Yes, I will.
Thank you very much. This gives us an opportunity to study more about why the old age security is set up as such, because I too was wondering. I have brought immigrants into the country, older people, and they had to wait 10 years. They've actually just succeeded in getting their first income this year from their social security program, so it was indeed welcomed.
However, I wondered as well...and I found out through studying this bill why it was done. I can now understand a little better that it appears the residency is not discriminatory against any country or nationality or origin. In some of the conversation, it almost sounds as though we're under the impression that it is. It certainly has nothing to do with any country of origin. What it has to do with is 10 years of residency. From what I understand, you can be born in Canada....
I actually just spoke with a student who said that if he had been born in Canada.... It's 10 years of residency after 18. So if he was born in Canada and then he went to work somewhere else and came back, he would still have to have 10 years of residency in order to apply for old age security when he got older. So even if you're born in Canada, you have to meet the residency requirement in order to receive old age security.
I would like to dispel any thinking that it has to do with.... Ms. Dhalla brought up the three-year and 10-year, but it's because we have agreements with other countries.
Am I correct in thinking that this would mean renegotiating a lot of agreements with other countries if we changed this? This bill is much broader than just old age security. It means renegotiating agreements with other countries. Have you even looked into what even the cost of that would be? There are a lot of countries with which we have negotiated these agreements. Have you looked into that? And can you provide this committee with the background or what you have found out about the international social security agreements?