it is drafted, particularly with the amendment the government is proposing, is a bit odd.

The bill says that the government will consult and get the consent of a majority of the provinces. Then it lists a formula with the amendment to include British Columbia that would include no fewer than two-thirds of the provinces in any case. The government's own formula would require at least seven provinces to get consent. In any case, the sections of the Constitution Act which the bill refers to require at least two-thirds of the provinces. They require either two-thirds or in some cases unanimity.

It seems to me the term "by a majority of the provinces" is absolutely meaningless and actually is a bit misleading. It illustrates one of the problems with the bill. If I have the time I will get to that later. There are several instances where it is clear that the drafting of the bill leaves a number of considerations fairly undefined or wide open.

The second amendment I will also speak to is the one moved by the government itself. This is the amendment to constitute British Columbia as a fifth region. I have said myself in committee and before that five regions are better than four but as I said at second reading, that does not render this bill acceptable. The bill remains fundamentally flawed. It does not give the power of consent to the Canadian people in a national referendum. That is what we have been seeking.

As I said at second reading and in committee, no matter what the regional formula is, as long as it is the provinces in the sense of provincial governments or premiers or legislatures that are being consulted, the fundamental flaw remains that there already exists a formula to do precisely that. The formula in most cases is seven provincial legislatures representing 50 per cent of the population. In that sense we have made the case, which I believe the Alberta government will pursue in court, that there are some fairly serious legal problems with delegating this power to the provinces for a second time.

One that I raised in committee to give an example of what I mean is that the provinces now required under the government's own formula would be provinces representing at least 90 per cent of the Canadian population. Clearly in the Constitution Act 1982 that is not the formula the provinces agreed to. They agreed to a formula that would require provinces representing 50 per cent of the Canadian population.

The government obviously has tried to argue this differently but it is fairly transparent that this does change the intention of the Constitution Act where provincial governments are involved. That is why we oppose it. Although the Motion No. 2 by the government is in and of itself an improvement to the bill, it is an improvement that is not adequate.

I also note that in committee the Reform Party did table its fundamental amendment which is that this consultation would have to occur in all the provinces through a national referendum. I would point out that amendment was rejected by the Liberal government and also by the Bloc Quebecois. I am somewhat perplexed by why the Bloc Quebecois would oppose it. It is the position of the Bloc Quebecois that the people of Quebec should be consulted on their constitutional future. I do not know why they would object to the Parliament of Canada consulting Canadians on a constitutional amendment.

I should also say that we submitted a second amendment in committee regarding protection for the amending formula where it concerns aboriginal peoples. We had taken some advice from a number of the aboriginal leaders who came before the committee. That amendment was also rejected by the committee. My colleague from Crowfoot may discuss some of the implications of that a little later today.

It is fairly apparent that this bill is being rushed through the House. We have the bizarre coincidence of a government which is trying to rush passage of a piece of legislation at almost lightning speed, while at the same time it is proposing major amendments to it. This is the first time I can recall this kind of situation occurring.

I do want to comment on the rush which occurred in committee. The committee insisted on hearing all witnesses within a 48-hour period with no more than 24 hours notice to those witnesses. The names of witnesses who had been submitted included constitutional experts, whom we heard two or three of, aboriginal leaders, members of provincial governments, representatives of intergovernmental affairs departments and in some cases premiers.

We received replies. I am not aware of how, but I know the committee contacted all governments. I am not aware of how specifically they replied, but I will mention that the Government of British Columbia did wish to appear. Mr. Petter wished to address the committee on behalf of the Government of British Columbia. When it became technically not possible for him to do that on the given day because of problems we had with the satellite communication, he was promptly dropped from the list. I would suggest that if we had heard Mr. Petter's testimony, the government could well have known that its concession of a fifth region would not

have been enough to satisfy the Government of British Columbia, but we missed that opportunity.

Also, without quoting the letter, I should add that Mr. Shillington of the Government of Saskatchewan wrote to me to indicate that he had wanted to appear before the committee but simply was unable to in the time constraints that were placed on him. I know that is also true for Mr. Mel Smith who contacted me earlier this week. He is a constitutional expert and former provincial secretary of British Columbia. He had indicated he would like to testify but there was no opportunity.

This is not an extended witness list I am talking about. These are people who either are experts in the field or in the case of governments are affected parties of the legislation itself. They wanted to testify and were refused simply because of the artificial deadline created by the government and by the committee for hearing witnesses. It was a very short deadline with very little time to hear witnesses and very little time to actually notify potential witnesses of the possibility of appearing before the committee.

In the time that remains I want to point out some of the lack of clarity that was in the bill and which was revealed to us in committee. These are things I notice the government has not submitted clarifying amendments on.

First of all, the bill says that no minister of the crown shall propose a motion for a resolution to authorize an amendment to the Constitution of Canada, et cetera, other than through the process of first submitting it to the provinces where there is a five region veto formula.

The term "no minister" is significantly important. This does not exclude the government from sponsoring, backing or putting its weight behind legislation tabled by a government backbencher or even by a parliamentary secretary. In that sense, it is unclear exactly whether the government itself does intend to follow this legislation.

The government assures us it is extremely unlikely that something like that would happen, but my experience has been that when a scenario is allowed and then we are told it is unlikely, it probably means it is likely. That seems to be the way things operate around here.

This second point was the subject of some debate in committee. The bill makes reference to an amendment first having been consented to by the provinces. It was unclear and the government itself was unclear in its intention of whether provinces meant strictly speaking provincial governments, which is what we would have anticipated and what the answers of the Prime Minister in question period seem to have implied, or whether it could actually mean in a sense the people of a province, which is a very different notion.

Neither the minister nor his deputy appeared to rule out legally the meaning of consulting the people, although they did say that it was not a likely occurrence in their view. In fact the Minister of Justice said that it was highly unlikely they would use that interpretation. Furthermore, his deputy minister said that particular interpretation could also be challenged in court. She was not clear how the courts would rule if that meaning of provinces, provinces meaning provincial population, was used by the government. She was not sure whether the courts would allow that interpretation or not. This is very contentious.

It is very unclear in a number of ways what the government is trying to achieve and why we all know it is trying in effect to give a veto to the Government of Quebec over constitutional change and in particular to the future premier. It believes it has a way to trap him in some future scheme.

Unfortunately, as I say, even with the amendments the bill is ill considered. Ultimately the government will end up trapping itself and the people of Canada in what is, if not unconstitutional, a very unwise piece of legislation.

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, as the House will know, I gave notice of an amendment to Bill C-110, an act respecting constitutional amendments, the effect of which would be to add British Columbia as a fifth region to which the federal veto over constitutional amendments would apply. It is to that amendment I rise to speak today.

I am pleased to support this motion which will allow the federal veto to be used to protect the interests of all parts of this country, that is to say Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, the Atlantic provinces, and the Prairie provinces, since their consent will be required before we proceed with any constitutional change.

The amendment to Bill C-110 is the result of the government having listened to the members of its own caucus, having listened to members of Parliament and senators from British Columbia and having listened to the population of British Columbia, all of whom clearly and convincingly expressed their views and those of their constituents to the effect that the time has come for British Columbia to be recognized as a region for the purposes of the legislation.

The change also reflects the position adopted by the leader of the third party who spoke in the House on November 29. On that day he asked that the government recognize "the concerns and aspira-

tions of British Columbia, the third most populous province in the country, as a region in its own right". We listened to that as well.

Bill C-110, as amended, responds to the need for realistic reflection of British Columbia's status as a specific region of Canada. British Columbia is one of the most rapidly growing provinces with 12 per cent of the country's population and almost 42 per cent of the population of the western provinces.

Beyond this the province's economy and its position on the Pacific make it different from the provinces in the prairies. This recognition coincides with the position that B.C. governments have taken for over 20 years. Indeed it was a position of Premier W. A. C. Bennett in 1971 that British Columbia should be recognized for constitutional purposes as a separate region.

The recognition of British Columbia as the fifth region is consistent with the position taken by New Democratic Party members from British Columbia before the Beaudoin-Edwards Committee.

It is also consistent with the case British Columbia has made in recent years with some success that one of the three western positions on the supreme court bench be reserved for that province on a permanent basis.

As to Alberta and the other prairie provinces, it should also be noted that the bill as amended will give a veto to a combination of three prairie provinces, that is to say two or more of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta representing at least 50 per cent of the regional population.

Given the population figures, the amendment would provide as a matter of practical fact a veto for Alberta because it has over 50 per cent of the prairie region's population. At the same time, however, Alberta alone cannot consent to an amendment due to the minimum requirement of the approval of two provinces. The other prairie provinces, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, could defeat an Alberta consent.

The federal government has listened carefully to the case made for British Columbia as a separate region. We have been convinced and we have acted quickly to make the change. In particular our own members of caucus from British Columbia who vigorously made the case for the recognition of their province as a region have made a real difference in the debate.

The government has concluded that the arguments favouring recognition of British Columbia, its size, its population, its contribution to the Canadian economy and its Pacific positioning, were compelling.

We believe that contrary to what is being said by those who always try to belittle what we want to do and who always say no, this bill and this resolution will contribute to Canadian unity and will reinforce the fabric of this country and the bonds between regions.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, "the Prime Minister has missed the boat with his reform proposals" wrote Mario Fontaine in Friday's edition of the daily La Presse . The journalist was commenting the SOM poll published that day.

The Prime Minister is probably the victim of political amnesia, but Quebecers have a long memory. They remember all the promises that the Prime Minister made to get their votes. The helmsman of the constitutional Titanic has not delivered, and the way things are going he, himself, will be responsible for Quebec sovereignty. Quebecers are fed up and they will let the Prime Minister and his henchmen know soon enough.

The poll I was referring to shows without a doubt that Quebecers are dissatisfied. The master of bungling, amateurism, and improvisation should not be surprised to see that his proposals on distinct society, veto power and the federal government's withdrawal from manpower training are rejected by Quebec.

According to the SOM poll, not even one Quebecer out of four, or 24 per cent, is satisfied. Fifty-three per cent of Quebecers are not satisfied. Moreover, 30 per cent of Quebecers see the proposals from the federal clowns as clearly inadequate, while only 4 per cent think they are completely adequate.

The last straw is the motion before us. With his proposals, the Prime Minister has managed to do one thing: get himself hated by all Canadians.

Under the big top of the federal circus, the Prime Minister is continuing to perform his act of bungling, amateurism, and improvisation. Imagine, in less than 15 days, the Prime Minister has forced distinct society on Quebec, against the will of the National Assembly, and given a symbolic veto to two provinces that never requested it, but would prefer something else from the federal government.

Let me recall what has happened to Bill C-110 since it was introduced at first reading stage on November 29, not quite two weeks ago. Yet, they say it is a major bill. At least, this is what the Liberal government says, through its double talk. Why hurry, then?

Bill C-110 was introduced on November 29. The day after, on Thursday, we started debate at second reading stage. On Friday, the government invoked closure to gag the opposition and the debate ended. On Monday, December 4, right after the vote at second

reading stage, the bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice, where at 7.15 p.m., the Minister of Justice gave his sales pitch. On Wednesday the 6th, the clause by clause examination was already going on.

It was on that last day of committee review that the government did not see fit to make amendments to the bill.

But the next day, the Prime Minister made an about-face and the Minister of Justice, surrounded by the British Columbia caucus, announced hastily that the Pacific province would also get its veto and that, consequently, Bill C-110 would be amended at report stage.

The federal bulldozer continues to decimate and destroy the constitutional landscape of this country. This government uses the road roller on any reform of the Canadian yoke. The Prime Minister, through his justice associate, is pursuing his almost constitutional endeavour without taking anyone or anything into account. His narrow-minded attitude may cost him the next election.

We owe Bill C-110 giving a regional veto to four Canadian regions to this same person who did not even want to hear about the Constitution during the 1993 election campaign. Today, we are wasting our time debating whether the federal government should add a fifth region. On top of all that, he tells us that he is fulfilling his referendum promises. That is nonsense, that is window dressing!

Last Thursday, the Minister of Justice hastily announced an amendment to Bill C-110 in order to divide the western provinces into two "regions". The day before, he was still maintaining that the bill would remain unchanged. That goes to show how they improvise on that side of the House. By giving everybody the right of veto, the Minister is blocking any possibility of constitutional amendments for future generations.

Anyway, this so-called veto is so meaningless that, as far as I am concerned, it could be given to P.E.I., Saskatchewan or even Newfoundland, I would not lose a wink of sleep over it.

What is the real effect of giving a veto to the Prairie provinces? Alberta will have what amounts to a constitutional veto on its own, because its population accounts for nearly 55 per cent of the Prairie provinces' population. Similarly, the other two together will have the same type of veto.

Last week, the Minister of Justice described these veto rights as negative, in that a real right of veto consists in refusing to support a constitutional amendment. In fact, Alberta will be able to block the Prairie provinces' right to a veto because one of the two conditions for exercising the veto will not be fulfilled. Two provinces with at least half the region's population are required, and the provinces will never be able to meet that demographic condition without the agreement of Alberta. So there is a negative veto.

On the other hand, while Alberta can block the Prairie provinces' veto, it cannot on its own exercise a right to veto, because it does not satisfy one of the conditions required. It is obvious that Alberta is not two provinces.

If Bill C-110 is adopted, four provinces will have a constitutional veto, i.e. two more than in a four-region formula. A constitutional amendment will require the support of a least six or seven provinces representing at least 90 per cent of the Canadian population.

According to the 1982 general amending formula, we only need seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population. That amounts to constitutional deadlock. I even wonder if Bill C-110 is constitutional, since it changes the amending formula without following the procedure provided under the Constitution Act, 1982.

The Minister of Justice ought to know he cannot do indirectly what the law does not allow him to do directly.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester begins his intervention, I am obliged to tell the House that under our standing orders the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing-Social Programs; the hon. member for Bourassa-Immigration; the hon. member for London-Middlesex-the Middle East.