Jay Waldo MONTEITH

MONTEITH, The Hon. Jay Waldo, P.C., F.C.A., LL.D.

Personal Data

Party
Progressive Conservative
Constituency
Perth (Ontario)
Birth Date
June 24, 1903
Deceased Date
December 19, 1981
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Monteith
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=a0f7fa4b-ece7-4588-afc0-d76760d9d88c&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
chartered accountant

Parliamentary Career

August 10, 1953 - April 12, 1957
PC
  Perth (Ontario)
June 10, 1957 - February 1, 1958
PC
  Perth (Ontario)
  • Minister of National Health and Welfare (August 22, 1957 - April 21, 1963)
March 31, 1958 - April 19, 1962
PC
  Perth (Ontario)
  • Minister of National Health and Welfare (August 22, 1957 - April 21, 1963)
  • Minister of Amateur Sport (September 29, 1961 - April 21, 1963)
June 18, 1962 - February 6, 1963
PC
  Perth (Ontario)
  • Minister of National Health and Welfare (August 22, 1957 - April 21, 1963)
  • Minister of Amateur Sport (September 29, 1961 - April 21, 1963)
April 8, 1963 - September 8, 1965
PC
  Perth (Ontario)
  • Minister of National Health and Welfare (August 22, 1957 - April 21, 1963)
  • Minister of Amateur Sport (September 29, 1961 - April 21, 1963)
November 8, 1965 - April 23, 1968
PC
  Perth (Ontario)
  • Progressive Conservative Party Caucus Chair (January 1, 1966 - January 1, 1968)
June 25, 1968 - September 1, 1972
PC
  Perth (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 3 of 677)


April 28, 1971

Mr. Monleiih:

I shall be very brief, Mr. Speaker. I take it then that the legislation will not be enacted in time to have it take effect in September?

Topic:   FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Subtopic:   TIME OF INTRODUCTION OF AMENDING LEGISLATION
Full View Permalink

March 25, 1971

Mr. Monteith:

The government is being arrogant, as usual.

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY. APRIL TO JUNE 30. 1971
Full View Permalink

March 25, 1971

Mr. Monteith:

Further arrogance.

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY. APRIL TO JUNE 30. 1971
Full View Permalink

December 17, 1970

Mr. Monteith:

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
Full View Permalink

December 17, 1970

Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perih-Wilmoi):

Mr. Speaker, just before ten o'clock I was somewhat frightened, as I believe the leader of the House was, that the minister was going to talk out his own bill. Then I heard a whisper between him and one of his colleagues.

The minister, in his remarks, drew attention to what the government was doing for one class of old age pension recipients. We axe not denying this, Mr. Speaker. We favour increasing the income supplement. What we have been complaining about is that the basic pension would no longer carry provision for an automatic 2 per cent increase in line with increases in the cost of living. The minister said that those who are receiving the guaranteed income supplement will as of right receive the additional amount after reporting their income. This will hold true for a certain category of pensioners as of April 1 next, but it will not be true for pensioners in other categories. Those who are receiving the basic pension will not receive as of right the 2 per cent increment which other pension recipients will be receiving. This is the point the minister did not answer when my honourable friend from Huron (Mr. McKinley) posed his question. Members of this House have pleaded with the minister to give consideration to pensioners who will receive $80 as is proposed.

These pensioners are being discriminated against in another way. The fact is, as was pointed out by the minister in committee, that any shortfall due to an increase in the cost of living will be picked up by the

Old Age Security Act

recipients of the guaranteed income supplement. This is not so in the case of recipients of the basic pension. The minister, in his comments at the report stage, indicated that all kinds of money would be required.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
Full View Permalink