Madam Speaker, I thought I would take the opportunity to reply to the hon. member.
Frankly, the behaviour of the Bloc opposition on this bill has been to produce the most puzzling, curious, strange, unorthodox and bizarre set of amendments I have seen in a long time in this House.
It was not so long ago that the hon. gentleman was on his feet suggesting problems were being encountered by seniors having to make application on an annual basis to receive their benefits. The bill before us tries to expedite that by allowing for automatic renewal when we have all the information we need. But the hon. gentleman is now introducing an amendment to force people to go back to the old system of having to make an annual application again. He has stood logic on its head. He has absolutely reversed the position he has taken in the House. It is absolutely and totally contrary to the very words he was expressing in the House only a few short weeks ago. He said there was an impediment, a problem being faced. He says he does not know. He does not know. If he had understood the bill he would not be presenting such absurd amendments.
It seems he is saying now that people with spousal benefits will be required to reapply for their application, which will affect 20,000 people per year, rather than giving them the automatic renewal we propose. Madam Speaker, do you understand that? Can you contemplate the rationale, the reason the hon. member would want to impose upon people eligible for spousal benefit the requirement to constantly go back and re-engage, reapply, go through the rigmarole, go through the bureaucratic red tape? I do not understand. If he were some kind of bureaucratic menschen who takes great delight in having people jump through hoops, then maybe it would make some sense.
Bill C-54 is a clear example of how we have taken into account the problems faced by people over the past several years in ensuring that they can have renewals. We are now attempting to eliminate those problems, especially in the case of the spousal benefit, which is available for those who are 60 to 64.
If we have a female client whose birthday is in June, let us assume she would also qualify for the OAS, she clearly has some needs. If the motion proposed by the hon. member were accepted, that person would be forced to obtain, complete, and return all application forms to Human Resources Development around the month of December, before her birthday. We know how busy things get, how much time there is to delay.
In other words, the hon. gentleman who proposes this amendment has some kind of perverse delight in forcing people to fill out forms, go to offices, reapply, and go through all the paper work. It must be a strange form of entertainment for him, but it certainly makes no sense when it comes to healthy people. They will still get their money, but it will take longer, it will be more inconvenient, it will be more bureaucratic, and it will cost the government more money to go through the forms.
Madam Speaker, I do not know. You figure; I cannot. I simply do not understand such tortuous reasoning from the hon. gentleman that he would propose an amendment that would force people to engage in this kind of jumping through hoops simply for no reason at all. When we look at the bill with the whole range of amendments proposed by hon. members opposite, they are giving the message that they do not want to help people gain access to their old age benefits without fuss or bother.
This is a clear example that there is a big mistake, that the Bloc Quebecois is proposing the wrong measures for senior citizens who are only asking for an efficient system. Yet, the Bloc is proposing, in these amendment, a process which is very complicated, very difficult and which makes no sense.
For the sake of the convenience of our seniors, especially the 20,000 women on social benefits who would want to be able to make full and complete access, not only is this amendment absurd, but it would be counterproductive; it would be against their interests. Therefore, it deserves to be defeated.