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.