June 24, 1947

PC

John Ritchie MacNicol

Progressive Conservative

Mr. MacNICOL:

The hon. member has a warm heart.

Industrial Relations

Topic:   OLD AGE PENSIONS
Subtopic:   INCREASES IN AMOUNTS AND INCOME ALLOWANCE
Sub-subtopic:   MODIFICATIONS OF ELIGIBILITY
Permalink
IND

Jean-François Pouliot

Independent Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

I thank my hon. friend very much, and I can pay the same compliment to him for whom I have the deepest admiration.

We have reached the time when we cannot bribe the old by giving old age pensions that they are not entitled to get while others deserve pensions that they cannot get. There should be an adjustment, not on a basis of age, but on a basis of need, and that is what I wanted to say. I thank the house very warmly for the kind reception that was given to me when I made these remarks, and I hope again that the hon. gentlemen who have listened to me so closely will think about what I have said. If they do, they will realize that I was not in the wrong when I came down to brass tacks to improve the old age pensions scheme.

Topic:   OLD AGE PENSIONS
Subtopic:   INCREASES IN AMOUNTS AND INCOME ALLOWANCE
Sub-subtopic:   MODIFICATIONS OF ELIGIBILITY
Permalink
LIB

James Horace King (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

I will now give my ruling on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) and on the point of order raised by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie). The amendment moved by Mr. Blackmore reads:

That Bill No 339 be not now read the second time, but that the same be referred back to the government for their earnest consideration of the following provisions:

(a) Reduction of the pensionable age to not more than 65 years.

(b) Increase in the general pension to not less than $50 a month.

(c) Complete abolition of the means test.

I would direct the attention of the house to the language of the motion, that the bill be not now read the second time but that the same be referred back to the government for their earnest consideration. An amendment to refer a bill back to the government is an expanded negative, if you consider that the government is the sponsor of the bill. The house may, after second reading, decide that the bill be referred to the committee of the whole and it may, in certain circumstances, refer it to a select committee, but there is no precedent of a bill having been referred to the government, which in the present case is not only the sponsor ol the bill, but moreover is not a parliamentary agency. Hon. members know that when a bill has been introduced in the house the bill becomes the property of the house. It is the privilege of the house to refer a bill to the committee of the whole, to a standing committee, to any agency of parliament; but it is out of order since the bill is the property of parliament, to refer it to an agency which is not a part of parliament. The amendment offends all principles of parliamentary procedure and cannot be moved. I would go farther. In my humble opinion, if it were the privilege of members of the house to

move that a bill be referred to the government, it would be also the privilege of any member to refer a bill to one of the parties sitting in this house. If a bill could be referred to the government, I think it could be referred to the Progressive Conservative party or to the C.C.F. or to the Social Credit party. I have therefore no hesitation in declaring the amendment out of order.

On motion of Mr. Herridge the debate was adjourned.

Topic:   OLD AGE PENSIONS
Subtopic:   INCREASES IN AMOUNTS AND INCOME ALLOWANCE
Sub-subtopic:   MODIFICATIONS OF ELIGIBILITY
Permalink

At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order. Wednesday, June 25, 1947


June 24, 1947