Human Resources Committee on Feb. 27th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Ms. Yelich.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

I would like Ms. Israel to explain that again. I didn't understand that you were taking away.

[Marla Israel]

Just to clarify, the existing provision would be something going forward. Anyone who was previously entitled—in other words, if somebody became a Canadian citizen during the length of their sponsorship and was put into pay, for example—and did receive benefits for this period of time, like prorated GIS benefits, that situation would remain as is. It would remain the status quo. In other words, that would be grandfathered. Going forward, we would then put the limitation in.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Ms. Charlton.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

What that means is that after whatever point this legislation takes effect, anybody who becomes a Canadian citizen during their sponsorship agreement will be the only Canadian citizens who aren't entitled to these benefits.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Ms. Israel, you have a comment.

[Marla Israel]

Citizenship has absolutely no bearing on the provision of benefits under the Old Age Security Act specifically. Here we're dealing with provisions, so I'm going to give you an example.

Let's say someone who is a Canadian citizen happens to move to China. We don't have a social security agreement with China, so that individual would not be entitled to receive prorated GIS benefits. If that person moves back to Canada, they need ten years of residency to open up the right.

This provision is for those people who benefit. By having a social security agreement with another country, it opens up the right for non-sponsored immigrants from those countries to receive income-tested benefits but for sponsored immigrants to not receive them. It's because of the obligation of the sponsor. You could have Canadian citizens, for example, who wouldn't meet the ten-year residency requirement and would therefore not be entitled to GIS benefits.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

But from here on out, the group of people who will be eligible is smaller than the current and grandparented group will be, because the restrictions are being tightened and not broadened. Am I right?

[Marla Israel]

Yes. From this point going forward, for example, if somebody were to become a Canadian citizen, then just like permanent residents, they would not be entitled to receive prorated GIS benefits if they would have been eligible for them under a social security agreement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Ms. Yelich.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

So this comes back to the sponsorship obligations. They still have an obligation to their sponsors.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Silva.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I'm inclined to be sympathetic to Ms. Charlton's motion, but I'm not very clear on the rationale within the department. Maybe Ms. Israel could clarify it. It's very unclear to me why there would be a shrinkage. It seems like we're taking away benefits. Why is that the case?

[Marla Israel]

I don't think there's an intent to take away benefits as such. What exists right now in the current legislation is that you have different classes of people treated differently. In other words, you could have a situation in which there would be no eligibility for a permanent resident who is a sponsored immigrant. That is the way the legislation exists right now.

Due to a drafting anomaly, what ended up happening was that if you had sponsored immigrants who became Canadian citizens during their sponsorship, which is usually for a length of ten years, it was commensurate with the time that is required to have entitlement for old age security benefits and therefore the guaranteed income supplement. You could have a situation in which the person who became a Canadian citizen during the length of their sponsorship would therefore be entitled to the guaranteed income supplement on a prorated basis. It's a technical amendment, because here you end up having social security agreements and you end up having prorated benefits.

If I could, I would just say that this change, the intent of the legislation to prevent sponsored immigrants from being able to receive GIS benefits on a prorated basis, happened in 1996. It was to avoid those situations in which you would have what's called super-GIS. In other words, you'd have somebody with as little as one year's worth of residency in Canada, but they would then be able to have a top-up of their guaranteed income supplement benefits if they qualified under social security agreements. That was why the legislation was changed in 1996: to prevent persons who were sponsored from becoming eligible for GIS benefits.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Mr. Lake, then Mr. Chong.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I'm going back to some of the testimony and some of the discussion we had over the last couple of meetings. If I remember correctly—and you can correct me if I'm wrong—this was something that came out of what was basically an error that occurred in 1996, when the act was amended in the first place.

I understand where Ms. Charlton's going with the consistency question, but if I understand the act correctly, the basis of consistency in the act is based on length of residency, not citizenship. Is that correct?

[Marla Israel]

That's correct.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

So under this act, with the amendment, all people who have been residents in Canada for less than ten years are treated equally now. We don't differentiate between them.

Ultimately, I don't think we want to go down the road of having two different people who've been in the country for three years, one who's a permanent resident and one who's a citizen, treated differently, such that the citizen gets the benefits and the resident doesn't. That leads to a whole question of motivation of citizenship at that point, in a sense, right? You don't want someone becoming a Canadian citizen simply because they get the benefits of the GIS or whatever the case may be. There are all sorts of great reasons that people become Canadian citizens. I think we want to be consistent, and I think residency is what we're talking about here.

Ms. Charlton looks like she may have....

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'll go to Mr. Chong, and then to Ms. Charlton.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

To start, for the benefit of everyone on the committee, we currently have a situation in which if you've become a Canadian citizen under a sponsorship agreement, you are treated differently than if you're a permanent resident under a sponsorship agreement. That may even be unconstitutional because of the fact that we base our benefits on residency.

All we're trying to do here is ensure—and extend, as a matter of fact—benefits to permanent residents in a way that is consistent with the treatment of Canadian citizens who have become citizens under a sponsorship agreement.

To suggest that we're taking away benefits is not entirely correct. What we're trying to do here is pretty complicated because of the rules involved. As it stands right now, though, two people arrive in Canada under sponsorship agreements as permanent residents. One becomes a Canadian citizen within the duration of that sponsorship agreement. The other still is a permanent resident but has not yet become a Canadian citizen and is still under that sponsorship agreement. Those two people are presently treated differently.

What we are trying to do here is create a legislative framework that will treat both persons the same, regardless of their citizenship, because they've both arrived here and they both intend to make this their home. One just happened to receive citizenship ahead of the other. Right now, as it presently stands under law, they're treated differently. What we're attempting to do here is treat them consistently and the same.

That's the purpose of these amendments. They're not to take away benefits. They're to ensure consistent treatment of both permanent residents and Canadian citizens.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Chong.

Ms. Charlton.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

I appreciate that we have people being treated differently right now, so there are two ways of dealing with that. One is to ratchet everybody down and the other is to lift the other side up.

Since the government isn't in a position right now to treat landed immigrants the same way they currently treat citizens—or isn't willing to—they've decided to take future entitlements for future Canadian citizens and ratchet them down to the same level as those of landed immigrants.

Since it would be out of order for me to suggest that they do the exact opposite and enhance everybody's entitlements, I'm suggesting that, at a minimum, we should return to the status quo ante.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

So that members of the committee understand it, if we do that, we are in essence returning to a status quo in which two people arrive in Canada, both under sponsorship agreements. One receives citizenship a couple of years ahead of the other. One is therefore a citizen and the other is not. They will not be treated equally, and they are not treated equally under the present system.

If you vote against this, you are voting for unequal treatment of those two people. What we are attempting to do here is equalize the treatment so that a person who becomes a Canadian citizen is treated the same way as a person who is a landed immigrant, and vice versa.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

But since, with unanimous consent, this committee can do pretty much whatever it wants, I wonder if our shared interest is to create equity. If so, then the government members would agree to raise the benefit levels for landed immigrants to the same levels that are currently being enjoyed by Canadian citizens. That, too, would achieve equity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay, if there is no more discussion, I think I'll....

I'm sorry. Mr. Silva.