Some Background Info on OAS and GIS....
The Old Age Security Act (OAS) (http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/isp/oas/oastoc.shtml) was put into place in 1952. This Act gives people over 65 years old a monthly income based on how many years they have lived in Canada since they turned 18 years old. It is not based on current income or past employment, but strictly based how the amount of years lived in Canada. This benefit is divided up into 40 “pieces of pie”. Those who have lived in Canada for 40 years or more after turning 18 get the full amount ($516.96)- all 40 pieces. Each year less than 40 represents the amount of pie they will receive per month. For example, if a senior has lived in Canada for 20 years after their 18th birthday, they will get half of the maximum monthly allowance ($258.48). This works all the way down to ten years in Canada after their 18th birthday, thus qualifying for a quarter of the maximum monthly benefit ($129.24). There is a minimum of ten years of residence in Canada in order to qualify for OAS.
The Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) (http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/isp/pub/oas/gismain.shtml) is a monthly benefit paid to those who qualify for any amount of OAS. GIS is reserved for seniors with little or no other sources of income. The amount of GIS is assessed based on the monthly income. If they have no income, they get the full amount ($652.51). Recipients must re-apply each year for GIS, and it is not subject to taxation.
Great- So What’s the problem...
Recently, Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP7EvXYZXBg) has introduced a controversial private bill to amend OAS. Bill C-428 would lower residence requirements from a minimum of 10 years of living in Canada after your 18th birthday to a minimum of 3 years in order to qualify for OAS. This would mean that many recent immigrants would qualify for the benefit after living in Canada for only 3 years.
This has caused a lot of debate in both parliament and amongst Canadians in general (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2009/10/12/11376821-sun.html). Many people feel like they have lived in Canada for enough time and have earned their OAS, whereas newcomers can just walk in, and poof! after 3 years of sitting in their rocking chairs and not even necessarily working, they can qualify for a monthly government allowance they haven’t yet earned (http://www.nowpublic.com/world/what-liberal-party-have-store-canada-old-age-security). People are afraid immigrants will take advantage of our Canadian welfare system and move here specifically for the benefits. Some others are concerned that Bill C-428 will be too costly, potentially costing the Canadian Government up to $700 million.
Come on Canada!!! Is this what we’re really about? These newcomers can access our health care programs, disability programs, and housing programs which are the foundation of the Canadian welfare system and Canadian values and beliefs! Yet, they’re not able to access their portion of the OAS pie, which, by the way, after 3 years of living in Canada, would only be $38.77., hardly a huge expense. What people are really concerned about are these immigrants qualifying for GIS. We would like to remind you that people must be in a low income bracket in order to qualify, and GIS is allotted based on how much money they have or earn per year. In other words, they will get it if they need it, and only if they need it. Dhalla notes that immigrant seniors are more likely to fall into poverty than those born in Canada. Furthermore, OAS and GIS isn’t like the Canada Pension Plan, which people pay into in order to qualify for. It is a universal program for all of those who are over 65 and have lived in Canada (despite income based claw backs, which we aren’t going to get into).
The bigger question that comes up out of all of this is- aren’t we going to have to support our recent immigrants once they’ve entered into Canada one way or another? We can either give the assistance they need in the form of OAS and GIS before they get to the point where they’re accessing other, more cost draining systems, such as welfare programs, government housing programs, health care programs etc. or we can give them this minimum payment of OAS ($38.77/ month), and based on their income, give them access to GIS when needed, in order to prevent extreme poverty amongst our new elders. Maybe all of those who have a problem with this Bill should take it out on the immigration system and give MP Ruby Dhalla a break.
Final thoughts...
We often sit and muddle over what the future will bring for us. What kind of jobs are we going to get, where we’re going to live, and what we want out of life. But after reviewing this policy, instead of dreaming about what great things our future might bring, we’re starting to stress out about (not only exams and essays, but also..) private pensions through our work we haven’t even started yet, guarantees of a full time job once graduated, with benefits and extra perks upon retirement. Or we wonder if we should just start putting out money into an RSP now, even before our student debt is paid off???
The Old Age Security Act (OAS) (http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/isp/oas/oastoc.shtml) was put into place in 1952. This Act gives people over 65 years old a monthly income based on how many years they have lived in Canada since they turned 18 years old. It is not based on current income or past employment, but strictly based how the amount of years lived in Canada. This benefit is divided up into 40 “pieces of pie”. Those who have lived in Canada for 40 years or more after turning 18 get the full amount ($516.96)- all 40 pieces. Each year less than 40 represents the amount of pie they will receive per month. For example, if a senior has lived in Canada for 20 years after their 18th birthday, they will get half of the maximum monthly allowance ($258.48). This works all the way down to ten years in Canada after their 18th birthday, thus qualifying for a quarter of the maximum monthly benefit ($129.24). There is a minimum of ten years of residence in Canada in order to qualify for OAS.
The Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) (http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/isp/pub/oas/gismain.shtml) is a monthly benefit paid to those who qualify for any amount of OAS. GIS is reserved for seniors with little or no other sources of income. The amount of GIS is assessed based on the monthly income. If they have no income, they get the full amount ($652.51). Recipients must re-apply each year for GIS, and it is not subject to taxation.
Great- So What’s the problem...
Recently, Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP7EvXYZXBg) has introduced a controversial private bill to amend OAS. Bill C-428 would lower residence requirements from a minimum of 10 years of living in Canada after your 18th birthday to a minimum of 3 years in order to qualify for OAS. This would mean that many recent immigrants would qualify for the benefit after living in Canada for only 3 years.
This has caused a lot of debate in both parliament and amongst Canadians in general (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2009/10/12/11376821-sun.html). Many people feel like they have lived in Canada for enough time and have earned their OAS, whereas newcomers can just walk in, and poof! after 3 years of sitting in their rocking chairs and not even necessarily working, they can qualify for a monthly government allowance they haven’t yet earned (http://www.nowpublic.com/world/what-liberal-party-have-store-canada-old-age-security). People are afraid immigrants will take advantage of our Canadian welfare system and move here specifically for the benefits. Some others are concerned that Bill C-428 will be too costly, potentially costing the Canadian Government up to $700 million.
Come on Canada!!! Is this what we’re really about? These newcomers can access our health care programs, disability programs, and housing programs which are the foundation of the Canadian welfare system and Canadian values and beliefs! Yet, they’re not able to access their portion of the OAS pie, which, by the way, after 3 years of living in Canada, would only be $38.77., hardly a huge expense. What people are really concerned about are these immigrants qualifying for GIS. We would like to remind you that people must be in a low income bracket in order to qualify, and GIS is allotted based on how much money they have or earn per year. In other words, they will get it if they need it, and only if they need it. Dhalla notes that immigrant seniors are more likely to fall into poverty than those born in Canada. Furthermore, OAS and GIS isn’t like the Canada Pension Plan, which people pay into in order to qualify for. It is a universal program for all of those who are over 65 and have lived in Canada (despite income based claw backs, which we aren’t going to get into).
The bigger question that comes up out of all of this is- aren’t we going to have to support our recent immigrants once they’ve entered into Canada one way or another? We can either give the assistance they need in the form of OAS and GIS before they get to the point where they’re accessing other, more cost draining systems, such as welfare programs, government housing programs, health care programs etc. or we can give them this minimum payment of OAS ($38.77/ month), and based on their income, give them access to GIS when needed, in order to prevent extreme poverty amongst our new elders. Maybe all of those who have a problem with this Bill should take it out on the immigration system and give MP Ruby Dhalla a break.
Final thoughts...
We often sit and muddle over what the future will bring for us. What kind of jobs are we going to get, where we’re going to live, and what we want out of life. But after reviewing this policy, instead of dreaming about what great things our future might bring, we’re starting to stress out about (not only exams and essays, but also..) private pensions through our work we haven’t even started yet, guarantees of a full time job once graduated, with benefits and extra perks upon retirement. Or we wonder if we should just start putting out money into an RSP now, even before our student debt is paid off???
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis crap pisses me off. All you hear is how Canada's economy is down the crapper and what does this moron decide to propose? A new bill that will do nothing but deplete the finances of this country faster than we can keep up. IMO this liberal monkey is in desperate need of being removed from office. I say let's give the money to people who have proven that they are in this country to stay rather than just moving in and dicking around for 3 years and then deciding to let the government take care of them for the rest of their lives.
ReplyDeleteToo quick of a shift can tip the boat.
ReplyDeleteWe should be looking at moving slowly to lower the residency requirement. It might be wise to consider lowering the 10 years to 7 and doing an evaluation of service improvement. Moving from 10 to 3 seems much too drastic. Instead moving in increments would allow us to better evaluate the changes made & justify further lowering or not. Let the facts around the change guide us in further change.
In the end though, my intuition says that this is probally a good change that will help people.
However, the question is how to pay for it, as well as what priority it should be given over other services that support the aging population.
The presenting problem is that we have a top heaving aging population and not enough tax payers to continue supporting that aging population. We are faced with a grave decision that will direct our county's national future and the choices are limited:
1. Have children at replacement rate (2.1 vs our current 1.7)
2. Radically Open immigration policies
3. Combination of the two above (realistically, this is what is needed)
NON ETHICAL solution we should be aware of, there is growing pressure to observe scarcity of resources law and look at rationing end of life care & resources and providing for those that have more utility (as defined by society) We should at all costs avoid this argument.
I think the proposed bill is moving in the right direction (away from the scarcity & utility perspective of humanity)but we should be careful that the added financial costs will motivate the penny pinchers to lobby harder for a division of service based on utility.
natedogg.
I wish this bill was taken more seriously. I think too much attention is on Ruby Dhalla and her former legal issues than the bill itself. This bill can really help a lot of immigrants that are in or are facing extreme poverty.
ReplyDeleteI am really impressed that the green party is in support of this bill, seeing as all the other parties don't even want to humor it. This is a quote from the green party website that sums up what my opinion is:
"We are very concerned about the poverty rate among seniors, "said Human Rights critic Joe Foster. "The requirement for a three year residency period, the same amount required for Canadian citizenship, is reasonable and ensures that claimants are legitimately relocated to Canada, generally as part of family reunification."
Aimee