The only thing I would add to that is that the financial obligation of the sponsor is in play. If the financial obligation of the sponsor is in play, and a person only through social security agreements would be entitled to a prorated income-tested benefit--I'm preaching to the converted I think on this one--it does afford that difference in treatment. The only thing I would say is that opening it up does lead to the potential that you would have a sponsored immigrant who, granted they would be a Canadian citizen.... But let's just talk about sponsored immigrants. You could have a situation where you'd have prorated income-tested benefits, you'd have the financial obligation of the sponsor, and then in turn they would be receiving foreign pension benefits from another country. It's a parity issue as well.
On February 27th, 2007. See this statement in context.