May 17, 1972

SC

André-Gilles Fortin

Social Credit

Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):

I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

May 17, 1972

Old Age Security Act

Considering the eloquence displayed by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), that of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) as well as their competence in this matter and their excellent work in the Committee on Procedure and Organization, I do not think I have to repeat what they have said. I would like to recall not a precedent but something that was done yesterday when the House was considering a motion to refer a bill back to the committee on third reading. That motion was as follows:

That Bill C-2 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for the purpose of reviewing clause 44 and particularly paragraph (a).

That amendment was accepted by the Chair, which shows that, in his argument, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Jerome) does not take into account as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, the right of an hon. member to move such an amendment on third reading, in accordance with section 415 (1) and (2) of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment we moved yesterday was substantive and tended to give quite detailed instructions to the committee. It even attacked the principle and contents of clause 44. If one refers to yesterday's debates, the Chair with the House's consent had accepted that amendment which has been put to vote today. I would think therefore that the parliamentary secretary's argument that the hon. member should be refused the right to bring in this amendment because it is a substantive amendment with detailed instructions has now been refuted in less than 24 hours.

Topic:   OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ESCALATION OF PENSIONS, RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS, INCREASE IN GUARANTEED INCOME SUPPLEMENT
Permalink
LIB

Gérald Laniel (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):

Order, please. I thank hon. members for their contribution in helping the Chair make a decision. I agree that the amendment before us is well drafted in that it could be looked at as a proper case.

I listened to the arguments of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) that statistics from Statistics Canada might not correspond to the consumer price index for all kinds of reasons. This was getting into the debate itself which the Chair cannot do and cannot use as an argument.

In my opinion, the decision that has to be rendered at this time is based on two points. The first point is to try to determine whether the amendment departs from the principle adopted on second reading. The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) referred to an amendment that was accepted by the Chair last night. That amendment proposed to refer a bill back to committee to amend one particular clause. Over the years, it has been the practice to accept a six-month hoist amendment or refer a bill back to a committee for the purpose of reconsidering one particular clause.

In this case, the Chair is wondering whether the amendment would not tend to change the principle which has been approved on second reading. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) referred to citation 415 of Beauchesne at page 287. He even read paragraph

four of that citation which, to my mind, is very clear. I might perhaps repeat it:

On the third reading of a bill an amendment to refer back to the Committee of the Whole must not tend to change the principle approved on second reading.

Basing myself on this paragraph, I find myself wondering whether the committee itself would have the power to deal with such an amendment. In the opinion of the Chair the amendment which has been proposed is really one which brings in a new subject, a new approach, if one considers the debate which has taken place and the study which has been carried out at the earlier stages.

Again, if we read citation 418, we find a similar thought expressed in the following terms:

The question for the third reading is put immediately after the report from the Committee of the Whole. All amendments which may be moved on a second reading of a bill may be moved on the third reading with the restriction that they cannot deal with any matter which is not contained in the bill.

The Chair is wondering whether the proposal made in this amendment does not involve a new matter, a new approach to the bill itself.

Hon. members might also refer to Beauchesne at the bottom of page 275 where the rules which govern reasoned amendments are set out. We find that the first principle to be taken into consideration when drafting or accepting an amendment is the rule of relevancy.

There is another aspect with which the Chair has to be concerned. It is the financial aspect. I wonder whether the amendment, in the form in which it is presented, is not seeking to do indirectly what the hon. member cannot do directly. Citation 246(3) of Beauchesne, 4th edition, makes it clear that hon. members should not try to do indirectly what they cannot do directly. I think I should read this paragraph:

The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication to which the royal demand or recommendation is attached must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of the charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. In relation to the standard thereby fixed, an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown not only if it increases the amount but also if it extends the objects and purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the Crown has demanded or recommended a charge.

Although the other citations from Beauchesne, 415 and 418, made me hesitate about accepting the amendment before us, having regard to the rule of relevancy, my decision is confirmed by what is contained in Citation 246. Looking again at the amendment I can only conclude that it puts forward a new financial proposition, one which I cannot accept at this time.

Topic:   OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ESCALATION OF PENSIONS, RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS, INCREASE IN GUARANTEED INCOME SUPPLEMENT
Permalink
SC

André-Gilles Fortin

Social Credit

Mr. Fortin:

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-207, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, involves all the outdated social security system that we know.

Social security in Canada costs increasingly more to all governments and therefore to the Canadian taxpayers who assume the charge through their taxes. In spite of all the speeches from government members, social disparities persist. In spite of the investment of billions of dol-

May 17, 1972

lars, even in Canada, there are still some people who go to bed hungry and among them there are often old people.

The bill which is in third reading features three things. First, it provides a cost of living escalation clause. As a matter of fact, it is an excellent piece of legislation and I want to commend the minister for it.

For a long time, there have been requests for the escalation of social assistance rates based on the cost of living, since the first to suffer from inflation were the sick, the disabled, the war veterans and the elderly people who, moreover, were subjected to an income ceiling set by governments granting them pensions, which resulted into serious injustice.

That is why I welcome the provisions which are found in Bill C-207 for escalating old-age security pensions in line with the rise in the cost of living.

Where I do not agree is on the basic amounts granted and on the principle of the guaranteed income supplement.

In fact, a basic amount of $82.88 will be granted to anyone aged 65. In order to receive more money, forms will have to be filled in and returned for the expert calculations of public servants who will establish what is the amount of the supplement, in accordance with the cost of living index. At any rate, the maximum amount to be granted after these lengthy and complicated calculations will be $150 a month, including the amount based on the cost of living.

I do not know of any unmarried person who can live on $150 a month in Canada. Out of $150, $60 a month must be deducted for housing which leaves only $90 a month to the pensioner for food, clothing and drugs. They have to live 30 days on that. We know that older people are often in need of drugs which are very expensive.

Mr. Speaker, the bill now under consideration which would raise monthly pensions to $150 for single persons and $285 for married couples is not realistic. It does not take into account those who are victimized by the present economic situation. In fact, this light increase is not geared to the cost of living.

Everybody is aware of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that in Canada housing, clothing and food are the most expensive things. Now, these three items of our everyday life are precisely those which are first affected by inflation, by the increase in the cost of living. The moment we begin to feel the increase in the cost of living, we can see immediately the bad effects it has on rents, which older people are unable to control. These people are just like everybody else: they must live with the lease system and put up with rent hikes. Though old, they cannot go to the corner store, to the grocer's, and say: I do not want prices to go up. Being frozen at $150 a month, their income is clearly insufficient and they are compelled to suffer the increase in the cost of living without any kind of protection.

The government will tell me that I am wrong, that under the legislation they will get an increment geared to the cost of living, but I shall answer right away that the proposed 3.6 per cent progressive boost based on the cost

Old Age Security Act

of living only applies to this maximum amount of $150. This means that the increase in the cost of living is only taken into account for the total amount of $150. Now then, with $150, as I said earlier, a person cannot live decently in Canada. This does not even represent the bare minimum with which one person can have three square meals a day.

This is why I said at the beginning of my remarks that the government's philosophy in speeding up the passing of this bill-and I am not the least surprised about it-can only bring more misery and poverty in Canada, that it is nothing but a bandaid treatment which does not settle the problem at all and which can only maintain people in poverty because what they are granted under this legislation does not meet their requirements, at this time.

Mr. Speaker, since 1962, we have been calling for this escalation in old age security pensions according to the increase in the cost of living. This is the first principle that we support. Secondly, we suggest that the basic amount of old age security pensions should be equal to the minimum income that a person requires to live decently. We are urging that senior citizens be granted a basic amount equivalent to the minimum income that a person must have in order to live decently and cope with the rising cost of living.

This is why we have moved amendments at the report stage to improve the bill, to change its intent, its philosophy, to get us out once for all out of this mesh that generates poverty and social inequalities. Is it any wonder that after 10 years, in spite of the billions of dollars invested in social security, social inequalities are still with us? Is it any wonder that poverty continues to exist in a country as rich as ours?

Mr. Speaker, it is significant because pensions are inadequate and do not take into account the minimum a person requires in order to live decently. As a result, people get no help, but only crumbs with which they manage to keep body and soul together. It is unfortunate, and we find it shocking, considering the tremendous wealth of our country, that all Canadians should be the victims of the financial system that controls everything.

Mr. Speaker, we are asking, in plain words, so that the other side will understand, that the old age security pension-and this was the purpose of the amendments we moved-be statutorily available to people at 60 instead of 65. Why? Simply because, on account of what is going on in our ridings, a person of 60 who has the bad luck of losing his job-a fact which accounts for economic insecurity in Canada-has a very hard time finding another job, some proper means of living. Actually, it is impossible.

A Canadian age 60, Mr. Speaker, is almost incapable of finding a job. Now, a person who loses his job through illness-and it is a known fact that that illness strikes more often at that age-has no chance of finding another decent job. This means that no help is available and that he must rely solely on himself for his livelihood, in order to meet his needs and obligations, with the result that he must manage to survive for five years, from 60 to 65, with the hope of living until then and getting the old age security pension at 65, as provided in the bill.

May 17, 1972

Old Age Security Act

Mr. Speaker, the minister is in front of me and I ask him why the government refuses to lower the eligible age to 60, since, anyway, this government, as former governments, has found nothing worthwhile not only to keep people of 60 or 65 working, but above all to enable them to survive while waiting for their pension.

This is why the eligible age has to be lowered to 60. Another reason is that the labour market can no longer absorb all the young people who are looking for work and are qualified to fill available positions.

On the other hand, we can find on the labour market in Canada hundreds of people aged 60 or 65 who would like nothing better, after having gone through two economic crises and two wars, than to retire. Considering they have to go on working in spite of their age and their ailments, not only will they be "penalized" where unemployment insurance payments are concerned, but they will not be eligible for an old age security pension until they reach 65. Thus, those people are not only forced to keep on working, sometimes until their death, but they are also deprived of a well-deserved retirement. It is not that the labour market should get rid of those people, but it is high time that we should treat Canadians properly. Those people have done more than enough to build our country, and we now have a duty to assure them of a well-deserved retirement.

This is why we strongly request that the eligible age for old age security pensions be lowered to 60. Is it not proper that we should allow those people to enjoy a well-deserved retirement?

There is a second point with which I wanted to deal and which I am surprised to see has been overlooked. In order to make myself clear, I am going to give a very specific example. Let us suppose that a 65-year old person receives his old age pension and that, for a valid reason, he decides to stop working, or that he loses his job- considering how little job security we now have in Canada. This person comes back home and applies for an old age security pension. The maximum she can get, together with her spouse, is $285. If she is alone and if her spouse is not entitled to it, she will draw $150. The person being retired and her spouse not being 65, she will not be entitled to the old age security pension. So, this couple will not get $285 a month, as is the case for a couple when both are entitled to the pension. Thus, because these persons are not both 65, they are penalized and cannot really benefit from the increase that is being announced with such noise. In this particular case, the measure cannot be efficient.

This is why we ask the government not only to consider this proposal but to act and grant an old age security pension of $150 to any person whose age is less than what is prescribed in the present act, provided his or her spouse is entitled to it. Thus, if the husband retires and his wife is only 59 or 60, she will not have to work to keep the family afloat. This pension would enable her to retire also and live happily with her husband.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this proposal is worth considering.

Topic:   OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ESCALATION OF PENSIONS, RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS, INCREASE IN GUARANTEED INCOME SUPPLEMENT
Permalink
LIB

Alexandre Cyr

Liberal

Mr. Cyr:

Perhaps that would not be accepted by Quebec.

Topic:   OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ESCALATION OF PENSIONS, RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS, INCREASE IN GUARANTEED INCOME SUPPLEMENT
Permalink
SC

André-Gilles Fortin

Social Credit

Mr. Fortin:

The hon. member for Gaspe is saying that perhaps it would not be accepted by Quebec. My answer is that the federal government should at least consult Quebec before taking this step. We should avoid raising more constitutional issues that do not settle the matter, as it has just been done.

Quebec Social Affairs Minister Castonguay says the problem is that the federal government, in a particular sector, gives a pension which results in financial difficulties for those who support the retired people and that the government of Quebec, despite its illimited spending capacity, cannot solve the problem and has therefore a feeling of frustration.

Many of these problems could be avoided if we would agree to give $150 a month to the spouse of those who will get the old age pension at 65, unless we bring the eligibility age down to 60 as we would like. We could avoid many problems and allow this couple to live decently.

Finally, the third proposal that we also defend strongly is the following; according to the provisions of Bill C-207, the old age pension that will be granted by the government is ridiculous even if it includes a supplement geared to the cost of living. This means inquiries, forms to be filled, correspondence, administrative intrigue, in one word more bureaucracy. There is already enough of that, not only as far as the government is concerned but also for the population in general.

We suggest that we should quit bothering people and start really helping them by granting the basic amount to each elderly person in one monthly $200 payment. I understand that some members will object that the government does not have enough money to give $200 a month to the elderly.

Mr. Speaker, with the $150 the government intends to give them, these people will not be able to live any better. By giving them $200 a month, they would have enough minimum income security to meet their legitimate needs.

Where would the money come from, Mr. Speaker? Today, it costs over $13,500 million, unless I am mistaken, to finance the federal, provincial and municipal welfare programs. And most of that money is spent in administrative costs. Those amounts are therefore not paid to the people for whom they are intended. That may seem unbelievable to some of my colleagues. Yet, I invite them to consider the fact that to finance the guaranteed income supplement, the old age security pensions, the allowances to the blind and the disabled, the program for the professional rehabilitation of the disabled, manpower mobility, adult training allowances, student grants, assistance to the immigrants, clearing up of the downgraded zones, veterans's pensions, Indian and Eskimo affairs, welfare services, research, all those services cost $1,097 million, of which no Canadian sees a single penny. That, Mr. Speaker, proves that we have reached the point where bureaucracy dominates the legislature and the government.

That is why we say this must cease, that the problem should be settled once and for all by giving people direct-

May 17, 1972

ly, without inquiry, once they have reached the age of 60, $200 a month without any supplement. Thus, Mr. Speaker, and for the sake of consistency, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne):

That Bill C-207, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, be not now read for the third time but be referred instead to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs for the purpose of considering the advisability of:

(a) Lowering to age 60 eligibility for the old age security pension;

(b) Granting the old age pension to every person, even if his age is lower than the provisions of the present act, whose spouse receives a monthly pension by virtue of the said act.

(c) Abolishing the concept of the supplement and fixing the basic amount at $200 a month.

-and $150 a month for the spouse under 60.

Topic:   OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ESCALATION OF PENSIONS, RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS, INCREASE IN GUARANTEED INCOME SUPPLEMENT
Permalink
IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

The hon. member could perhaps indicate, for the information of the Chair, if he feels that this amendment is acceptable according to Standing Orders. The hon. member will admit that an almost identical amendment was moved a few moments ago by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard). My colleague, the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel), who was occupying the Chair at that moment, outlined the precedents and referred to the Standing Orders applicable in such cases. I am afraid that his decision then is also applicable on all counts to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lotbiniere.

However, I would be happy to listen to any comments on the matter.

Topic:   OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ESCALATION OF PENSIONS, RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS, INCREASE IN GUARANTEED INCOME SUPPLEMENT
Permalink
SC

André-Gilles Fortin

Social Credit

Mr. Fortin:

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to refer you, in support of this motion, to citation 415(2) of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms which reads as follows: Bills may be recommitted a number of times with or without limitation; in the latter case, the whole bill is opened to reconsideration, but in the former case the Committee can only consider the clause or amendments or instructions referred to them. When material amendments are desirable, the order for the third reading may be discharged, and the bill recommitted to introduce the amendments in Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to base my argument on that paragraph to which I will come back in part.

Yesterday, as you will recall, we brought in an amendment tending to refer Bill C-2 to the standing committee on justice and legal affairs so that section 44 be completely deleted from the bill. Your colleague ruled that the amendment we brought in yesterday called for a redrafting of section 44, which was not the case, Mr. Speaker.

The amendment we moved yesterday tended only to delete this paragraph from the section.

Along the same line, Mr. Speaker, we attack the bill in its third reading without any limitation. I quote from the citation:

Bills may be recommitted a number of times with or without limitation, in the latter case, the whole bill is opened to reconsideration;

The motion that I move, seconded by my colleague, the hon. member for Kamouraska, tends to question the very principle of the bill, its philosophy, not the principle of granting financial assistance to old people, but the one under which the basic payment and the guaranteed income supplement are established.

Old Age Security Act

Then, Mr. Speaker, we question the age factor. The bill provides for the payment of a pension to any person who reaches age 65. I ask that the committee examine the possibility of lowering the statutory age to 60.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the bill provides for an escalation of this pension in line with the increase in the cost of living, for the single person as well as for married couples.

The bill does not provide for the payment of a pension to the spouse of the old age security pensioner.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) pointed out, there is some flexibility in the bill itself which will allow for an increase in the pensions.

My motion is to the same effect and in the same spirit. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is relevant since it is substantive, since it deals with the principle of the bill and is non-limiting.

I shall repeat in concluding what you have so well understood, and I am positive about it: Whenever a bill is to be referred, the whole bill may be reconsidered.

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what I am after, so that our senior citizens in Canada may get true income security instead of some fictitious social security.

Topic:   OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ESCALATION OF PENSIONS, RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS, INCREASE IN GUARANTEED INCOME SUPPLEMENT
Permalink
IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

Is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre addressing himself to the point of order?

Topic:   OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ESCALATION OF PENSIONS, RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS, INCREASE IN GUARANTEED INCOME SUPPLEMENT
Permalink
NDP

Stanley Howard Knowles (N.D.P. House Leader; Whip of the N.D.P.)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker I rise to say only a brief word. I like the substance of this amendment much better than the substance of the amendment we had a while ago. I argued that it should have been in order, but we lost on the ground that it went a little beyond what was in the bill. All I can say with regard to this amendment is that if I had thought it was possible at this stage to bring in an amendment to provide for a substantial increase in the amount of the pension, to lower the eligible age and to provide benefits for spouses who are younger, you would have had such an amendment from me long ago.

Topic:   OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ESCALATION OF PENSIONS, RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS, INCREASE IN GUARANTEED INCOME SUPPLEMENT
Permalink
IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

I thank the hon. member for his comments. I am rather suspicious that perhaps this is exactly what would have happened.

I also wish to thank the hon. member for Lotbiniere for his comments.

I am afraid the hon. member has failed to differentiate between the two types of amendments: the one which allows the House to consider the suggestion that a bill be referred to a committee for one of its sections to be re-examined or reconsidered, and the other one which is called reasoned amendment in English and which is used by a member to indicate why he intends to vote against the principle of the bill.

The reasoned amendment here gives a detailed account of the reasons why the hon. member intends to vote against the bill as such on second or third reading. There is no question then of referring the bill to a committee but simply of saying why the House should vote against the bill as such.

May 17, 1972

Old Age Security Act

I think that the hon. member is aware of the precedents in this respect.

The other type of amendment suggests that a clause of a bill be referred to a committee for consideration and it is possible of course to give instructions to a committee to consider any clause. Unfortunately, the instructions to be given to the committee must comply with our Standing Orders and a well established precedent is that which is found in Beauchesne in citation 415.1 should like to quote from it and to refer hon. members to paragraph (4). I quote:

On the third reading of a bill, an amendment to refer back to the Committee of the Whole must not tend to change the principle approved on the second reading.

418. -On the second reading of a bill, an amendment may be moved expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction or prosecution, or seeking further information in relation to the bill by committees or commissioners, the production of papers or other evidence, or the opinion of judges. This cannot be done on the third reading because it is not directly connected with any provision-

The principle expounded by the author of citation 418 is to the effect that there should be a strict relevance in the case of an amendment moved at the third or second reading stage.

The 3rd paragraph of citation 246 of the 4th edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms reads as follows:

(3) The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand of recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all... not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications-

I do not want to read the whole paragraph, but in quoting paragraph 3 of citation 246, I wanted simply to remind the hon. member that it is not possible to instruct the committee to do something the House itself cannot undertake, which the committee cannot be authorized to do, that is to amend the financial orders of the Crown.

I could read other citations, including No. 252, but I do not think it is necessary to do so. It is obvious to me that hon. members could, if they so wished, simply move an amendment to the effect that a particular clause of the bill be reconsidered. A motion to this effect would be acceptable, contrary to that moved by the hon. member.

Moreover, I sincerely believe that it violates our Standing Rules and I do not think that it could be acceptable to the Chair.

Topic:   OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ESCALATION OF PENSIONS, RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS, INCREASE IN GUARANTEED INCOME SUPPLEMENT
Permalink
LIB

James Alexander Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. Jerome:

Mr. Speaker, my intervention in this debate on third reading will be very brief indeed. I note that there are a number of hon. members who are anxious to make contributions to the debate at third reading stage, and that some of them have spoken already on second reading. I believe there are a small number of hon. members who have speeches to make not of very long duration, but undoubtedly of substance. It now being 17 minutes to six o'clock it would seem entirely possible that we are very close to concluding third reading of this very important measure. That being the case, my only purpose in inter-

vening in the debate is to move, pursuant to Standing Order 6:

That the hours of sitting be extended beyond six o'clock this day until debate upon third reading of Bill C-207 is concluded.

Topic:   OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ESCALATION OF PENSIONS, RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS, INCREASE IN GUARANTEED INCOME SUPPLEMENT
Permalink
NDP

Stanley Howard Knowles (N.D.P. House Leader; Whip of the N.D.P.)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought there was an agreement that we would sit beyond six o'clock for a little while to continue debate on this bill, hopefully to finish it, and I wonder if that is not the better way to do it. I am prepared to sit beyond six o'clock in order to finish this bill. I think many hon. members are prepared to do so, and I believe we could arrive at that conclusion this way rather than by use of a sledge hammer.

Topic:   OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ESCALATION OF PENSIONS, RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS, INCREASE IN GUARANTEED INCOME SUPPLEMENT
Permalink
LIB

James Alexander Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. Jerome:

I am not trying to do by sledge hammer what was under discussion. I know that the idea of sitting beyond six was under discussion at the time that the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) proposed his amendment. However, since the time was running out during which such a motion could be put, I felt it was appropriate to get the floor at this time. I would much prefer to do it by agreement.

Topic:   OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ESCALATION OF PENSIONS, RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS, INCREASE IN GUARANTEED INCOME SUPPLEMENT
Permalink
PC

Gerald William Baldwin (Official Opposition House Leader; Progressive Conservative Party House Leader)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Baldwin:

Mr. Speaker, I had attempted to get the floor before the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome), and I was going to preface my remarks by saying we were prepared to sit until 6.30, and that there had been some discussion along those lines. That was the first sentence I was going to utter.

Topic:   OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ESCALATION OF PENSIONS, RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS, INCREASE IN GUARANTEED INCOME SUPPLEMENT
Permalink
SC

Gérard Laprise

Social Credit

Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):

Mr. Speaker, our party does agree to sit for a few minutes after six o'clock. But I wonder why such strong pressures were brought to bear lately to have this bill passed hurriedly when it is such an important one.

I would not like the members to be muzzled owing to the swiftness with which some want this bill to be adopted. We are willing to keep sitting, but not after 6.30.

Topic:   OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ESCALATION OF PENSIONS, RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS, INCREASE IN GUARANTEED INCOME SUPPLEMENT
Permalink
IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

Order, please. Obviously there is no agreement. I would think in that case-

Topic:   OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ESCALATION OF PENSIONS, RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS, INCREASE IN GUARANTEED INCOME SUPPLEMENT
Permalink
NDP

Stanley Howard Knowles (N.D.P. House Leader; Whip of the N.D.P.)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, in view of what has been said, I wonder if there could not now be agreement reached in public that we sit until 6.30 and take a reading at that point.

Topic:   OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ESCALATION OF PENSIONS, RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS, INCREASE IN GUARANTEED INCOME SUPPLEMENT
Permalink
IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

The Chair is open to receive that suggestion. The suggestion is that the House proceed to sit until 6.30-

Topic:   OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ESCALATION OF PENSIONS, RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS, INCREASE IN GUARANTEED INCOME SUPPLEMENT
Permalink
NDP

Stanley Howard Knowles (N.D.P. House Leader; Whip of the N.D.P.)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

And take a reading at that point.

Topic:   OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ESCALATION OF PENSIONS, RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS, INCREASE IN GUARANTEED INCOME SUPPLEMENT
Permalink
IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

-and the question be put at that point?

Topic:   OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ESCALATION OF PENSIONS, RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS, INCREASE IN GUARANTEED INCOME SUPPLEMENT
Permalink

May 17, 1972