This bill is from the 39th Parliament, 2nd session, which ended in September 2008.
Colleen Beaumier Liberal
Introduced as a private member’s bill. (These don’t often become law.)
Report stage (House), as of May 16, 2008
(This bill did not become law.)
This is from the published bill.
This enactment amends the Old Age Security Act to reduce from ten years to three years the residency requirement for entitlement to a monthly pension.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-362s:
Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker Bill Blaikie
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities concerning the extension of time to consider Bill C-362.
Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne
October 24th, 2007 / 4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is true. That is exactly what the finance minister said in his speech when he tried to mislead Canadians. The hon. member for Peterborough sitting on the other side is trying to give the same impression.
In fact, we all know it is true that the Conservative government has raised the taxes for the most vulnerable in our society. With a $13 billion surplus, the government could do more to reduce taxes for the most vulnerable in our society, for seniors, working single parents, youth, the disabled and the other disadvantaged people.
When I speak to businesses and the chamber of commerce and when I go to the Scott Road market in my riding, all they talk about is competitiveness and how we can be competitive on the world stage. The only way we can stay competitive is by decreasing taxes for the corporations.
When the Liberals took power from the Conservatives in 1993, there was a $41 billion deficit left by the Brian Mulroney Conservative government. The Liberals balanced budgets one after the other to put the finances of this country on a strong financial footing. That is not where it stopped. In fact, we also reduced income taxes from 28% all the way down to 19%.
The Conservative government has to follow the Liberal lead to attract businesses here for the long term. To retain those businesses, we have to make a commitment to lower corporate taxes even further to protect the Canadian economy and Canadian jobs now and in the future.
Yesterday I noticed when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development was speaking that she did not have a clue. She was speaking to Bill C-362 on old age security and giving seniors the benefits they deserve, but in fact, she was talking about income taxes or the pension plan. And when it comes to pension plans, the Liberals are the ones who put the Canada pension plan on a strong financial footing.
In the throne speech we listened to the mantra of the Conservative government to get tough on crime. If the Conservatives were truly tough on crime, they would not have prorogued Parliament, but they would have dealt with all those crime bills, all of which I voted in favour of at every stage. That is exactly what my constituents of Newton—North Delta were looking for.
Canadians are even more disappointed with the Conservatives now because all they are doing is playing politics with this issue, instead of respecting the work that has been done and passing these laws to protect Canadians. The Prime Minister would rather take the stand that only his party is tough on crime, but how can that be when legislation is delayed for months and perhaps a year? The last time that I heard in this House that we wanted to fast-track those crime bills was in October 2006. It has been a year. If we had acted on those bills, they would have been law by now and we would have protection for the most vulnerable victims in our society.
When it comes to the environment, the government has also failed. When we talk about the environment the people of Newton—North Delta think first of one thing, the Lungs of the Lower Mainland, also known as Burns Bog. This is a huge carbon sink in an ecologically sensitive area right in the heart of metro Vancouver. The bog is home to many species of plants and wildlife, many species that are rare and endangered and exist nowhere else in Canada. It is a very special place to me, my family and my constituents of Newton—North Delta.
The Burns Bog Conservation Society and its director, Eliza Olson, whom I recognized in this House last year as Earth Day Canada's hometown hero, tell me that the current design for the Pacific Gateway project and especially the South Fraser Perimeter Road will pose a danger to Burns Bog and its ability to absorb tonnes of carbon dioxide. This is something we cannot allow.
There are alternatives. People have asked me why the government is not listening to them. There was not a single mention in the throne speech when it comes to the Pacific Gateway and this environmentally sensitive site and the routing that I am talking about. The alternatives offered by different people, groups and experts will create a greater vision than the Conservative minority government is willing to commit to so far.
I have written to ministers, I have stood in the House, I have presented petitions from my constituents asking the government to treat the Pacific Gateway project like the St. Lawrence Seaway project of the last century so that we can protect the children who go to school in my riding. Do not get me wrong; when it comes to the Pacific Gateway project I want make sure that I clarify that it is very important for our economy to move on this, but at the same time we have to make sure that we do not sacrifice people's quality of life and their health. We have to protect the people who are impacted by that project in my riding of Newton—North Delta.
If the minority Conservative government truly has an interest in enhancing trade with the Pacific Rim as well as protecting our environment, then it should address the concerns of my constituents by exploring the alternatives to the proposed designs and providing the funding to do it right the first time.
The people of Newton—North Delta should not have to shoulder far more of the burden in terms of harm to their health, their environment and their lifestyle in order to benefit trade throughout Canada. We need leadership on this essential international trade route. Unfortunately, I do not see it coming from the government because it has not acted on this in the last few months that I have been raising this issue with the appropriate ministers.
When it comes to child--
Bill C-357--Employment Insurance Act and Bill C-362--Old Age Security ActPoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings
October 18th, 2007 / 10:05 a.m.
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to two private members' bills, Bill C-357 and Bill C-362. Without commenting on their merits, I submit that these two bills require royal recommendations.
First, I want to explain why Bill C-357, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Account and premium rate setting), requires a royal recommendation.
As the Chair ruled on May 9, 2005:
--bills which involve new or additional spending for a distinct purpose must be recommended by the Crown. The royal recommendation is also required where a bill alters the appropriation of public revenue “under the circumstances, in the manner and for the purposes set out” in the bill. What this means is that a royal recommendation is required not only in the case where more money is being appropriated, but also in the case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is being significantly altered.
I would note that Bill C-357 is nearly identical to Bill C-280 in the 38th Parliament which the Speaker ruled required a royal recommendation.
On June 13, 2005, the Speaker stated:
--Bill C-280 infringes on the financial initiative of the Crown for three reasons: first, clause 2 effects an appropriation of public funds by its transfer of these funds from the consolidated revenue fund to an independent employment insurance account established outside the consolidated revenue fund.
Second, clause 2 significantly alters the duties of the EI Commission to enable new or different spending of public funds by the commission for a new purpose namely, the investment of public funds.
Third, as indicated in my ruling of February 8, clause 5 increases the number of commissioners from four to seventeen.
All three of these conditions apply to Bill C-357.
Clause 2 would create an employment insurance account that is outside the consolidated revenue fund. The bill would transfer money out of the consolidated revenue fund to the employment insurance account and that money would no longer be available for any appropriations Parliament may make. This would be an appropriation of funds and, therefore, requires a royal recommendation.
However, worthy some aspects of the bill may be, and some aspects of it are, this does not alter the need for the royal recommendation.
Clause 2 would also change the duties of the Employment Insurance Commission, including new requirements for the commission to deposit assets with a financial institution and to invest assets to achieve a maximum rate of return.
These are new and distinct purposes which have not been authorized and are additional reasons why clause 2 requires a royal recommendation.
Clause 5 of Bill C-357 would increase the number of commissioners on the Employment Insurance Commission from its current four to seventeen.
On February 8, 2005, the Speaker ruled that the appointment of 13 new commissioners to the Employment Insurance Commission in Bill C-280 required a royal recommendation. This is consistent with other rulings where the Speaker found that adding remunerated members to commissions requires a royal recommendation. Given these precedents, I submit that clause 5 requires a royal recommendation.
To sum up, Bill C-357 would require an appropriation, it would alter the purpose of funds covered by the act, and it would require new spending for an expanded commission; therefore, it must accompanied by a royal recommendation.
The second bill I want to draw to your attention is Bill C-362, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act.
This bill would increase old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits by lowering the threshold for eligibility from the current 10 years to 3. This change would result in significant new expenditures.
Under the Old Age Security Act, applicants must have at least 10 years of residence in Canada after age 18 in order to qualify for benefits.
I would further note that partial benefits are paid to applicants who have less than 10 years of residence if the applicant has credits from a country with which Canada has a pension agreement. Residence has been an eligibility criteria since this program's inception in 1952. Reducing the residence requirement from 10 years to 3 years would have significant costs.
Since eligibility for old age security pensions also qualifies for low income recipients to receive the guaranteed income supplement, the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development estimates that the total cost of reducing the qualifying period would be over $700 million annually.
Precedents clearly establish that bills which create new expenditures for benefits by modifying eligibility criteria or changing the terms of a program require a royal recommendation.
On December 8, 2004, the Speaker ruled in the case of Bill C-278, which extended employment insurance benefits, that:
Inasmuch as section 54 of the Constitution, 1867, and Standing Order 79 prohibit the adoption of any bill appropriating public revenues without a royal recommendation, the same must apply to bills authorizing increased spending of public revenues. Bills mandating new or additional public spending must be seen as the equivalent of bills effecting an appropriation.
On November 6, 2006, the Speaker ruled with regard to Bill C-269, which extended employment insurance benefits, that:
Funds may only be appropriated by Parliament for purposes covered by a royal recommendation...New purposes must be accompanied by a new royal recommendation.
On November 9, 2006, the Speaker ruled in the case of Bill C-284, the bill that enlarged the scope of the student grants program beyond that originally authorized by Parliament, that:
Any extension of the terms of an existing program must be accompanied by a new royal recommendation.
On November 10, 2006, the Speaker ruled in the case of Bill C-278, dealing with employment insurance benefits, that:
--by amending the Employment Insurance Act to extend sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 50 weeks, the bill would require the expenditure of additional funds in a manner and for a purpose not currently authorized.
On March 23, 2007, the Speaker ruled in the case of Bill C-265, dealing with employment insurance benefits, that it was abundantly clear:
--those provisions of the bill which relate to increasing employment insurance benefits and easing the qualifications required to obtain them would require a royal recommendation.
I would also note that when Parliament adopted amendments to benefit criteria in the Old Age Security Act in Bill C-36 earlier this year, this legislation was accompanied by a royal recommendation.
In conclusion, Bill C-362 would increase expenditures for old age security and guaranteed income supplements in ways not already authorized and, therefore, should be accompanied by a royal recommendation.
The Deputy Speaker Bill Blaikie
Before we begin private members' business today, I would like to remind the House that yesterday the Speaker made a statement in which he reminded the House that all items of private members' business originating in the House of Commons that were listed on the order paper during the previous session are reinstated to the order paper and shall be deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation of the first session. This also means that those items on the order of precedence remain on the order of precedence or, as the case may be, are referred to committee or sent to the Senate.
Just as individual items of private members' business continue their legislative progress from session to session, the Chair's rulings on these same items likewise survive prorogation. Specifically, there are six bills on which the Chair either ruled or commented with regard to the issue of the royal recommendation. The purpose of this statement is to remind the House of those rulings or statements.
Members will recall that on May 4 the Speaker made a statement expressing concern regarding the spending provisions contemplated by two bills, namely: Bill C-357, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Account and premium rate setting) and another Act in consequence, standing in the name of the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine and Bill C-362, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (residency requirement), standing in the name of the member for Brampton West.
Just as was done last May, the Chair invites members who would like to make arguments regarding the need for a royal recommendation for these two bills or any of the other bills on the order of precedence to do so at an early opportunity.
Members will also recall that during the last session some private members' bills were found by the Speaker to require a royal recommendation. At the time of prorogation, there were four such bills on the order of precedence or in committee. Let us review briefly the situation in each of these four cases.
Bill C-265, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (qualification for and entitlement to benefits),standing in the name of the member for Acadie—Bathurst, was before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of persons with disabilities. The Chair ruled, on March 23, 2007, that the bill, in its present form, needed to be accompanied by a royal recommendation.
Bill C-284, An Act to amend the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act (Canada access grants), standing in the name of the member for Halifax West, was awaiting debate at report stage. On November 9, 2006, the Chair had ruled that the bill, in its form at second reading, needed to be accompanied by a royal recommendation. In committee all clauses of the bill were deleted. In its present eviscerated form, Bill C-284 need no longer be accompanied by a royal recommendation.
Bill C-303, an act for early learning and child care, standing in the name of the member for Victoria, was awaiting debate at report stage in the House. The Chair ruled on November 6, 2006, that the bill, in its form at second reading, needed to be accompanied by a royal recommendation. The Chair finds that the amendments reported back from committee do not remove the requirement that the bill be accompanied by a royal recommendation.
Finally, Bill C-269, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system), standing in the name of the member for Laurentides—Labelle, was at third reading in the House. The Chair ruled, also on November 6, 2006, that the bill, in its form at second reading, needed to be accompanied by a royal recommendation and reminded members, on April 18, 2007, that the amendments reported back from committee did not remove this requirement.
Consistent with past practice, although today's debate on Bill C-269 may proceed, the Chair wishes to remind members that the question on third reading of the bill in its present form will not be put unless a royal recommendation is received.
I thank hon. members for their attention.
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.
When Bill C-362 returns for study by the House, there will be five minutes left for the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington.
It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have this opportunity to make some remarks on Bill C-362 and the reasons why this government is in favour of maintaining the old age security program in its current form.
For more than half a century, the old age security program, OAS, has been a significant part of Canada's public pension system. OAS has provided benefits to Canadians aged 65 and older based solely on their years of residence in Canada.
The rules of eligibility are very simple. In order to qualify for OAS benefits, a person has to be 65 years old and have resided in Canada for at least 10 years after the age of 18. A full pension is payable after 40 years of residence in Canada. Once an individual is eligible for OAS, the door is open for them to receive other income-tested benefits such as the guaranteed income supplement or GIS.
The Old Age Security Act came into force in 1952. Since that time, the act has been reviewed and updated on many occasions. One particularly important change occurred in 1977, when partial OAS pensions were first introduced. Before that time, a person got either the entire pension or nothing at all.
The 1977 changes meant that eligible persons could receive a partial pension. That was based on their actual number of years living in Canada.
These changes also allow Canada to conclude reciprocal social security agreements with other countries. This means a person can qualify for the OAS with less than 10 years of residence in Canada as long as that person lived or worked for a certain number of years in their country of origin and as long as Canada has an agreement with that country.
Unlike the public pensions in some other countries around the world, Canada's OAS program has no qualifying conditions relating to citizenship. As long as a person resides in Canada for a minimum period of time, that person is eligible for a lifelong benefit based solely on residence and not on citizenship. This is no small benefit, considering the fact that the program is funded entirely out of general tax revenues.
Unlike the situation in many other countries, in Canada a person does not need to have worked to qualify for the OAS benefit. A person who has no previous labour force attachment--for example, a woman who has looked after children her entire life or a person who has a permanent disability and therefore could not enter the workforce--is still able to receive a pension with no penalty.
Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-362, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (residency requirement), introduced by my colleague from Brampton West. The intent of the bill is to amend the act to reduce from 10 years to 3 years the residency requirement for entitlement to a monthly pension.
As my riding of Beaches—East York is extremely diverse, with a large immigrant population and a high number of seniors, the bill would have a very positive impact on my community.
The current system intends to be universal but it actually discriminates against many older immigrants who have come to our country to seek a better life. The discrimination currently in the Old Age Security Act leaves many senior immigrants living in an impoverished situation from which they cannot get out.
We on the Liberal side of the House believe in helping those living in our country who are disadvantaged, which is why it was the Liberal governments that established: the OAS Act which created the old age security pension in 1952; the Canada pension plan and the QPP in 1966; the guaranteed income supplement for low income seniors in 1967; a publicly funded national health care program in 1968; and, restructured the Canada pension plan to ensure its sustainability in 1998.
In 2005, the guaranteed income supplement for low income seniors was increased by $2.7 billion over two years. This was the first non-cost of living increase since 1984. Bill C-362 would be the next Liberal achievement in supporting seniors.
The current system excludes many seniors from the benefit of OAS, especially new Canadians. Because of the 10 year residency requirement, it is not at all uncommon for Canadian seniors to go without the benefits of OAS for many years. This bill would achieve equality among seniors. Ten years is too harsh and can cause undue hardship to the most vulnerable seniors. Reducing this requirement to three years to keep in line with the citizenship requirements is a necessary change.
Seniors can meet the citizenship requirement, thereby becoming Canadian citizens, but because they have not lived in Canada for 10 years they do not qualify for the OAS. Therefore, this creates two categories of Canadian citizens: ones that get old age security and ones that do not. I believe this to be unacceptable.
Several groups have come out in support of Bill C-362. They include: Seniors Network BC; the Seniors Summit, which in its Vancouver declaration stated, “Change the rule that immigrants are not eligible for pensions for 10 years”; the Women Elders in Action is a group of women who have been active on this; Vancouver's city council has made its position very clear; the Alternative Planning Group/Immigrant Seniors Advocacy Network forum in Toronto on May 6, 2006 representing the African Canadian Social Development Council, the Chinese Canadian National Council, the Hispanic Development Council and the Council of Agencies serving South Asians called on the government to be more flexible and accommodating and treat senior immigrants equally by eliminating the 10 year residency requirement through an amendment to the Old Age Security Act; and, finally, the Immigrant Seniors Advocacy Network has also made representation.
All of those organizations work very closely with immigrant populations and they see, on a day to day basis, the hardships that this particular rule imposes on people. These organizations are credible and they have people who work at the grassroots on a regular basis. They have done many studies and are at the forefront of our social services programs.
Those organizations are telling us that what they see happening is not only unfair but undemocratic. This is one of the many reasons that I support this bill. Having worked as a volunteer in immigrant settlement programs myself for many years, I know of the difficulties that some of these seniors face and the need to rectify it.
According to Statistics Canada, there are 4.3 million people over the age of 65 living in Canada. The total number of seniors receiving old age security and the guaranteed income supplement is stated at 4.078 million people, according to Social Development Canada. This means that there are over 206,000 seniors living in Canada who are not receiving old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. This is no small number.
With little or no support other than their families, many of these seniors are living in poverty. It is time for us to do something about it. Many of these seniors do not meet the 10 year residency requirement even though such benefits are given to seniors through social agreements with countries within one year of their residency in Canada. We have a lot of reciprocal agreements with many countries around the world in terms of pensions that go to those countries from Canada and pensions that come from those countries to Canada. However, there are many countries with which we do not have those agreements, some of them because they do have not much of a pension structure for their own citizens.
I believe that when these seniors get here and become Canadian citizens they should not be penalized. They should not be unable to receive a pension of any kind and thereby be condemned to live in poverty for many years. Many of these seniors are deprived of the basic necessities of life due to the residency requirement, as we have said before.
The former Liberal government expressed its unequivocal support and commitment to resolve this very important issue. It is important that we address the issue of poverty among Canada's seniors and immigrant seniors. After one becomes a Canadian citizen, there should be no residency requirements to stop one from receiving the old age security.
The current policy discriminates between two citizens, with one getting the whole array of old age security benefits and the other not getting them. When an immigrant comes to Canada and has to wait three years to get his or her Canadian citizenship, he or she should not have to wait another six or seven years to meet the requirements for old age security benefits. It is discriminatory. That is why I thank my colleague from Brampton West for introducing Bill C-362, which I of course support.
In my own riding, I have had many meetings with constituents who are facing this kind of problem. Almost all of them will express that while they and their families want to and will continue to look after each other and support one another, and the children obviously will continue to support their loved ones, there is the reality of the situation, in that sometimes families lose jobs.
As well, many immigrants are working two or three jobs just to make ends meet. When their elderly parents are not able to receive assistance after they become citizens, it makes the burden on the family that much greater. Their requests to me have been for us to assist in this area. I am very pleased that my colleague has presented this bill, because I think it would in fact resolve a great many of those problems. These people would be very happy to hear that we are working on trying to address some of these issues.
I understand that there are some people who say that this is too short a period and that the seniors who possibly would receive these pensions would not have made any major contribution to Canada's economy. We must remember, however, the children who are here with them. Many of these citizens actually work part time, because that is the only way for them to make a living, and they will continue to do so. Also, their children, grandchildren and others are making major contributions to our society.
This is really an investment in a healthy family, because parents and grandparents stabilize immigrant families. They assist in many ways, in keeping peace in the family, in helping the parents in terms of looking after the children, and in providing a generational continuity within that community.
It is very important that these seniors continue to come to Canada, join their families and become part of their families so that these families do have that generational stability and the grandchildren have the ability to spend time with their grandparents. Family reunification is fundamentally important. I believe in it very much. I support this bill because it does the right thing.
Raymond Gravel Bloc Repentigny, QC
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying earlier when I was asking the hon. Liberal member a question, I was surprised by this bill presented by the Liberals, but, at the same time, I am pleased it was presented and I do not understand why the Conservative Party is refusing to support this bill. This is a matter of justice for seniors. When it comes to matters involving seniors I think we ought to be particularly attentive because they often experience injustice in our society.
Nonetheless, the bill does not change matters much. The bill simply reduces from ten years to three years the residency requirement for entitlement to a partial monthly old age security pension. That is not much.
The current ten-year residency requirement places undue hardship on recent immigrants who are seniors in that they are unable to adequately access old age security benefits. The bill on old age security would simply change a few sections of the act. The proposed changes would amend the sections that refer to ten years and replace ten years with three years. That is not asking much, so I wonder how anyone could be against it.
The definition of “specially qualified individual”, which indicates the number of years of residency required to be entitled to benefits, would be changed and ten years replaced with three years.
It seems obvious to the Bloc Québécois that Bill C-362 would facilitate access to the old age security program for new immigrants who are seniors. The quality of life for seniors often depends on the care they can receive. This quality of life also depends on their income. New arrivals are also entitled to dignity. The Conservative Party does not seem to realize that.
As well, it is clear that Bill C-362 introduces certain measures to amend the Old Age Security Act that do not affect Quebec's jurisdiction. That is why the Bloc Québécois supports this bill in principle.
Allow me to put this into context. In the past few years, the Bloc Québécois has noticed that seniors are among those in our society most affected by the federal government's cuts to transfer payments. The quality of life of seniors often depends on the care they can receive and this quality of life also depends on their income.
That is why the Bloc Québécois has always harshly criticized the irregularities in the guaranteed income supplement program, which guarantees low-income seniors additional income.
Bill C-36, which received royal assent on May 7, 2007, hopefully resolved some of the accessibility problems in the system, but it did not resolve the issue of giving beneficiaries the full retroactive amount. This what the Bloc Québécois was calling for, but it was not included in the bill.
Bill C-362 would extend the accessibility of the old age security program to recent immigrants who are seniors, by decreasing the Canadian residency requirement from 10 years to three years.
I would also like to briefly remind the House how Bill C-36 amended the Old Age Security Act. Bill C-36 received royal assent on May 7, 2007. It amended the Canada pension plan and the Old Age Security Act. The amendments include ongoing renewal and clarity of legislation, simplifying the reporting of income for couples and seniors, and consistent benefit entitlements.
There was also a proposal for common amendments to both the Canada pension plan and old age security. These provisions had to do with electronic services, the collection of interest charges and the sharing of information. However, a contentious issue concerning accessibility remained for Canadians and the Bloc Québécois opposed increasing the restrictions on new citizens who have immigrated to Canada.
The Bloc Québécois believes there cannot be different classes of Canadian citizens—which the hon. Liberal member recognized earlier—no matter what their background. The Bloc Québécois believes that being a Canadian citizen should be enough to access the guaranteed income supplement. Some clauses of the legislation posed a problem by creating different classes of Canadian citizens, for instance, a person in respect of whom an undertaking by a sponsor is in effect as provided under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act—the sponsor system. Those clauses excluded new Canadian citizens who were still being sponsored.
The Bloc Québécois asked the committee to amend the bill so as not to restrict new citizens' access to old age security benefits because of the sponsor's obligations under the Immigration Act. The Bloc Québécois believes that once a person becomes a Canadian citizen, the sponsor's obligation should automatically end.
The sponsor's obligations generally begin as soon as the sponsored person obtains permanent resident status, and they end at the end of the sponsorship period. In some cases, that can be a long time—as long as 10 years. That has to change. According to the act, the obligation cannot end prematurely, even if the sponsored individual becomes a Canadian citizen. Moreover, neither separation, nor divorce, nor moving to another province ends the obligation. The obligation stands even if the sponsor's financial situation becomes difficult.
As I mentioned earlier, it is important to note that the Liberal Party voted against the Bloc Québécois' proposal last February. Now we are discussing an issue very similar to the ones debated in the context of Bill C-36, which just received royal assent. Bill C-362 does not address sponsorship of newcomers, but it does address other categories of newcomers who are not sponsored.
The changes Bill C-362 proposes are minimal. The main change is to reduce the residency requirement for entitlement to a monthly partial old age security pension from 10 to three years. The number 10 is simply replaced by the number 3. The bill amends other sections of the act simply to bring them in line with the definition of a “specially qualified individual” so that the act can apply.
Who is affected by this bill? There are various categories of newcomers and potential immigrants to Canada. Unfortunately, as I just mentioned, sponsored immigrants, permanent residents and new citizens who are still being sponsored are not affected by the amendments made by this bill. They would have access to old age security after three years for spouses or 10 years for other individuals, as is currently the case after sponsorship.
Newcomers who are affected by the bill include skilled workers, businesspeople—the three categories are investors, entrepreneurs and self-employed workers—asylum seekers and refugees. I believe that Canada accepts 25,000 refugees each year.
Because of globalization and the fact that we live in a global environment, the Bloc Québécois thinks that Canada must be flexible about citizenship and the services offered to newcomers. Given the increase in exchanges between countries, there should be mechanisms in place to allow for greater human mobility, as well as measures already in place to help the disadvantaged.
The position of the Bloc Québécois is the following. We are aware that Bill C-362 will facilitate access to the old age security program for recent immigrants who are seniors. Since the quality of life of seniors often depends on the care they can receive—as I said earlier—this quality of life is dictated by their income. Newcomers also have a right to dignity. Moreover, we believe that Bill C-362 introduces certain measures amending the Old Age Security Act that do not infringe on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.
In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the principle of this bill. However, I would like to point out that a great deal of work remains to be done. It is deplorable that, for all these years, the Liberal and Conservative governments neglected, muzzled and ignored seniors, the most vulnerable individuals of our society. First, the Liberals ignored this group of disadvantaged individuals and preferred to allow the flight of capital to tax havens, the reduction of debt and cuts to Quebec and the provinces. Next, the Conservatives favoured tax reductions rather than providing immediate support to the workers who helped build today's society.
Fortunately, the Bloc Québécois was there to ensure that our most vulnerable seniors would have a voice in government. Thanks to many interventions in the House, committees and the media, the Bloc Québécois was able to keep in the forefront a group of individuals who were not a government priority. Seniors are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement, but without full retroactivity because of various notable government mistakes. We will continue to fight against the federal government in order to—
Lynne Yelich ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-362, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (residency requirement). I want to thank my hon. colleagues for their contributions on this important issue.
The bill proposes to lower the residency requirement from the current 10 years to three years. For several reasons this proposal is unacceptable for the government and I will outline the reasons.
I want to start my discussion of old age security by stating that Canada's public pension system is widely recognized as one of the best systems in the world and is often duplicated by countries wishing to set up public pension programs of their own.
The old age security, OAS, portion of our pension plan is an integral component of the system. It is of the utmost importance that we show prudence and forethought when proposing sweeping changes the likes of which this bill proposes.
The Government of Canada has a fully functioning public pension system. One part of it pays benefits to Canadians who have paid into the program like the Canada pension plan. Other parts, like the OAS, are not contributory and therefore they are offered to all seniors in this country, as long as they have a minimum 10 years of residency in the country. This does not seem unreasonable.
In fact it is the responsibility of the government and of all Canadians to ensure that the people who built this country are taken care of in their old age. It is for this reason that the length of residence in Canada has been the program's central eligibility criterion since its inception in 1952.
The OAS is not income based or contributory, or based on one's nationality or country of birth; it is simply residency based. This requirement is intended to establish a person's attachment and his or her contribution to Canadian society, the economy and his or her community over his or her lifetime. It is reasonable to expect that a person live in Canada for a minimum period of time before being granted the right to a lifelong public benefit.
Many other countries have functioning public pension systems as well, and the Government of Canada has endeavoured to sign agreements with these other countries. We have done this so that new Canadians from other countries with similar public pension systems have the ability to use time spent in their country of origin and the contributions they have made in their communities to help meet the minimum residency requirement for Canada's old age security program.
The proposals put forward in this bill would require years of renegotiation with some 50 countries, the same as they took years to sign in the first place. Did the member for Brampton West consider this in the drafting of her bill, or was this just an afterthought? Unfortunately the opposition members have continued their trend of proposing changes to programs without fully understanding what the ramifications of these changes would be.
What is most shocking is that this bill has been proposed by a Liberal, a former parliamentary secretary. She should know that not only would the bill cost billions of dollars and put the long term viability of the old age security program in peril, but that it would take years of negotiation with more than 50 foreign governments with whom we have signed agreements.
There are only two options here: the member did not know this, which means she did not do her research and the bill does not deserve to pass on that alone; or she knew and did not care, which means she has put forward this bill for political purposes to score cheap political points.
I note with interest the comments made by the hon. member for Brampton—Springdale when she suggested in the House that the proposals contained in Bill C-362 were required to offer support to new Canadians.
I just want to reiterate the comments made earlier by the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington whom I believe made a very valuable point. It is Canada's new government that put forward the largest increase in settlement funding for new Canadians in the past decade. It was not the Liberals. It was the Prime Minister and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who created the foreign credentials referral office. The Liberals did not do it. In all of their 13 years of majority rule, the Liberals did not do it despite their talk.
I also notice that this particular bill was not proposed when the Liberals were in power. Canadians, and especially new Canadians, know who is getting the job done for immigrant communities, and it is the Prime Minister, not the previous Liberal government.
Canada's new government has looked to support seniors with several initiatives aimed at helping older Canadians, specifically older Canadians who are surviving on small incomes. These were implemented in a responsible manner after careful study of all relevant facts.
These changes include the commitment of $19.5 million for the new horizons for seniors program. We are providing tax relief by allowing pension income splitting for pensioners, providing tax relief by increasing the age credit by $1,000, and increasing the guaranteed income supplement maximum benefit. This initiative alone benefits more than 50,000 seniors. Budget 2007 raised the age for maturing RRSPs and pension plans to 71 from 69.
Bill C-36 is an act which makes several reforms to improve access to old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. It expands the compassionate care benefit, making more Canadians eligible to take care of loved ones in their hour of need.
The record of the Conservative government speaks for itself. We have acted to protect the pension program for seniors. We have a lengthy list of accomplishments on this file and we will not abandon our prudence for political gain. Furthermore, we have a record that is unparalleled when it comes to support for new Canadians.
The Liberal record tells another story. The Liberals have proposed a bill here today that would not only put the long term viability of the old age security program into peril but would also require years of renegotiation with more than 50 foreign governments.
The opposition has not done its homework and that is simply unacceptable. The government must and will act responsibly when it comes to protecting the seniors pension programs and the responsible thing to do is oppose the bill.
Raymond Gravel Bloc Repentigny, QC
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by the member who introduced Bill C-362. I think it is a good bill, but it seems to me that there is something contradictory about what the member said.
She said that she does not want to see two classes of Canadian citizens: first-class Canadians and second-class Canadians. However, because I have not been a member for long, I remember being there when the social affairs committee considered Bill C-36, which was also about seniors. At the time, the Bloc Québécois proposed an amendment because the clauses excluded new Canadians who were being sponsored.
The Bloc Québécois asked the committee to amend the bill so as not to restrict new citizens' access to old age security because of the sponsor's obligations under the Immigration Act.
I know that the Liberals voted against that amendment. Now that the member is introducing a bill that looks a lot like what the Bloc Québécois proposed for Bill C-36, can she tell me why they voted against the amendment?
Colleen Beaumier Liberal Brampton West, ON
moved that Bill C-362, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (residency requirement), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, with me it is either feast or famine and today is a feast.
Today, I rise to speak in support of Bill C-362, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (residency requirement). Introduced in the House on October 25, 2006, the intent of Bill C-362 is straightforward. It amends the Old Age Security Act to reduce from 10 years to 3 years the residency requirement for entitlement to old age security.
Nevertheless how straightforward the bill may be, it addresses and remedies a great injustice in Canada's social security system, an injustice which is presently causing great harm to seniors across Canada and to the families and communities to which they belong.
The bill deserves the support of each and every member of the House. It is my sincere hope we will set aside all partisan concerns and work together to improve the well-being of a great many seniors, their families and communities across all of Canada.
I want to begin today by identifying and clarifying the great injustice Bill C-362 is meant to address. Following that I will identify and discuss why I believe the bill warrants the support of every member of the House.
Presently the Old Age Security Act requires a person to reside in Canada for 10 years before she or he is entitled to receive old age security. Although the old age security program is intended to be universal and to act as the cornerstone of Canada's retirement income system for all Canadians, this residency requirement effectively excludes many seniors from its benefits.
Indeed, because of the 10 year residency requirement, it is not at all uncommon for a Canadian senior citizen to go entirely without the benefits of old age security for many years. Practically speaking, the residency requirement creates two different classes of senior citizens, those who qualify for old age security at 65 and those who do not simply because they have not yet lived in Canada for 10 years.
As a result, the residency requirement also creates two different classes of families and communities within Canada. There are those families and communities whose seniors receive the benefits and peace of mind of old age security at age 65 and those families and communities that do not because of the residency requirement.
In other words, the residency requirement also creates a distinct class of families and communities, those who are required to take on a burden of responsibility that other families in Canada are not expected to bear. The net result is the 10 year residency requirement for old age security treats a whole group of Canadians as second class citizens. This, I am sure we can all agree, is unacceptable.
It should also be noted that the 10 year residency requirement also adds insult to injury by targeting, inadvertently I think, some of the most economically vulnerable seniors in Canada.
As some member of the House well know, in some cases seniors can circumvent the 10 year residency requirement and qualify for old age security if they emigrated from countries that have signed reciprocal social security agreements with the Government of Canada. These agreements allow for the coordination of the two countries' social security programs, make the benefits portable between the two countries and normally exist because both countries provide social security plans with similar benefits.
As a result, in many cases, the very reason no reciprocal agreement exists between Canada and a particular country is simply because the other country is unwilling or unable to provide comparable social security for its citizens, including its seniors. This means those persons who may need old age security the most, because they emigrated from countries with little or no social security, must go without here in Canada even after they have become Canadian citizens. This I am also sure we can all agree is unacceptable.
To summarize, the injustice that Bill C-362 is intended to address is the brute fact that the 10 year residency requirement for old age security not only treats a great many Canadians as second class citizens, but it also denies benefits to some of those seniors most in need of assistance.
If we also recall that poverty is epidemic among our seniors, especially among women and new Canadians, there is only one sensible and decent conclusion to be drawn. The 10 year residency requirement is unjust, unacceptable and must be changed. That is exactly what Bill C-362 aims to do.
While I am friendly to the view that the residency requirement could be eliminated entirely, it is my feeling that a three year residency requirement is appropriate, meaningful and not at all arbitrary. Although none of us in the House can ever be sure of the original intentions of those legislators who proposed and accepted a 10 year residency requirement, it is easy to speculate that this requirement was intended to ensure old age security would only benefit those immigrants who were truly committed to remaining in Canada.
While I certainly agree that the decision to leave one's country of birth in itself is a good sign of one's desire and commitment to reside in Canada permanently, the three year residency requirement provides a sufficient safeguard against any potential abuse.
Moreover, to demand a residency requirement any longer than three years is unreasonable. After three years of residence, an immigrant is entitled to become a full citizen of Canada. If three years' residency is sufficient for citizenship, it is certainly sufficient to entitle that person to old age security.
Having identified the injustice that Bill C-362 is intended to address, and having justified why I think a three year residency requirement is appropriate, I want to conclude my remarks today by explaining why I think the bill deserves the support of each and every member of the House.
Ultimately, I believe Bill C-362 deserves the support of every member of the House as a simple matter of decency. However people may choose to make sense of the notion of decency, whether they prefer to talk of a principle of fairness, or equality of opportunity, or the equal dignity of all persons, the underlying sentiment remains the same. A person should not be made worse off than others arbitrarily and without just cause.
Unquestionably, the 10 year residency requirement arbitrarily prevents a great many seniors from receiving old age security benefits and this creates undue and unjust hardship for a great many seniors, their families and their communities. As far as I can tell, there is no good reason which justifies the imposition of this harm on so many Canadians.
The only truly decent thing to do is to reduce this residency requirement to three years, as my bill proposes.
Bill C-362 also deserves the support of every member of the House because, in supporting it, we can each acknowledge an honour the immeasurable contribution made each and every day by seniors across Canada, to our families, our communities and our country.
Seniors, thanks to their lifetime of experience, are able to provide support and guidance to all of us. Not only do seniors help us to remember and to understand our history, our values and our identity, they very often help alleviate the real pressures of raising a family in today's fast paced society.
There is, for example, no better child care than that provided by a loving grandparent. However, seniors will not be in any position to offer us guidance, wisdom and support if they are themselves trapped in abject poverty. By securing the economic security of all seniors, ultimately we do a service to all Canadians.
Bill C-362 also deserves the support of every member of the House because, in supporting it, we formally recognize that all Canadian seniors deserve to live their entire lives with a sense of dignity and self-respect. No person and certainly no member of the House would ever want to face a choice between abject poverty and a life of absolute dependence on family and friends.
By guaranteeing a certain basic level of support for all Canadian seniors, we guarantee a lifetime of dignity and self-respect for all Canadians. After all, all of us will one day ourselves be seniors, some sooner than others.
Finally, Bill C-362 deserves the support of every member of this House because I believe that Canadians all across the country want us to address the very real injustice faced by so many seniors, their families and their communities.
On the whole, Canadians are decent people without exception. Whenever possible we strive to do the right thing and to right wrongs whenever we encounter them. I think to even the most casual observer the injustice of an arbitrary 10-year residency requirement is a wrong that needs to be corrected. Indeed, since tabling this bill I have received a great many letters of support from persons and organizations all across Canada.
In closing, I want to remind the members of this House that Canada has been, remains and always will be a country of immigrants. Even today, Canada has one of the highest per capita rates of immigration in the world, with roughly 17% of our population foreign born and another 30% descended from earlier generations of non-British or non-French immigrants.
It also should not be forgotten that the British and the French at one time were themselves immigrants. Moreover, research indicates that within the next 20 years, immigration will account for all our net population and labour force growth in Canada. In my view and the view of a great many Canadians, every single one of our recent immigrants and future citizens deserves a social security net which is truly universal and which encompasses a person's entire life.
While it is certainly tempting to say that we need to provide this kind of social security as a necessary exercise in marketing, that is, we need to do it if Canada wants to attract and retain the best and the brightest immigrants, I think there is a deeper and much more meaningful motivation. We owe it to all Canadians as a matter of decency, the kind of heart-felt decency which motivates and unites every person in this great and caring country of ours.
Ruby Dhalla Liberal Brampton—Springdale, ON
Mr. Speaker, the hard work, vision and commitment of our seniors has formed the foundation of our country and has contributed to our social fabric. The time has come for us to right a wrong that impacts thousands of seniors from immigrant groups.
Seniors who come to Canada from certain countries are eligible to receive old age security after three years, while seniors from other countries have to wait for a 10 year period, despite the fact that these benefits are not related to contributions. The Old Age Benefits Forum, the Chinese Canadian National Council, and many other senior groups have advocated in the interest of fairness and equality. Seniors belonging to different communities and nationalities, irrespective of their country of origin, must be given fairness and equality in terms of their treatment.
In 2005, the hon. Senator Terry Stratton, the then deputy leader of the opposition stated, “discrimination still exists”. We as parliamentarians must put an end to this inequality and support Bill C-362, which will amend the Old Age Security Act to reduce the residency requirement from 10 years to 3 years.
The Speaker Peter Milliken
The Chair would like to take a moment to provide some information to the House regarding the management of private member's business.
The Chair has developed the practice of reviewing bills after the replenishment of the order of precedence so the House can be alerted to bills which, at first glance, appear to involve spending and interested members can be invited to intervene in a timely fashion to present their views about the need for a royal recommendation.
In keeping with that practice, following the April 19 replenishment of the Order of Precedence with 15 new items, I can inform the House that two bills give the Chair concern as to the spending provisions they contemplate. They are: Bill C-357, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Account and premium rate setting) and another Act in consequence, standing in the name of the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
The other is Bill C-362, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (residency requirement), standing in the name of the member for Brampton West.
I would encourage hon. members who would like to present arguments regarding the need for a royal recommendation for these bills, or any of the other bills now standing in the order of precedence, to do so at an early opportunity.
Colleen Beaumier Liberal Brampton West, ON
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-362, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (residency requirement).
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce Bill C-362, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (residency requirement). This enactment would amend the Old Age Security Act to reduce the current 10 year residency requirement for seniors to a period of three years for them to be entitled to a monthly pension. This bill would ensure that seniors who come to Canada under our family reunification policies, regardless of their country of origin, would be treated as equals.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)