Debates of Sept. 20th, 1994

Criminal Code

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I hear a Reform Party member saying "right on". I hope that member will have the courage to stand in his place and defend that particular-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. This is a debate that requires a great deal of sensitivity in which members want to give their utmost respect. I know the member for Burnaby-Kingsway is a very experienced parliamentarian.

We want to make sure we direct everything in the respectful fashion that is owed to this topic and all topics within this Chamber.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do indeed look forward to hearing the comments of my colleagues from the Reform Party on this issue. Among other comments made both inside the House and outside by this member are the following:

There are those innocent victims that are dying from Aids and then there are those homosexualists that are promoting and advancing the homosexual movement and that are spreading Aids. Aids is a scourge to mankind and there will be no cure for Aids. So this love, this compassion between homosexuals, based on an inhuman act, defiles humanity, destroys family,-and is annihilating mankind.

She goes on to state, as I indicated earlier, that homosexuality is in the same class as pedophilia and bestiality.

My question for the hon. member, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, is a straightforward question. This member is obviously entitled to speak as she wishes. It is a free country. She has freedom of speech. Will the parliamentary secretary undertake to raise the issue directly with the Prime Minister as to the appropriateness of this member continuing to sit as a member of the Liberal caucus, the Liberal Party of Canada, when she espouses views which, if they were spoken with respect to any other minority, perhaps a religious minority, a racial minority, any other minority, would be met with widespread outrage and anger by that member's colleagues?

I want to ask the parliamentary secretary what action is he prepared to take to break the silence of the Liberal Party and the Liberal caucus on this question? I see the chair of the human rights committee of this Parliament who was present during those comments. Perhaps she may wish to comment on this.

At this point I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice precisely what action is he prepared to take to ensure that Canadians understand very clearly that these kinds of hateful, bigoted, homophobic comments have absolutely no place either in this Chamber or certainly in the Liberal Party of Canada?

[Russell MacLellan, Liberal, Cape Breton—The Sydneys, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I accept the comments of the hon. member because I know they are sincere. I have respect for his position and his contribution to this House of Commons. He has been an excellent member of Parliament.

I cannot comment on the member to whom he refers because she as he stated is entitled to her own opinions. We have stated here in this act the position of the government which is that hate motivation is going to be dealt with more strongly in the criminal code. That speaks volumes for the position of the government.

The Minister of Justice has stated and fully intends to bring forward amendments to the Human Rights Act in the next few months. I would hope that the hon. member will look upon these as a major step forward. I cannot possibly predict what is going to be in the legislation.

I do feel this government is moving in a direction that is very creditable. Its record is going to indicate that.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, for his remarks to this House today. Over the past six years I have often approached my experienced and

learned colleague for advice on the issues we have been addressing.

I appreciate his and our minister's belief that the sentencing practices in Canada must be responsive to the concerns and values of Canadians. For the most part Bill C-41 reflects the government's commitment to a fair and balanced justice system, hence my support for it.

I am here to represent my constituents from Hamilton West and others across this country. My support is for victims of violence and their demands that section 745 be repealed.

This is not a new subject for the parliamentary secretary in discussions we have had in the past. It is a courageous first step that our minister is going to permit the victims of violence to make their impact statements at those judicial reviews. It was a curious statement by the parliamentary secretary that it was a tremendous impact on judicial reviews. A tremendous impact how? What is the aim of that statement? What would result if a victim had their say?

Can the parliamentary secretary to the minister explain why section 745 would not be completely repealed, and if at committee there is proof in the pudding-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. I believe in trying to facilitate each member's ability and opportunity to engage in debate and I do not want to take up much time either here because the purpose of my getting up is to try and keep the debate going because we have gone a little too long. I would ask the parliamentary secretary for a very brief response, otherwise I will be on my feet once again.

[Russell MacLellan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I think I can reply to that very quickly.

The difference is in having the actual response of the victims. Before there may have been a document which said what this person did, the person being reviewed, that he or she is being reviewed because of such and such and this is what they did. When you have the victims there to actually state from their point of view what happened to them or a member of their family or a neighbour, that has tremendous impact. Those of us who have been to committees to hear the actual stories from the people who were the victims have seen a monumental difference in how we feel on a particular point.

[Cliff Breitkreuz, Reform, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have this opportunity to speak on Bill C-41.

Canadians across the land are genuinely concerned about their criminal justice system. The law-abiding citizen looks to this House for common sense to ensure the passage of legislation which protects them and not the criminal.

Having said that, there are a couple of areas in Bill C-41 that I can support. The provision regarding victim impact statements is long overdue, and the parliamentary secretary just waxed eloquently on that. Victims must be permitted to make representations at hearings held to determine whether the court imposed period of eligibility for parole should be changed. I am also in favour of the part of Bill C-41 that will enable the courts to order offenders to make restitution to victims of their crimes. Finally the victim is getting some consideration from a system which has not served the interests of Canadians.

Unfortunately Bill C-41 does very little to address the real problem that plagues the law-abiding citizens of Canada. It appears that a criminal justice system does not even exist. What we have is a legal industry dominated by lawyers and judges who play a bureaucratic game with laws which tend to serve the criminal, not the public.

Since being elected as member of Parliament for Yellowhead my office has been inundated by constituents' concerns about our so-called justice system. They are frustrated with a system that bends the law for criminals and does little to protect and serve the community. As far as the majority of my constituents are concerned, offenders convicted of violent crimes, those whose crimes impact violently on others, should be stripped of their rights. I share their views. The commission of violent crimes against others is a violation of society and those who choose to engage in these acts should not be a part of it.

Mary Waites is one constituent of mine who has seen the law up close and personally and she did not like the view one bit.

Her son Julian was one of Canada's most wanted criminals for his involvement in a violent sexual assault earlier this year. Julian and another man are alleged to have brutally raped a woman at knifepoint.

Mrs. Waites wants her son put behind bars indefinitely because he is extremely dangerous to the community but Mrs. Waites knows the courts will eventually let her son back out on the streets so that he can continue to commit heinous crimes against innocent people.

Why does she know this? She has seen her son breeze through the court system time after time on charges of armed robbery, assault with a weapon and possession of stolen property.

He has a violent past. Twice during robberies Julian drew blood by holding knives to his victims' throats. He served sporadic jail terms but was always released. He will be released again I suspect.

Is this justice? Bill C-41 does nothing to ensure that dangerous repeat offenders like Julian Waites remain behind bars.

Margo Gurgens is another constituent of mine who has seen the legal system serve the criminal. Her younger brother was stabbed to death at the hands of Tim Mead. Mead was originally charged with second degree murder but when the legal people got their hands on the case, a guilty plea to a lesser charge of manslaughter was accepted.

For killing a man Tim Mead received six months imprisonment. Again our so-called justice system failed. Mead has been convicted of committing crimes against society since 1980. I suspect he will be back on the streets six months after killing someone. Is that justice?

Again, Bill C-41 does nothing to keep dangerous repeat offenders like Tim Mead from posing a threat to society. If the afore mentioned two cases are not enough to show how inadequate our criminal justice system is I ask members to consider the following.

In 1981 Norma van Gundy returned home on the weekend from hairdressing school to visit her family and friends. The youthful 17-year old met up with an old friend and through him she met Larry Read. At the end of the evening Norma's friend asked her if she would take his car and drive him and Read home because they had had too much to drink.

Norma felt obliged to help. She dropped her friend off and proceeded to take Read home. On the way home Read from the back seat of the vehicle viciously strangled Norma to death. Read then raped Norma's body in the car before driving himself home. He parked the car with the windows rolled up and left Norma's naked body in the back seat to freeze in the 30-degree below night air.

For this horrific crime Read was convicted of second degree murder but the judgment was appealed and the charge was reduced to manslaughter. Read spent only six years in prison but the story does not end there, sadly.

When he was released on parole Read made his way to another town where he became friends with a single woman and her 9-year old daughter. On a day when the mother was not home Read paid a visit to her house where her child was alone with their 12-year old babysitter.

The unsuspecting girls let Read in the door and their nightmare began. Read lured the two children to the basement, tied them up and beat them. He then took the girls for a ride in his car where he raped both of them. The psychopath took a knife to the 9-year old girl.

She required 120 stitches to her genitalia. Read is in prison again. The system will undoubtedly fail the law-abiding public again. He will eventually be released.

The shocking part of the story is that Larry Read brutally raped a woman before he murdered Norma and before he violated the young girls. This is our criminal justice system. It made sure Larry Read had his rights. Where was the criminal justice system for Norma van Gundy and the two little girls? Where is the criminal justice system for the families of these victims which are forever scarred by these acts of violence to their loved ones.

Bill C-41 does not do anything to protect society from the Larry Reads out there. Bill C-41 will not prevent sick, twisted individuals from reigning terror on innocent people. Bill C-41 is just another piece of democratic legislation, a band-aid attempt to fix an outrageously flawed criminal justice system. The point to be made is this. The Liberal government has been in power for almost one year. It has done nothing significant to change the way crime is dealt with in this country. To an increasing number of Canadians that is perhaps the biggest crime of all.

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member's intervention. In my riding of Parkdale-High Park in Toronto my constituents are very concerned at the trend where streets are becoming more unsafe instead of being safer.

This is why the minister has come up with some tools to combat crime in the streets, to reduce the drug trade, to prevent the violent sex offender from threatening the community. We can all get up and recite horror stories one after another. Is this going to prevent an increase in crime?

I would like to ask the hon. member of the Reform Party this. Does he have any constructive amendments to this bill? This is why we debate, so that opposition parties and members from our own party can improve the bill. The government would be very interested in any constructive amendments that the hon. member can make to improve the bill.

[Cliff Breitkreuz, Reform, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

We cannot support the bill. Even though we support some aspects of the bill we will not be supporting it. It contains too many things we do not support and that we see will really do nothing to solve the stories that have been talked about and to the stories that I have just related.

We need deterrents that will work. We could move amendments but we would be whistling in the dark. We could move an amendment to introduce capital punishment or corporal punishment as my colleague suggested. Maybe we will just do that.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member indicated that there are a number of provisions in the bill that he can support and there are others which he cannot support.

I would like to ask the hon. member specifically, what is the position of the Reform Party or the hon. member himself, if there is not a position in the party, with respect to the provisions in the bill that would ensure that a sentence is increased in

circumstances in which an offence is motivated by among other factors sexual orientation?

The hon. member was present in the House when the Liberal member of Parliament for Central Nova made comments, among other things, suggesting that homosexuality is immoral and unnatural, when she suggested that AIDS was a scourge to mankind which had been inflicted upon the country by homosexuals.

In view of the response of at least some of the hon. member's colleagues from the Reform Party seeming to indicate support for those positions, would the hon. member indicate what is the position of the Reform Party with respect to these provisions of the bill that would ensure stiffer sentences for those hate crimes which are motivated by homophobia, which are motivated by hatred on the basis of sexual orientation. Does he share the views of the hon. member for Central Nova?

[Cliff Breitkreuz, Reform, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. member from Nova Scotia said in the House some time ago. I agree with her.

As to the increase in sentence if it can be determined that a crime is motivated by hate, I cannot agree with that personally because I do not know how you can go about determining that. It seems to me it would be a nightmare for people but of course a haven for lawyers.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly hear the hon. member when he expresses frustration on the part of the public in relation to portions of our criminal justice system. Certain offences and actions by criminals are abhorrent to all of us. I heard him say he can support some elements of the bill but surely there is more to this bill than a few unrelated sections.

Would the hon. member not agree that this bill, which for the first time in Canadian criminal legislative history codifies the principles for sentencing, a just, peaceful, safe society, respect for the law, imposing just sanctions, et cetera, is not a positive step forward?

In the absence of this kind of a bill would we not be simply on the same treadmill we have been for the last 75 years, without the benefit of those principles that can provide direction to our judges who carry the burden of sentencing in our courts.

[Cliff Breitkreuz, Reform, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that they just do not go far enough. They will not act as a deterrent and the punishment is still not there for the crimes that I described and that we hear about every day.

There is too much going on and that is just not specific to the riding I represent. In fact my constituency has a lower crime rate than a lot of other ridings. Multiply that by all the ridings across the country. I mentioned only a few of the incidents in Yellowhead. The bill does not go far enough. It does nothing to deter. We have to get stronger, tougher laws so that people will think twice before they engage in a criminal activity.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Yellowhead refers to the hate provisions in the bill, which I very strongly support and which the majority of my colleagues in the Liberal caucus support.

He says he does not understand how judges could tell if a crime was motivated by hate. Let me suggest that if the Heritage Front, or the neo-Nazis were to attack a visible minority group, and say they want to keep this country white, it is a pretty good bet that we are talking about hate.

I really wish that the issues of crime and punishment and justice were as simplistic as the Reform would like to believe. When the parliamentary secretary asked for constructive amendments we got capital punishment, corporal punishment, longer sentences, more jails.

Those things do not work. They have not worked. That is what is so important for the members of the Reform Party to get their minds around.

The things they are talking about have been tried and are being practised in societies like the United States. They were practised in all the repressive regimes in the history of mankind. They have not worked. There is unanimous agreement among people who know the complexities, as well as victims, as well as volunteers in the system, on what has worked.

When I raised the issue before, one of the Reform members said that it was an elitist kind of idea as well as an inexperienced kind of idea. It is so clear that it is not just the experts. It is people in the community who have any involvement, be it with victims, be it with offenders. They are saying the present approach is not working.

The direction this bill sets in place was what was tabled by the committee on justice on crime prevention and community safety which had victim groups agreeing with it, which had professionals in the system agreeing with it, which had police officers agreeing with it.

The member mentioned that he has one of the lowest crime rates in his community. The community I come from, the Waterloo region, has one of the lowest crime rates in Canada. We have a task force called the crime prevention and community safety task force. It is headed by the regional chief of police, Larry Graville. The police officers on that committee are the ones who pushed the strongest for new approaches because they said that the old methods have not worked. We have to look beyond just enforcement, we have to look at the root causes of crime.

The issues are not ones that are going to be solved simplistically. The old approaches, the approaches that are practised in the United States where some states have capital punishment and sentencing which goes back hundreds of years, where they incarcerate more people than anybody else in the free world and they have the worst crime rate in the free world. They do not compare to Canada. The only thing we receive from the Americans is all of the television news that shows how violent their society is.

I say to the members of the Reform Party: Do not pander to those misconceptions. If they insist on doing that, all they are going to be doing is fueling crime. People will believe that their communities are not as safe as they are. Let me say that our communities are a lot safer than they are in the United States. If we were to undertake some of these reforms we could go further. We could go toward the European model.

Therefore the answer is not simplicity. The answer is trying to understand and deal with the complexity of the issue.

[Cliff Breitkreuz, Reform, Yellowhead, AB]

I do not know, Mr. Speaker, did he want me to reply to that? If I would I could be standing here for quite awhile and, Mr. Speaker, you would rise as well.

In so far as hate motivated crime is concerned I did not mention that in my speech. I will say that it would promote a two-tiered system. Is vicious assault less serious than assault just done for kicks? What about equality before the law? Assault is assault regardless of motivation.

The member talks about the high crime rate in his riding. I suspect that if-

[An hon. member]

It is low in that riding.

[Cliff Breitkreuz, Reform, Yellowhead, AB]

It must be a good community because it sure did not happen because of the system of justice that he promotes.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The time for questions and comments has terminated. I would suggest, if the House would agree, that I see the clock as being 5.30 p.m. and move to Private Members' Business. Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

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 April 21 consideration of the motion that Bill C-218, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act (excepted employment), be now read a second time and referred to a committee.

Unemployment Insurance Act

[Benoît Tremblay, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Hubert and Official Opposition critic for justice, is to redress a major injustice in the existing Unemployment Insurance Act with regard to spouses, children and relatives employed by small family businesses.

By the initiative she has taken in face of a government with a wait-and-see attitude that multiplies reviews and consultations, and introducing this bill, the hon. member for Saint-Hubert has clearly proven that where there is a will to act swiftly, there is a way and you can cut the idle talk and truly promote the development of family business.

Let it be said that paragraph 3(2)(c) of the Unemployment Insurance Act that this bill is meant to eliminate puts spouses, children and relatives working for a family business in the position of actually being deemed potential UI abusers.

Tell me one thing: why are spouses, children and relatives denied the presumption of innocence the rest of the workforce enjoys? Their only fault is to support through their work the efforts of an entrepreneur to whom they are related. Why force them to prove their honesty to Revenue officials instead of recognizing them a right every other worker automatically enjoys?

Nearly one million Canadians, of which 650,000 are women, are subjected to this unfair treatment while the Minister of Finance continues to want us to believe he wishes to promote the development of small business. If he is sincere-which he may be-he will unhesitatingly support this bill.

As you know, this government has been saying for months that it is going to reduce the bureaucratic red tape to a minimum for small business. Here is a golden opportunity to prove it means to act by supporting this bill introduced by my colleague. Otherwise, it will be clear that its main motivation is appealing to voters but when the time comes to act, it would rather consult and take orders from big business.

We all know that owners of budding businesses need the support of their families to overcome the enormous difficulties associated with starting up and developing a business. We also know they find absolutely disheartening the slow governmental

process, and particularly the bureaucratic loops they are forced to jump through. I think that the commitment the government has made in that respect meets the wishes of the public, but what the public is expecting now is action. And action is what this bill is about.

The bill provides the government with an opportunity to translate its promises into action and this is a chance I hope it will not miss. But if they do miss it, I can assure you we will be here to remind them over and over.

Some will say that this unfair provision of the Unemployment Insurance Act is meant to curb abuse. Let it be quite clear that we all agree to curb abuse. This is indeed desirable. But, to do so, is it necessary to assume that a whole class of citizens are potential UI abusers? Is abusive use more tolerable on the part of bureaucrats than on the part of the unemployed? Are bureaucrats' abuses less costly than those of the bureaucracy itself? It is far from obvious, as I am about to show you.

Between 80 and 90 per cent of the spouses, children or parents who went through the whole process imposed by this act won their cases, and if the others had appealed, this percentage might be even higher. So can you explain to me why, after realizing that those who followed the process succeeded in having their rights recognized, we continue to put so much red tape in their path when the energy they spend on this could be used to make their businesses more successful?

The Unemployment Insurance Act has become increasingly linked to the whole issue of job training access. It is not only a matter of benefits. We are in the process of turning the unemployment insurance system into a permanent system for training and re-training workers. We are thus depriving these people of the right to benefit from training programs because many of the programs offered require that trainees be entitled to UI. People who set up family businesses often need job training. They often have a basic idea, are determined and have managed to raise enough capital, but often need the training offered by these programs.

By refusing them protection under the Unemployment Insurance Act, we deprive them of the right not only to collect benefits but also to receive job training. And this is an extremely important factor in the success of small businesses.

If my riding for instance, they set up economic and community development corporations specifically aimed at promoting entrepreneurship. So, on the one hand, we put in place programs to promote entrepreneurship while, on the other hand, we let red tape discourage just about everybody.

According to all the surveys, the priority all small businesses agree on, other than the need for capital, is that they must be allowed to work and given access to what they are entitled without having to walk through endless corridors only to find in the end a bureaucrat with the discretionary power to decide whether or not they have that right.

It is an excessive measure. In order to keep abuses in check, we penalize 80 per cent, 90 per cent, even 95 per cent of the people honestly trying to create jobs and develop our economy. I think that if we want to foster the confidence that will enable us to promote entrepreneurship, we must take concrete action. So far we have only heard speeches from the government; I hope that all members and parliamentarians will support my colleague's bill.

I can assure you that we, in the Bloc Quebecois, consider family businesses to be major players in job creation and economic development. We just gave concrete proof that we can take action. We will continue to do so and honestly hope that the government will support this commendable initiative from my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Hubert.

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the private member's bill before the House. I hope to put the hon. member's mind at ease and to assure the House the government is committed to women and to their concerns.

I begin by stating unequivocally that I admire the hon. member's motivation in presenting Bill C-218. She perceives an injustice which she believes must be addressed. Surely this is the mission of each of us as representatives of the people. Every one of us is charged with a duty to ensure that the rights and privileges of all Canadians are respected.

The values and principles upon which our social security system are founded are part of what makes Canada so distinct. It is one of the reasons we have again been named by the United Nations as the number one country in the world in which to live.

Our social security net has been established purposely to protect those least able to fend for themselves, and economically disadvantaged women are certainly one of the government's priorities.

I absolutely agree with the hon. member that if discriminatory regulations are found within the act they must be removed. However I want to make it abundantly clear to the House that the government is open to and committed to reviewing all aspects of our social security programs and to correcting flaws wherever we find them. It is precisely with that purpose in mind that we are undergoing the social security review.

The government acknowledges that our programs are far from perfect. Some may have outgrown their usefulness. Others have not kept pace with the times. In fact we recognize that in some cases our programs are not working well at all.

The basis for reforming our social security system is that we want to be sure the system is providing the appropriate supports, not penalizing people trying to help themselves. We want to knock down the barriers that prevent people from fully exploiting every opportunity to achieve dignity and self-sufficiency.

It is important the hon. member bring her concerns about this one piece of the overall puzzle of what is wrong with our present structure to a forum where all Canadians can help find the right fit. There is no point at this time in patching up a system that is clearly out of date and no longer capable of meeting our current needs, so I invite her to join us in the larger debate on social security reform.

In the meantime I should like to respond to a few points raised in Bill C-218 that I think must be clarified. I believe the hon. member may have come to the wrong conclusion about the government's attitude toward people in family businesses.

Let me remind the House it was precisely to address the problem of sexually discriminatory regulations that the act was amended a few years ago by the previous government. It was not so long ago that employed spouses were automatically disqualified from receiving UI benefits simply because of their family status. Clearly families that work together were put at a disadvantage by the government and thankfully such antiquated thinking is far behind us.

How does the system work today? The Unemployment Insurance Act stipulates that workers related to their employers are covered and are eligible for UI benefits if they qualify as any other worker would. In other words, each and every employee of a family operated business has equitable access to unemployment insurance protection. Like any other claimant seeking social assistance employees in such cases must satisfy certain criteria. The determining factors are rate of pay, conditions and length of employment, as well as the type and importance of the work.

These are not new eligibility requirements. The same rules and regulations apply to all UI claimants regardless of their workplace or any association they may have with their employers. While family employees have the same rights, they also have the same obligations under the current law as all other Canadians. Otherwise the legislation would indeed be discriminatory. Workers who are related employers are assured the same protection as those with a strictly business relationship. If there is a clear employer-employee association that the act calls an arm's length working relationship everyone is treated equally.

Furthermore the fact is that the vast majority of Revenue Canada's decisions on arm's length relationships in family businesses do work to the individual's favour. Over the past four years since the regulations were amended family businesses have fared well under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Tens of thousands of employees of family firms, up to 90 per cent of all claimants who are in arm's length relationships, have received the benefits to which they are entitled.

It is very obviously the nation's business to be concerned about women in business. We know, for instance, that more women than men run small businesses and that those companies now provide more new jobs than large corporations. We also know that women are extremely successful in keeping their companies running.

It is frequently women who need to hire staff as their businesses expand. Many women want to employ their family members. As the law now reads, provided they are in an arm's length relationship those family members can expect to be able to pay into and collect from the unemployment insurance program if and when they are entitled to, if and when their wife or mother lays them off or if and when their father or husband lays them off.

Many working couples are opting to start their own operations as a way to juggle work and family time, another serious issue facing many Canadian families. More and more parents, male and female, are making a home based business the career of choice as the way to balance professional and family responsibilities. They too can rely on UI if and when the need arises and they meet the criteria.

The reality is that women are frequently compelled to step into the workforce to respond to family demands, particularly taking care of dependants. It is usually women in the so-called sandwich generation who care for either their children or their parents and all too frequently both.

For this reason the government recently changed the UI act to take these special circumstances into account. The dependency benefit rate has increased UI benefits to 60 per cent for people with low incomes who have a dependant or have a spouse with a dependant. It is one of the measures we introduced to address the inequities of the existing system.

The hon. member is quite right. There are many challenges confronting working Canadian women that need much closer examination. I have every confidence if there are oversights which need correction or outright discrimination which disfavours women they will be addressed through our social security review. I am committed to making sure that this is the case.

I encourage her and others to participate in the process to create a better system for all Canadians, men and women.

There will be ample opportunity in the months ahead to debate the merits and drawbacks of the current legislation as we grapple with the new realities facing Canada's social welfare structure. We must work together to improve Canadians' quality of life. I look forward to the hon. member's joining us in that cause.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, back in April my colleague, the member of Parliament for Yorkton-Melville, outlined some very good reasons for not supporting this particular bill. I would like to briefly review those reasons before providing some thoughts of my own.

The changes proposed by the hon. member for Saint-Hubert would amend the Unemployment Insurance Act be revoking the arm's length provision used by unemployment insurance adjudicators to determine if family members employed by other family members are in a true employer-employee relationship and therefore insurable and eligible to collect UI benefits should they be laid off. This includes employment by husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters.

Therefore, as I understand it the net effect of this bill would be to allow all family members employed by their immediately relatives, mainly husbands and wives, to become eligible to collect UI benefits without giving the government any means of determining if the employer-employee relationship is legitimate.

Government officials predict that this change would result in at least 3,750 additional claims for unemployment insurance being allowed each year. Considering that the average benefit paid to each UI claimant in 1992 was $6,613 we are talking about a minimum annual increase in UI payouts of about $25 million. These figures were confirmed by the office of the hon. member who is proposing this bill.

Reformers oppose this bill for the following reasons. There are four of them. First, 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 up the system, tightening up the loopholes and saving employers' and employees' UI premiums to cover UI claims by workers and families hardest hit by today's high unemployment.

Second, it would increase payout of UI benefits by many millions of dollars.

Third, it directly contravenes Reform Party policies which support elimination of fraud and abuse on returning UI to true insurance principles.

Fourth, spouses employed by their partner already have an advantage over other Canadians because they can split their income and reduce their taxes. Reformers support income splitting for all married couples, not just those running their own business.

I would now like to respond to some of the rationale used by the hon. member for Saint-Hubert when she spoke during the first hour of debate on this bill. The hon. member said the current law presumes that family members who work for their relatives are guilty of defrauding the UI account and must prove they have a legitimate employer-employee relationship with their husband or wife, mother or father, brother or sister.

Reformers say this is simply a reasonable safeguard in a system in which there is real potential for abuse. I must point out that Revenue Canada identifies over 3,750 UI claimants a year who are denied benefits because they do not work in a true employer-employee relationship and are denied benefits as a result.

The hon. member says the current law discriminates against women, not technically but socially because most of the people affected by this law are women. Reformers say that this particular section of the UI act is not discriminatory and is just a reality of small family businesses.

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, not just hired on in fiction to add a nice windfall of UI benefits to the family income some time down the road.

The investigations carried out by Revenue Canada on behalf of unemployment insurance every year identify significant abuse in this area.

Why would we want to throw the door wide open to allow still more people to take advantage of the system. If this safeguard were not in the system there would undoubtedly be more abuse and many more millions of dollars wasted on bogus UI claims. The end result would cost workers and employers millions more dollars in UI premiums.

I want to emphasize that these premiums would be funded by an increase in payroll taxes which come directly out of each worker's pocket. People not trying to take advantage of the system who are legitimately and truly employed by immediate family members are not penalized. Why should we not support rules to deny abusers the right to rip off other workers?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development also spoke against this bill in April. He told members of this House that of the tens of thousands of claims filed by employees of family businesses 15,000 had been reviewed by Revenue Canada and 25 per cent, the 3,750 claim-

ants I mentioned earlier, were found not to qualify for UI because they were not in a true employer-employee relationship.

Reformers agree with the government's concern about preserving the integrity of the unemployment insurance fund. Reformers think the current law is balanced and fair and must be maintained.

Our policies are developed by ordinary members of our party. This is the policy these average Canadians have put in place concerning unemployment insurance: "The Reform Party supports the return of unemployment insurance to its original function, an employer-employee funded and administered program to provide temporary income in the event of unexpected job loss". Reformers encourage the government to get on with its efforts to reform the unemployment insurance system.

The Minister of Human Resources Development promised an action plan in May, delayed it until June and then postponed it again until this fall. Yesterday in response to a question from our leader the Prime Minister said a discussion paper, not an action plan, will be released in October.

Canadians are fed up with the waste, fraud and abuse in the UI program and they want it cleaned up. Canadians want action, not still more discussion. Reformers believe that Canadians want real reform of unemployment insurance, not just more liberal tinkering around the edges.

Here are the issues Reformers believe are fundamental in any consideration of changes to the UI program. Do taxpayers, workers and employers think the UI program should be compulsory as it is now, or voluntary? Do taxpayers who are present employers think the government should continue to control the UI program or should unemployment insurance be administered by the employees and employers who pay the premiums?

Would workers like to have a choice to invest their money in their own savings plan to protect them against unexpected unemployment rather than being forced to pay UI premiums?

Would workers get a better return on their investment than the government run UI program offers them if they invested their money privately?

Should the UI program be turned into a self-financing program administered by the employees and employers who pay the premiums with government safeguards?

Should unions and employers be permitted to opt out of the government run UI program by establishing privately administered unemployment insurance programs for the benefit of their workers?

We know that the hon. member who proposed this bill has a genuine concern for the plight of unemployed Canadian workers and their families but she will not help them by allowing their pockets to be picked by fictional employment arrangements allowing bogus UI claims.

The UI program will take $19.8 billion this year directly out of the pockets of people trying to keep businesses afloat and people trying to earn a decent living. That is approximately $1,485 for every single Canadian worker covered by the unemployment insurance program.

I have suggested some fundamental issues that ought to be addressed in order to design a reformed system that truly works for the benefit of those who are paying the big dollars to support it. Rather than increasing the burden on these working people, I urge the member to work with us to find ways to make the system more efficiently and effectively meet the very real needs of Canadians who suffered the distress and hardship of unexpected job loss.