Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to a motion I find very interesting. This is a motion based on mutual assistance, generosity and caring, values we all share. This motion could make a huge difference in the lives of hundreds of Canadian families.
Before going any further, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Ahuntsic, for bringing this topic to our attention. In fact, Motion No. 395 is aimed at indexing the family supplement to the cost of living.
Introduced during the major employment insurance reform carried out by our government in 1996, the family supplement is aimed at providing more targeted assistance to low income families who are unemployed. In fact, it allows beneficiaries with children earning less than $25,921 to get up to 80% of their insurable earnings instead of 55% as do other beneficiaries.
The latest Employment Insurance Monitoring and Assessment Report published in 2003 shows that the family supplement is efficient and meets the needs and expectations of families. In 2001-02, our government paid close to $176 million in family supplements to over 187,000 low income beneficiaries. This means that thanks to this measure 10% of all employment insurance beneficiaries are getting higher benefits.
The supplement is about $42 a week. This is a significant amount of money for those going through tough times. In fact, the benefits of families receiving the family supplement are 38% higher than before the 1996 reform.
Such results are proof that replacing the higher rates for dependents found in the old system with the family supplement was an excellent decision. However, inflation has rendered it less efficient and higher salaries make it less accessible in real terms.
In such a context, there is no doubt that indexing the family supplement to the cost of living could have a positive impact on a number of families.
Several federal benefits and programs are indexed to inflation. The child tax benefit is a case in point.
When we carried out the reform of the employment insurance program in 1996, we made the commitment to keep a close watch on the short and medium term impact. That is why we provided for an annual independent assessment review. That turned out to be quite useful. First, it indicated that the employment insurance program is providing the unemployed with the help they need when they need it. Also, it helped to identify and correct some inadequacies along the way.
In the last couple of years, we made adjustments to the short work weeks, eliminated the intensity rule and changed some of the criteria concerning benefit repayments.
Today, we have an opportunity to consider a proposal that would enhance the employment insurance program. Indexing the family supplement to the cost of living would complement the work we have been doing in the last few years to fight poverty.
The February 2003 budget has helped us to move forward more quickly. Let me remind the House of some of its components. First, we will gradually increase our support to low income families through the Canada child tax benefit. By 2007, with this benefit, we will be providing $10 billion in annual assistance, twice as much as in 1996.
In a practical sense, this means that next July, the benefit will go up by $150 annually. In four years, the maximum benefit for a family will be $3,243 for the first child and $3,016 for a second child.
Also, in the next five years, the provinces and territories will receive more than $900 million to improve access to quality day care and promote the development of young children. Our government has certainly proven time and again that it takes the well-being of Canadian families to heart.
Today, the hon. member for Ahuntsic is suggesting a measure that would take our fight against poverty one step further.
Two thirds of the beneficiaries would be mothers. This measure would give low income families more help when some of their members are unemployed.
I have always thought of such measures which directly help Canadian families not as an expense, but as an investment in the future. However, our government is not in the habit of making decisions without a thorough consideration of all the impacts.
EI is a complex program and any change can have a direct impact on the viability and efficiency of the whole plan.
On the face of it, Motion No. 395 seems to be a very interesting proposal.
I urge my colleagues to consider Motion No. 395, because it will help us make a more detailed examination of the impact of indexing the family supplement when we prepare the next budget.