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.