GRIT WANTS IMMIGRANTS TO COLLECT OAS AFTER ONLY 3 YEARS IN CANADA

From:
http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/columnists/tom_brodbeck/2010/03/09/13173511.html

Ontario Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla tabled a bill in June 2009 that would
reduce to three years the eligibility requirements for senior
immigrants to collect OAS.

Right now, immigrants have to live in Canada for at least 10 years
before they’re eligible to collect OAS. But under Bill C-428 immigrants
would only have to live in Canada for three years to be eligible for
benefits.

The proposed legislation would only give those immigrants a “partial” benefit after three years.

However, they would also be eligible for Canada’s Guaranteed Income Supplement if their income was low enough.

Combined, a low-income senior immigrant could be eligible for a
maximum $652.51 per month in OAS and GIS after living here for only
three years.

Human Resources Minister Diane Finley, who is opposed to the bill,
said the proposed change would cost taxpayers $700 million a year.

Why would immigrants be allowed to collect anything if they aren't Citizens?

Or do they have to become Citizens in order to qualify?

And in order to be a Citizen, a 3-year minimum residency is required anyway...so this would seem to only make someone who becomes a Citizen after 3 years, eligible to collect the benefit.

Nope. Ruby Dhalia likely wants to bring her entire extended family to Canada. I frankly don't see why anyone would be permitted to enter the country as an old age pensioner without the complete means to support themselves and any family they bring in.

I say you only get out of the system what you put in. I've paid my taxes and pension my entire life. There is talk the Canadian pension is at risk now. Why add to the risk? Why put MY paid up pension at risk because we want to allow people into this country that cannot sustain themselves.

I say Dhaiia needs to recuse herself as she has a direct conflict of interest.

AGEsAces wrote:Why would immigrants be allowed to collect anything if they aren't Citizens?

Or do they have to become Citizens in order to qualify?

And in order to be a Citizen, a 3-year minimum residency is required anyway...so this would seem to only make someone who becomes a Citizen after 3 years, eligible to collect the benefit.

Isn't there a 10 year eligibility now?
Why should they get it after only 3 years?
I have to work my whole life to collect.

Dhalla should go back to where she came from, and take her extended family with her.

Yes when we can not raise the amount we pay now , why bring in these freeloaders .

I agree...as an immigrant myself I think this is insane. Even my parents complain that they know of many immigrants pensioners who have come to Canada and recieve benefits after 10 years even though they have NEVER worked or paid any taxes in Canada.
Both my parents have worked and contributed for 30 years now and are both proud of their adopted citizenship...I don't understand how someone who is BARELY a new citizen (and likely has no allegiance to Canada) and has never contributed to the system would expect to recieve anything.

I'm with GOM on this one, any pensioners coming need to be able to support themselves or have family members willing to support them. There should be no government support at all.

Ruby Dhalla is quite a piece of work already. i.e. attempted blocked of Bollywood movie, caregivers controversy etc. But this is clearly trying to get votes from the large East Indian bloc in her riding and quite frankly, its despicable. We have all worked hard and payed in for our benefits. There is absolutely no reason why it should cost millions of dollars as taxpayers to support immigrants that just arrived in the country. Its not racist, its just common sense.

So we are saying there should be two or more "classes" of Canadian citizens then?

What about the 65 year old person who was born in Canada but has never worked a single day... guess we can say they dont qualify either.

Where does the line get drawn?
to me it gets drawn at Citizenship. You are Canadian or you are not. No shades of gray. Dont want "these people" to get OAS, then dont give them citizenship and only give OAS to citizens.

Well now there's an idea - don't give them citizenship.

Does a "lifelong" Canadian draw a pension if they've never paid into it?

And yes, Deank, I guess we need two classes of Canadian citizens if that is the case. Someone that has lived their entire life in Canada has likely contributed in so many different ways.

We draw the line at how much one has contributed to the Canada Pension Plan determines how much one draws.

I believe health issues are also a consideration. If one is sick one does not gain entry into Canada only to start obtaining free health care. Don't see why a pension would be any different.

How about those Leper's from Hawaii? Why doesn't Canada do the right thing and import them all to Canada? We could add wings to every hospital for a mere $100 billion including lifelong paliative care.

Deank wrote:So we are saying there should be two or more "classes" of Canadian citizens then?

What about the 65 year old person who was born in Canada but has never worked a single day... guess we can say they dont qualify either.

Where does the line get drawn?
to me it gets drawn at Citizenship. You are Canadian or you are not. No shades of gray. Dont want "these people" to get OAS, then dont give them citizenship and only give OAS to citizens.

Basically that's exactly what I'm saying...can't speak for anyone else.

Come to Canada after 65 years of age, then don't expect any pension. What is so unfair about that? They are still free to collect pension benefits from their "homeland" aren't they? Why should the Canadian taxpayer subsidize someone who is already drawing a source of income, and who has never contributed in any way to Canada?

They 10 year rule in place while not perfect is a whole lot more sane than this 3 year change Dhalla is proposing. You could have someone who is 62 years old come over and start collecting OAS at 65 both in Canada and in their native land. That's insane and a total waste of taxpayer dollars.

My parents have friends who have brought parents over, and these people now recieve both Canadian pensions and "home country" pensions even though they have not worked a single day in Canada and came over in their 60's. That's just not right.

I heard some numbers/examples out of Toronto recemtly about very recent immigrant's earning more retirement income than my mother-in-law who's worked for 30 years after coming from Russia. An inquiry needs to look into the whole matter before Dhalla takes us farther down this road.

grumpyrom wrote:

Deank wrote:So we are saying there should be two or more "classes" of Canadian citizens then?

What about the 65 year old person who was born in Canada but has never worked a single day... guess we can say they dont qualify either.

Where does the line get drawn?
to me it gets drawn at Citizenship. You are Canadian or you are not. No shades of gray. Dont want "these people" to get OAS, then dont give them citizenship and only give OAS to citizens.

Basically that's exactly what I'm saying...can't speak for anyone else.

Come to Canada after 65 years of age, then don't expect any pension. What is so unfair about that? They are still free to collect pension benefits from their "homeland" aren't they? Why should the Canadian taxpayer subsidize someone who is already drawing a source of income, and who has never contributed in any way to Canada?

They 10 year rule in place while not perfect is a whole lot more sane than this 3 year change Dhalla is proposing. You could have someone who is 62 years old come over and start collecting OAS at 65 both in Canada and in their native land. That's insane and a total waste of taxpayer dollars.

My parents have friends who have brought parents over, and these people now recieve both Canadian pensions and "home country" pensions even though they have not worked a single day in Canada and came over in their 60's. That's just not right.

Thats why they probably came to Canada in the first place, because there are no such benefits in their "homeland".

Yes if you are born here and go to collect you get the minimum amount due to you .

Freeman, most of them come to be reunited with family members.....however they don't exactly turn down the free money offered to them. I guess I wouldn't either in their shoes, however that doesn't change my opinion that there's something wrong with the way the situation is handled.

If someone is here for 10 years and gains citizenship to me that at least shows they have reasonable intentions to make Canada their new permanent home. Everyone has their own personal beliefs about wether or not they should be entitled to ANY benefits at this point, but imho they 10 year rule at least makes SOME sense and discourages people from freeloading to a certain extent as no one would come here with no means expecting a hand out if they know they have to wait for 10 years.

Now 3 years....that's just freaking insane. On the same day you get your citizenship card, you also get the right to a cheque if your over 65. I've never heard of any other nation that would do this. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

Not that I see a snowballs chance in hell of this ever going through.....

is that the proposal grumpy? Or do they have to have their citizenship for at least 3 years?

" Now that Parliament has resumed, we could see a controversial private members’ bill wind its way through the house that may allow immigrants to collect Old Age Security after living in Canada for only three years.
Ontario Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla tabled a bill in June 2009 that would reduce to three years the eligibility requirements for senior immigrants to collect OAS.
Right now, immigrants have to live in Canada for at least 10 years before they’re eligible to collect OAS. But under Bill C-428 immigrants would only have to live in Canada for three years to be eligible for benefits.
The proposed legislation would only give those immigrants a “partial” benefit after three years.
However, they would also be eligible for Canada’s Guaranteed Income Supplement if their income was low enough.
Combined, a low-income senior immigrant could be eligible for a maximum $652.51 per month in OAS and GIS after living here for only three years."

Holy cow batman....$2,300 monthly for a senior couple that has been in the country for 3 years. I guess Dhalla doesn't realise that CPP and OAS are in jeapordy already since she gets a fat MP pension after what 5 years? This bill is just a stupid idea.

I thought you had to be 65 to collect OAS, so according to this bill, someone who is 62 can come to this country and then collect OAS 3 years later. Now really, how much can a 62 year old immigrant contribute to the economy of this country to be entitled to collect at pension at public expense?

more to the point how can someone get Citizenship in 3 years? No citizenship... no retirement benefits. seems simple enough

Deank wrote:more to the point how can someone get Citizenship in 3 years? No citizenship... no retirement benefits. seems simple enough

Citizenship is attainable in 3 years...well, 3 years plus a day.

Just depends on available schedules for the swearing in.

But, as an immigrant, I'd agree with you...no citizenship, no benefits.

However...here's a little-known fact.

If you went and worked in the US, as a Canadian, it's automatic that you pay into Social Security. So say you work there for a year, and then move back to Canada. Once you turn 65, the US will actually mail you Social Security checks across the border. The amount won't be much, as you didn't "pay in" much...but you'll still collect it.

"Citizenship is attainable in 3 years...well, 3 years plus a day."

Very difficult to get it in 3 years though as the DAY you set foot on Canadian soil you would have to apply for permamnent resident status so that you have the proper number of days before applying for citizenship. Not saying its impossible, but not exactly easy.. then again seems some of immigration lawyers and such are quite good at playing the game. Plus there is the whole you still have to pass the test. I know I know its not that difficult. But still To me that should be the absolute determining factor for any of our social benefits. Citizenship.

some people need to think back to when all of these benefits were first implemented not that long ago. There were numerous people who never paid a dime into the plans and funds who were immediatly recieving benefits from them.

no...that's not true

you don't have to be a permanent resident for 3 years, or apply for it.

the "time" starts the day you arrive, and accrues for every day you are in the country.

Even a day-trip across the border could cost time...but as long as you're here for 3 years straight...no matter the status (as long as it's legal), you qualify.

not according to the immigration canada website.