My colleague has said, “and rightly so”, and of course he is right. That is the appropriate thing for a pension of this nature.
Instead, we have a policy in Canada of 10 years' residency in order to be eligible. Why is this done? It is done because the Canadian public and their governments believe it is important to encourage ties to Canada, and to have beneficiaries contribute to our communities, to be eligible.
This is not a new thing. It should come as no surprise to either the sponsor of this bill or her colleagues in the Liberal Party. They either supported the status quo for 13 years while they were in government or they never thought it was a big enough priority to depart from their policies at the time.
It seems to me that it is a reasonable policy goal to ensure that the OAS program remains financially sustainable for many years to come. We should be very attentive to any attempts, such as the current one, to substantially change a well-established policy in a way that could impose significant new burdens on Canadian taxpayers.
The minimum residency requirement of the program is designed to recognize the contribution seniors have made through their participation in Canadian society and Canada's economy during their lifetime, whether or not they were members of the workforce, but contributions they had to be present in Canada in order to make. It is an acknowledgement of the current arrangement that Canadian society as a whole has a responsibility to share the quality of life that we enjoy today with those who have built this country into what it is today.
By asking the government to reduce the residence qualification period for the OAS program, my colleague opposite is asking us to change a policy that is not only fair but has stood the test of time through changing immigration patterns and successive governments.
It is worth nothing that the current policy has also withstood the test of two charter challenges. Twice, the Superior and Federal Courts have ruled that the qualification requirements for length and time of residence in Canada for old age security do not discriminate against applicants on the grounds of national or ethnic origin. I repeat: the courts have ruled twice that this policy is not an attack on immigrant communities, notwithstanding the charge made by the member for Brampton West in introducing this bill.
I want to point out as well that the proposed changes to the bill would cost as much as $700 million annually. This figure would surely increase with inflation and would make it very difficult to pay for the--
