Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I found myself yelling pretty loudly in order to be heard above the turmoil in the House. However, I appreciate that the hour is late. I simply point out that apart from one small contribution from across the way in defence of the minister, which I do not think was too important, all the members who have spoken from the opposition benches today have pleaded with the minister that he reconsider our thoughts on the matter as well as the rights of the recipients of the basic pension. As a consequence, I propose to give the minister one more opportunity for a second thought about this very serious step that he is taking. This bill departs from the principle of universality that the old age pension has carried with it since its inception in 1950 or 1952, a principle that was the unanimous recommendation of an all-party committee. I suggest such departure is a very dangerous one.
I appreciate this principle was departed from when the guaranteed income supplement was originally brought in, but we are here taking a further discriminatory step by putting these people into a certain class which will not receive the cost of living increment. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted:
"Bill C-202, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act, be
not now read the third time as this House is opposed to a bill
which fails to include any adequate cost of living provision in
respect of the basic amount of the monthly pension".
Topic: GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic: OLD AGE SECURITY ACT