Debates of Nov. 2nd, 1994

Canadian Wheat Board Act

[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 please 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]

Pursuant to Standing Order 76(1)(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of the bill now before the House.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), I have been requested by the chief government whip to defer the division until a later time.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the division on the motion before the House is deferred to tomorrow at 10 a.m. at which time the bells will ring for 15 minutes.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think you would probably find unanimous consent to proceed immediately to private member's hour or we could suspend for four minutes. My colleague seems to be ready to proceed now so the House would probably consent to proceed immediately.

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it is important while we are on this subject of deferring the votes until tomorrow morning that the House realize that the minister of agriculture is before the standing committee on agriculture at nine o'clock tomorrow morning. The deferral of the vote until ten o'clock tomorrow morning simply cuts short the amount of time that the minister would have in front of the committee. I wanted to bring that to the attention of the House.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to call it 5.30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed, from September 20, 1994, consideration of the motion that Bill C-218, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act (excepted employment), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Unemployment Insurance Act

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on Bill C-218, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. I wish to indicate my approval of the bill introduced by the hon. member for Saint-Hubert.

The bill seeks to correct an injustice made against almost a million Canadians and Quebecers, of whom two-thirds are women.

Yes, one million Canadians, most of them women, that the government does not trust and considers as UI abusers because they are not dealing at arm's length with their employer, who is either a brother, a son, a daughter or a spouse. This is unacceptable in a country where citizens are presumed to be honest.

I remind the House that until 1989, any woman employed by her spouse could not draw unemployment insurance benefits. That in itself is shocking and appalling. Indeed, who would accept such a discriminatory clause nowadays? Yet, women had to unite in a long and vigilant fight to bring that discrimination to an end.

After a challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the section of the act excluding from entitlement to benefits any woman working for her spouse was ruled invalid and discriminatory by the Supreme Court of Canada in March 1989. This ruling finally gave fair treatment to these women who work in family businesses and granted them the well-deserved right to unemployment insurance benefits.

However, this victory was short-lived. In October 1990, the then government found a way to get around the 1989 ruling, by including, in the definition of excepted employment, employment where the employer and employee are not dealing with each other at arm's length. By excluding from benefits not only women, but everyone not dealing at arm's length with their employer, legally, the law no longer seemed discriminatory.

It is possible that some employees working for their spouses defraud unemployment insurance just as it is possible for an employer and an employee who are perfect strangers to cheat the system. The penalties in the law are explicit and severe enough to cover all fraudulent claims.

Losing a job is in itself a stressful event that can weaken one's self-esteem. We, on this side of the House, do not think that most people choose unemployment as a way of life. Nor do we believe that the unemployed in Canada are lazy people drinking beer in front of the television, as the prime minister unfortunately said. But that such a suspicion be covered in the act is unacceptable to the 1 million Canadians who are unemployed, including 650,000 women.

What is shocking here, and that I want to denounce, is the burden of proof which lies with the unemployed individuals from the very first stage of their benefits claim. These individuals must prove to Revenue Canada, Taxation that their work contract was meeting all the requirements of a position that anyone else could have held. No other category of claimants is required to produce such proof.

But what is more shocking and adds to my determination to support the deletion of section 3(2)(c) is the fact that the amendment adopted October 22, 1990, only slightly softened the blatant discrimination present in the former Unemployment Insurance Act. The existing legislation is targeting an easily identifiable group and results mainly in the systematic exclusion of women employed by their spouse.

Are these women entitled to UI? Yes, said the Tax Court of Canada in 1989. Since then, these women have been contributing to the system. But by a clever trick, the 1990 UI reform managed to include anyone not at arm's length with the employer.

When these women lose their job, it is often because their spouse's business is going down the drain. It is then that these women need UI benefits. Instead they have to prove to officials of Revenue Canada, Taxation that their job is justified, therefore insurable.

Then begins a long inquiry process that can last several months, even a year, during which the slightest doubt leads to an exclusion because the process does not tend to confirm eligibility but rather to prove abuse.

Once more, the Canadian government shows that it does not focus on the real problems and that the services most needed by people are still subject to a cumbersome bureaucracy.

I believe it would be improper to assume that a woman taking an active part in the operations of her husband's business would try to abuse the unemployment insurance system. Yet, if she worked for a competitor, she would not be subject to such misconceptions. Bill C-218 precisely aims to put an end to such an unfair situation.

This discriminatory clause of the act is detrimental to all women from a human and social point of view because it denies them the right to their fair share and a fair treatment.

Therefore I ask the government to repeal paragraph 3(2)(c) of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I urge the government to get rid of the vicious and discriminatory measure by which the previous government deprived one million Canadians and Quebecers, mostly women, of their right to unemployment insurance at a time when they need it most.

[Rose-Marie Ur, Liberal, Lambton—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to address the concerns expressed in Bill C-218 by the hon. member for Saint-Hubert.

The hon. member's bill purports to correct an injustice she perceives in section 3(2)(c) of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I know the hon. member has brought this matter forward with the very best of intentions.

The government appreciates the hon. member's concern. After all, we are striving to make sure its rules and regulations are fair and equitable for everyone. It pleases me to say that this particular provision is an example of the equality we are trying to achieve.

The section of the act that the hon. member is concerned about addresses the situation whereby relatives work for one another. Some hon. members have argued that this section of the act discriminates against relatives of employers. This is simply not so. The provisions simply act to make sure that those individuals who work for a spouse or for a mom or dad have the same access to this important government program as any other worker. Perhaps I can alleviate the hon. member's concern by pointing out the intent of this arm's length employer-employee relationship.

The government recognizes that more so today than ever before individuals are starting their own businesses working out of their homes and providing services that may involve family members. What we can call non-standard employment is on the increase. Last year more than 60 per cent of all new jobs were part time. Therefore I think the hon. member will agree with the necessity of having UI regulations that allow a relative or common law spouse to be an employee.

This section of the act entitles these individuals to pay premiums and collect benefits if their contracts are similar to those of workers not related to their employer. As well the employee of a corporation in which he or she has shares may also be eligible to pay UI premiums and collect benefits.

All the unemployment insurance program is asking in this regard is that relatives employed by relatives ensure that this is a legitimate employer-employee relationship. This is not discriminatory because all employees related or not must also do the required paperwork to satisfy the commission that they are legitimate employees. I say to the hon. member for Saint-Hubert that the only real distinction is a few additional forms to fill out. This is but a minor inconvenience. It is a reasonable measure because it protects the integrity of the UI program for everyone.

The hon. member has quite rightly pointed out that the majority of individuals affected by this section of the act are women but that is why the section was amended in the first place. It used to be that spouses, the great majority of whom are women, were not eligible for UI benefits. This is no longer the case. Women are not discriminated against in this regard. They

are however required as any other employee to show there is a legal employer-employee relationship if they wish to pay UI premiums and to be eligible to collect benefits.

In a related matter this government recognized that many women are entering the workforce. We know that many women are the main providers for their families. To address this evolving situation, the government introduced the dependency benefit rate of 60 per cent. This rate is for claimants with low incomes supporting a dependant or who have a spouse supporting a dependant. Without this, people in this situation would receive a 55 per cent benefit rate.

I believe that if the hon. member for Saint-Hubert considers the matter, she will see that this government is totally committed to fairness and compassion in applying its programs.

The thinking behind any adjustment to unemployment insurance is to guarantee that all potential UI recipients are treated fairly. That is one of the reasons we are looking at UI as part of the social security reform. Our surveys have shown that the great majority of Canadians support the concept of unemployment insurance, but the key word is insurance.

Canadians want this program to be used for the purpose for which it was originally intended, the purpose being temporary financial support between jobs and not as a supplement to a regular income. People understand that UI is a major component of social security and they want to see that it works fairly and equitably.

During previous debate on this bill one hon. member referred to the government's initiative to use UI development funds for training and upgrading skills. He suggested that by supporting the hon. member's bill we will enable workers employed by relatives to take advantage of training programs.

Individuals who qualify under this section of the act are as eligible for training programs as any other recipient. They are not being denied training because they have to fulfil an obligation, an obligation that guarantees that the business arrangement with their spouse is a true employer-employee relationship.

I say to all hon. members that a review of our social security system will give them ample opportunity to present their ideas on reforming our unemployment insurance program. The government's proposals are detailed in the discussion paper and we more than welcome constructive input. Social security reform is a partnership. It is a partnership that needs helpful suggestions if we are to develop new social security programs that will be fair and beneficial to all Canadians.

In summing up I thank the hon. member for Saint-Hubert for raising concerns over what she perceives to be discrimination. The government appreciates her attention in this regard. However in studying the matter I see no grounds to assume there is discrimination under this section of the UI Act. Therefore, regretfully I cannot support the hon. member's bill.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity today to speak on Bill C-218 which seeks to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. The member for Saint-Hubert proposes to eliminate the exemption that prevents family members from collecting UI if they work in the family business.

I suppose the intent of unemployment insurance at the time it became law in 1940 was to provide financial assistance to industrial and commercial workers during periods of unemployment. Since that time the program has expanded to encompass everything from grants to organizations under section 25 to maternity leave and sickness benefits. Today 97 per cent of paid workers are covered by the unemployment insurance program. The originators of the program would not recognize it in its present form today.

For some time now Canadians have been expressing concern over the abuse of the unemployment insurance program. Even the Minister of Human Resources Development realizes there is a need to tighten up the system and close the loopholes.

When the hon. member for Saint-Hubert outlined her reasons for introducing this bill, she said that the primary effect of section 3(2)(c) is the systematic exclusion of women who work for their spouse. She finds it objectionable that such employees must prove to Revenue Canada adjudicators that the labour contract has all the features of a job that the employer would have given to someone else who was completely unrelated to him or her.

We believe that if a wife works for a husband or vice versa, they should be prepared to prove that a bona fide employer-employee relationship exists. At this point many people on farms would qualify under those regulations.

It should be incumbent upon them to show they are not taking advantage of the system and trying to add to the family income. I do not believe this is an unreasonable safeguard in a system that is all too often abused. Members from the official opposition often talk about abuse in the system.

Revenue Canada adjudicators would adjudicate arm's length relationships. Statistics show that each year some 3,750 UI claimants are denied benefits because they do not work in true employer-employee relationships. This actually amounts to one-quarter of the claims that are reviewed each year. This means there are some 11,000 arm's length relationship claimants who do receive UI benefits. If this amendment were passed those 3,750 claims that are rejected each year possibly would be approved. Taking the average benefit from 1992 which is

$6,600, the minimum annual increase in UI payments would be $25 million.

I am sure my colleague for Saint-Hubert believes that her amendment would be a great benefit to women and to the small business community. The truth is that she is ultimately bringing more harm to those people she is trying to protect.

The changes and add ons brought in since the inception of the program have been costly to the workers and their employers. Together the contributions by employees and their employers average 7.3 per cent of contributors' income.

As it stands now the UI program will take $19.8 billion from the people who are trying to keep their businesses solvent and from workers who are trying to make ends meet and pay their taxes. That $19.8 billion amounts to approximately $1,500 from every Canadian worker covered by the unemployment insurance program. It is the second highest source of revenue for the federal government, second only to personal income tax.

If the hon. member really wanted to help women and small businesses she would support the proposal of the Reform Party for a private insurance plan, one which is operated on basic, actuarially sound insurance principles. She would be proposing an amendment to make UI contributions voluntary so that those who are not eligible to collect benefits would not have to contribute to the plan. She would be calling on the government to lower the tax rate so that money could be left in the hands of the entrepreneur, the farmer, the small business person who relies on family members to help out on the farm or in the store.

We feel most Canadians would agree with our party's belief that a dollar left in the hands of an entrepreneur, a small business person is far more likely to stimulate economic growth than a dollar left in the hands of mother government or bureaucrats.

Reform Party members oppose this bill for many reasons. It opens up the Unemployment Insurance Act to yet another avenue of abuse and waste of taxpayers' dollars at a time when we should be tightening the loopholes and saving employer and employee UI premiums to cover UI claims by workers and their families hardest hit by today's high unemployment. This bill would increase payouts of the UI benefits by millions of dollars per year. It directly contravenes Reform Party principles which support elimination of fraud and abuse and returning UI to true insurance principles.

Most important, spouses employed by their partners already have an advantage over other Canadians because they can split their income and reduce their taxation in that way. While Reformers support income splitting for married couples, we would like all Canadians to have equal opportunity to do so.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to repeal section 3(2)( c ) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, which stipulates that employment where the employer and employee are not dealing with each other at arm's length is not insurable. The law is clear: Where the employer is related to the employee, he or she must prove that the job would have been given to an unrelated person in similar circumstances.

The vast majority of workers affected by this section of the Unemployment Insurance Act are women who work in a family business. For these women, the law is also unequivocal. Women who work for their spouses must pay unemployment insurance premiums. This is also true for employees who are not dealing at arm's length with their employer and who hold 40 per cent or less of the family business shares.

Since the act was brought into force in October 1990, the Department of Human Resources Development, which is responsible for the administration and the application of the Unemployment Insurance Act, increasingly refuses to pay unemployment insurance benefits to these people.

The Bloc Quebecois denounces such an attitude stemming from the retrograde section 3(2)( c ) of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Yes, Mr. Speaker, this section is retrograde and even discriminatory, since its main effect is to systematically exclude from the unemployment insurance program women who work for their spouses.

The argument most often put forward to prove that the employment is not insurable in the case of women working for their spouses is this: The employer and employee are not dealing with each other at arm's length, hence there is no employer-employee relation. When examining the claims of these women, Revenue Canada may carry out all inquiries it deems appropriate at the workplace, including financial statements audit, analysis of bank statements, and study of the work organization in the plant or the office.

In fact, the department is not seeking to establish eligibility but to prove fraud. I support Bill C-218 put forward by my colleague from Saint-Hubert to repeal this antiquated provision of the Unemployment Insurance Act that is so unfair to a certain category of women. There are 650,000 women in this situation. If they lost their job, these employees who work in a business controlled by their spouse, these workers described as wife associates, would not be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits because of their status.

Again, wife associates represent the vast majority of exclusions under section 3(2)( c ) of the existing legislation, which deprives women of their right to equality in matters related to unemployment insurance. In general, these women perform administrative duties in a family business, whether it is a farm or any other type of small business.

They perform duties such as billing and accounting and respond to requests from suppliers and clients. A family business, like any other type of business, can experience serious financial difficulties. The wife associate can be laid off and stop receiving a salary. We think that, since she contributed to the unemployment insurance program, it would be quite normal that she be eligible for benefits.

This injustice toward women is particularly obvious in agriculture. In 1988, 6,066 Quebec women had titles of ownership in a farming enterprise. In 1993 their number had almost doubled. For their work on the farm, 43 per cent of respondents to a survey say that they are paid, either through a salary or through profit sharing or through investments made in their name.

The survey also shows that 33 per cent of those women earn off-farm revenues. Obviously, women with such earnings make a large contribution to the operation of the family farm. What, then is the difference between women who earn their living in the family business and those who do so elsewhere?

Both groups of women are equally dependent on the farm and pay UI premiums, but their status is different when they become unemployed. Again, that is blatantly unfair to a group of working women.

It is not a matter of whether a wife is dependent on her husband. In any normal couple, the wife is no more dependent on her husband than he is on her. It is a matter of being fair to a group of working women. That is why we support Bill C-218, which proposes that section 3(2)(c) of the Unemployment Insurance Act be repealed. The Bloc Quebecois refuses to wait, as was suggested at first reading, for the Liberal comprehensive reform of social programs, a reform that will never achieve national consensus in any case. I urge all the women in the House, including those in the Liberal government, to support this bill.

[Ian Murray, Liberal, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Saint-Hubert has presented the House with a matter which I am sure concerns us all and that is the fairness of our rules and regulations. This government most certainly does not wish to discriminate against anyone.

The question in the circumstances raised by the hon. member is whether or not discrimination is occurring. Her bill argues that because the majority of people affected by section 3(2)(c) of the Unemployment Insurance Act are women the section discriminates against women.

I admire the hon. member's concern but this section does not discriminate against women nor does it discriminate against any relative involved in an employer-employee relationship. The intent of the section is to ensure that genuine legal employer-employee relationships exist in businesses that involve relatives. That is hardly an unreasonable requirement.

The House has heard some interesting arguments on this matter but if my hon. colleagues consider what could happen if the act did not have safeguards I think they would agree we would be in a real quandary.

Section 3(2)(c) of the act requires only that those affected by it satisfy the Unemployment Insurance Commission that they qualify for UI coverage just as any other employee. It is merely one of the regulations set out to protect the program's integrity. I do not hear hon. members arguing that employees not related to their boss should be exempt from proving a legal employer-employee relationship, so why should employees who are related be exempt? That would be the effect of passing Bill C-218.

Family employees should certainly have the same rights as any other employee. However I trust the hon. member will agree that family employees should also have to meet the same requirements to be eligible for UI benefits. That is all section 3(2)(c) requires. To have it otherwise would then discriminate against employees not related to their employer. The regulation treats everyone in the same manner, which is the way it should be.

One word we have heard frequently in the remarks of my colleagues is fairness. I would like to expound briefly on how the government has used fairness, not as a political slogan but as a philosophy. Fairness or equality or whatever synonym you wish to use is a cornerstone on which this country's social security system was built. Indeed it may be argued that it is the cornerstone on which the entire country was founded.

I do not for a moment claim that every program is perfect or that these programs do not have loopholes that unjustly deny people their due. I will state however that fairness has been and will continue to be the watchword for this government. We will strive to close loopholes wherever and whenever we find them.

A case in point is a recent series of changes to the UI program which took effect in July. We realize that reducing the benefit rate to 55 per cent would represent an undue hardship to people with lower incomes who have dependants. That is why we

introduced the dependency benefit rate which gives a 60 per cent benefit rate to people in these circumstances.

A decision to reduce the benefit rate was indeed a tough one. However we tried to be as fair as we could by minimizing the impact of this change on those who could least afford it. It is this spirit of fairness that embodies the provision which so concerns the hon. member.

As my colleague has pointed out this provision allows family members to collect UI. In the past they simply were not eligible. Yes it is true there is a little bit more paperwork involved in these cases. I hasten to point out that among the tens of thousands of UI claims filed by family businesses in the 1992-93 fiscal year only 15,000 were reviewed by Revenue Canada. The great majority of individuals employed by a relative simply filled out the forms necessary to qualify for UI and they received their benefits.

Therefore I can say with great sincerity and with all due respect to the hon. member that her concerns are exaggerated. No one is questioning the intentions of the hon. member for Saint-Hubert regarding this matter. She is undoubtedly addressing what she perceives to be an injustice but I would say to her and to all hon. members that during the review of our social security system there will be plenty of opportunity to present constructive recommendations for reform of the UI program.

In our discussion paper the government has proposed a number of possible approaches to adjust and strengthen unemployment insurance so that it serves all Canadians. That is the context in which we should be looking at the UI Act. Everyone most certainly recognizes that UI is very much a key element of social security.

I am sure that when hon. members hear from their constituents they are finding more and more people are working in what we refer to as non-standard employment. There is a considerable increase in the number of part time, self-employed and multiple job holders. And yes, there is also a significant increase in family run businesses.

We need to look at the whole picture. We need to consider whether we should develop an entirely new unemployment insurance program that will address the needs of workers in the changing economic structure, or whether we can adequately adjust our present UI program to serve the needs of a rapidly diversifying workforce. Whichever approach, the government has stressed that social security reform is a partnership. We want input from anyone who has constructive ideas.

The hon. member for Saint-Hubert will have an opportunity to present her ideas and the government will be pleased to give her submissions every consideration.

At this time, while I appreciate the intent of her bill, I regret that I cannot support it.

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Prince Albert—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to debate the bill presented by the hon. member for Saint-Hubert.

Like my colleagues, I recognize the hon. member's intent in presenting this bill which is to correct a perceived injustice. I would ask her and all hon. colleagues to remember that the bill received first reading prior to the government's discussion paper on social security reform. Perhaps if the hon. member had known the extent of the proposed revisions to the unemployment insurance program she would have seen fit to wait and put forward her ideas in that context.

As the old saying goes, I do not want to keep flogging a dead horse, but I honestly believe that Canadians want their elected representatives to consider revisions to the UI program in the context of social security reform. I am sure the hon. member sees the logic of evaluating her suggestion in that context.

The hon. member for Saint-Hubert talks about injustice but there is no injustice in doing everything possible to maintain the integrity of our unemployment insurance program. I can state unequivocally that the majority of UI claimants are honest, law-abiding citizens and we need not fear that they will try to take advantage of the unemployment insurance system.

However that does not preclude us from being diligent in ensuring that UI benefits go only to those who meet the necessary conditions. We must be accountable. Canadians expect their elected representatives to do everything in their power to ensure the viability of our social security system.

I would ask the hon. member to look at it another way for a moment. Just last week the Minister of Finance made it abundantly clear that the government will fulfil its commitment and meet its deficit reduction target, that is 3 per cent of the gross domestic product at the end of the third term in office. It has been made very clear that this goal will be met. There is no doubt about that. We can help by keeping costs as low as possible in our social security programs.

We have already tried to do what we can to save UI funds through other measures. I am thinking of such things as lowering the premium rate which we estimate will create or preserve about 40,000 additional jobs. These jobs mean that people will pay into the fund rather than take money out of it. Besides that, we have to do everything possible to ensure that the system is used for the purpose for which it was intended.

Now that we have heard hon. members argue that arm's length provisions discriminate against women since they are often the ones employed by their husbands in a family business, as the kids say today: "Let's get real". When it comes to making

revisions to UI, we have been mindful of the particular needs of Canadian working women.

One measure we have taken, as hon. members have mentioned, is to bring the dependency benefit rate of 60 per cent for low income earners who are supporting a dependant or whose spouse is supporting a dependant. We estimate that approximately 240,000 claimants are helped by the dependency benefit rate. I can assure my hon. colleague that the majority are working women. If hon. members want to do more for women then I encourage them to study the proposals for social security reform and to come up with positive, constructive ideas on how we an make improvements.

It is easy to criticize but it gets us nowhere. It is just the easy thing to do. The hon. member whose bill we are debating today is down on the government because the government is being responsible and protecting the integrity of the unemployment insurance system, a system that has served Canadians well for more than half a century.

Just what are we asking under this provision of the Unemployment Insurance Act? Are we asking workers to do anything more than ensure the UI branch that they are genuinely in an employer-employee relationship? No, we are not. We are simply requesting that workers fill out the required forms and let us know the precise nature of their working relationship with a family member. This is not too much to ask if it helps reduce the UI deficit and maintain the fund's integrity.

It would not surprise me at all if the majority of individuals in this situation would support this requirement because it will guarantee that working for their relative fulfils their obligations under the act of employer-employee relationship.

I implore the hon. member not to use the scattered shotgun approach to fixing problems to UI and other social problems. Let us look carefully at the whole package, as we are presently doing. During our review of the system the hon. member for Saint-Hubert and all hon. colleagues will have every opportunity to present constructive ideas on changes to UI. I encourage them to do so in that context.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Standing Order 44(2) in part states:

(2)a reply shall be allowed to a member who has moved a substantive motion-

(3)In all cases the Speaker shall inform the House that the reply of the mover of the original motion closes the debate.

Since no other members are rising, I will recognize the hon. member for Saint-Hubert, who will close the debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking hon. members for their interest throughout this debate on Bill C-218. I particularly want to express my thanks to members who have solidly supported a cause that is just and democratic, a cause that is reflected in Bill C-218.

However, we cannot close this debate without responding to certain claims that repealing paragraph 3(2) (c) of the Unemployment Insurance Act would inevitably increase the likelihood of abuse and fraud and lead to a sharp increase in UI claims.

I refer more specifically to what was said by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville who, on April 21, expressed his apprehensions about Bill C-218. The hon. member's fears are clearly ill-founded. The hon. member seems to think that paragraph 3(2) (c) of the Unemployment Insurance Act is a punitive provision. The sole purpose of this section is to discriminate against a substantial part of the population that contributes to the fund and pays premiums but is treated unfairly and inequitably when the time comes to claim benefits. These individuals, who may have paid unemployment insurance premiums throughout their working lives, are denied the benefits to which they are entitled because a public servant at the Department of National Revenue has decided that their employment is not insurable and that as a result, they cannot receive these benefits.

I referred earlier to concerns that were expressed by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville. I think he can take some comfort from sections 73 and 74 of the act and from the powers of investigation conferred under sections 92 to 106 of the same act. The purpose of such provisions is to deter potential offenders. The Unemployment Insurance Act already incorporates procedures to curb abuse and prevent fraud. Stiff penalties are already provided for with respect to anyone who would dare to contravene the act. This means that, as it stands and regardless of paragraph 3(2)( c ), the act already has teeth and can bite.

Opponents of this bill also quoted some interesting statistics, showing that, on average, 85 per cent of benefit claims are found to be admissible after review. Opponents of Bill C-218, and the Minister of Human Resources Development in particular, maintain these are very satisfactory results. The parliamentary secretary is glad that the vast majority of benefit claims are not fraudulent.

How can he allege that the very existence of paragraph 3(2)( c ) is justified? How can we claim that the act as it now stands is fair and equitable to 85 per cent of those who must wait months and even years before a decision is made as to whether or not their jobs are covered by UI?

These people, the majority of which are women who help run the family business, are honest people with no intention of committing fraud. Yet, they are treated like cheats until they can prove otherwise.

The member for Calgary North added insult to injury when she said in the House on September 20:

If a woman works for her husband in a small business, then she must be prepared to convince Revenue Canada that she is in fact in a true employee-employer relationship [-]

It is very wrong that in 1994 women in family businesses must still have to prove that they are really working, as though their work were not real and these women were only foils for their husbands. It is this kind of archaic thinking that underlies the philosophy of the present law and denies working wives and dependants the same protection and benefits as the rest of the population.

This is an opportunity to say loudly and clearly in this House that we cannot close our eyes and give our tacit consent to such an unfair and unjust law. I therefore ask hon. members to vote for Bill C-218 and above all to think of all those who are still waiting for a decision from a revenue department official.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question!