To begin, I'd like to thank the chair and other members of the committee for inviting me to speak today, and for providing me the opportunity to answer questions concerning .
This bill was introduced in the House, by me, on October 25, 2006. Its aim is as simple as it is important. It amends the Old Age Security Act to reduce from ten years to three years the residency requirement for entitlement to old age security. Lowering the residency requirement in this way will remedy a grave oversight in Canada's social security system, which is presently causing great stress to seniors across Canada and to the families and communities to which they belong.
All Canadians believe the elimination of poverty, especially amongst those most vulnerable in society, should be the top concern of the Government of Canada. This bill will go a long way to alleviating the hardship experienced by some of Canada's most vulnerable.
Let me take a moment to explain how it will do this. The federal old age security program came into existence in 1952 as a matter of social justice. It was motivated by a concern for the needs and welfare of Canada's senior citizens. Essentially, at that time Canadians recognized and decided that no Canadian senior should ever live in poverty.
Presently, the Old Age Security Act requires a person to reside in Canada for ten years before she or he is entitled to receive old age security. As a result, it is not at all uncommon for a Canadian senior citizen to go entirely without the benefits of old age security for many years, thus exposing them unnecessarily to the hardships of poverty.
However, I wish to emphasize that this is also about dignity and decency. Unlike the Canadian and Quebec pension plans, which are funded by contributions from each person over his or her working life, the OAS is presently funded from general tax revenues. This means OAS is funded from the taxes of every person living and working in Canada right now, not 10, 15, or 20 years ago. This is regardless of his or her country of birth. This also means that lowering the residency requirement does not affect or pose any sort of threat to the long-term viability of other pension schemes. Furthermore, OAS income is itself subject to tax, so ultimately, only those Canadian seniors most in need receive any OAS benefits.
From the perspective of social justice, a 10-year residency requirement is arbitrary and inappropriately discriminatory. Old age security, I want to emphasize, is not intended to reward seniors for services rendered. Rather, it is intended to ensure Canadian seniors will not live in poverty.
The needs of new Canadians are as genuine as the needs of those who have resided here for 10 years or more. Three years is the minimum residency requirement to become a Canadian citizen. If that's a sufficient residency requirement for citizenship, it's sufficient for old age security.
Of course, doing the right and decent thing costs money, and this bill is no exception. Based on statistical analysis undertaken by the Library of Parliament at my request, it can be estimated that if comes into force for 2009, some 38,700 persons will become eligible for benefits related to old age security. That is, an estimated 32,900 will become eligible for old age security benefits, 28,100 will also qualify for guaranteed income supplement benefits, and an additional 5,800 will qualify for the spousal allowance.
When the changes are made, the total cost will be around $410 million. Of that total, approximately $40 million will be paid out in OAS benefits, $310 million in GIS benefits, and about $60 million in spousal allowances. It is estimated that the total cost per year will rise about $15 million thereafter. I should note also that the actual cost to the government will be a little lower, because some of the benefits will be recouped through taxation.
The total cost associated with the changes proposed by is not inconsequential. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the total cost per person is only about $10,000 to $12,000 per year. It should be further noted that these seniors do not all live in total isolation. By helping these seniors, we will also help families and the communities of which they are a part. Moreover, the cost to fix this glaring hole in our social security net is not insubstantial only because the needs of those affected are so great.
I believe Canadians all across the country want to address the residency requirement, which imposes a very real hardship on so many seniors, their families, and their communities. No person, and certainly no member of this committee, would ever want to face a choice between poverty and a life of absolute dependence on family and friends. By guaranteeing a certain basic level of support for all Canadian seniors, we guarantee a lifetime of dignity and self-respect for all Canadians.
On the whole, Canadians are a decent people. Without exception, whenever possible, we strive to do the right thing and to right wrongs whenever we encounter them. Even to the most casual observer, the hardships created by the 10-year residency requirement is a wrong that needs to be corrected. Why? Because it is the decent thing to do.
Thank you.
:
All right. I want to understand. We parliamentarians work with political commitments to determine how to direct our efforts. Last November in Toronto, your leader announced that there would be a comprehensive policy to combat poverty. I remain skeptical about that, and that's why I'm questioning you. I'll question your colleagues as well when I have the opportunity.
Do you know what the Program for Older Worker Adjustment, POWA, is? Immigrants are also concerned by that. Every time a business closes, at least 20% of workers are over the age of 55. In 1998, your party cut that program. Cutting the program increased poverty among seniors.
With respect to the Guaranteed Income Supplement, you'll remember that your party—I don't want to attack your party, but I have to tell it like it is—refused to allow people to be automatically registered for the Guaranteed Income Supplement. As a result, today, $3.3 billion is owed to seniors among the poorest citizens who did not receive it.
I would like to understand your actions and what it is possible to do in your party. We can do a lot amongst ourselves here, but, if there isn't a commitment by your party, we won't succeed and we'll continue to deceive immigrants who are having difficulty getting protection when they are elderly. We are working in that direction. However, it must be said that all seniors are victims of measures that affect their incomes and push them into poverty. I would like to know how you understand the support that we will get first from your party. On our side, we are completely invested.
:
You deserve a great deal of credit, and I respect you very much for introducing this bill.
In speaking to you this morning, I'm also sending a message to your colleagues. Barely two and a half years ago, you were in power and you denied us these kinds of measures. When I say you, I don't mean you personally, but rather your party. You have previously proposed these measures. I'm thinking of the one concerning the income supplement, the assistance program for older workers who lose their jobs and measures like those you're announcing this morning.
There are also questions of cost. I would like you to submit to us the table containing the figures you presented to us earlier. I believe I incorrectly noted down some of those that you submitted to us the second time.
If the Prime Minister intends to seek royal recommendation, we'll have to work together. I would like you to understand clearly, you who are introducing a private bill, that we won't get far if your party doesn't support it. We have to get through the royal recommendation stage.
I see that there are people here today representing people who have recently arrived in the country and immigrants of longer standing. They have hope in this regard. I would like us to give them a fair idea of the contributions of each of the parties. I don't know what your commitment to this issue is. Work has been done in this area. I would like you to inform us about it and also to inform the interested groups here this morning.
Are you ready to do that?
:
Thank you very much, Chair.
Ms. Beaumier, I first of all want to commend you for bringing this bill forward. I think all of us who've been working on seniors issues know that income security is the single most important priority for all seniors in our country. I do agree with , there's lots of work to be done, and this is just a particular slice of the larger policy area.
Do you agree with him, though, that despite the fact that this is, as you say, a narrowly focused issue, we do know that right now in Canada there are 200,000 people who are eligible for the GIS already who aren't accessing it? And one of the reasons they're not accessing it, among many, is that there are linguistic and cultural challenges to filling out the applications. Therefore they're not even sure of their entitlement and don't apply, and they don't get the GIS.
I wonder if in proposing this bill, because it does deal specifically with the newcomer community, you've thought about how we'd ensure that when we provide this entitlement for the GIS, people who would now be eligible could actually access that benefit. Because entitlement without access doesn't do them any good.
:
I'm not really sure that it has been discussed at any great length. We've had different groups lobby us.
We're politicians, but we have our own personalities and things that are important to us. And I'll tell you how I got to this point.
The seniors in my area, mostly south Asians, began the lobbying. When they came to me and told me that it was against the charter and that it should be their right to have it, as a politician I was....
Even though they were right, you get a little tired of hearing people coming to you all the time saying, “I'm a Canadian, and I have rights, and....” You do.
At any rate, I told them that since I wasn't a lawyer, I didn't know what the implications were of the charter or how this would go through a court system, but I wasn't sure they'd win on a charter aspect. However, when I began going to the fields and watching....
I have a gentleman here, Sucha, who drives seniors who are over 70 to work in the fields so that they can have spending money. It's about dignity. When you go out and you see these people, they have so much pride and so much dignity; they don't want to go to their sons to ask them for money for coffee.
It's not as though you have to be very wealthy to have your parents come to this country. They come, they provide a service. There's dignity in being self-sufficient, and to see these men and women, in the hot days of summer, out working in the fields in order to preserve their dignity, made me very ashamed of myself and of our system.
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.... 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?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Perhaps I'm a bit naive. I'm not yet used to parliamentary practices. I was only elected a year and a half ago. Ms. Beaumier, thank you for your bill. I can't believe that these kinds of discussions can be held. Mr. Lake objects to the $300 million intended for seniors, but the government has just allocated $30 billion for the armed forces, which doesn't seem to cause a problem. I find that a bit sad. If the goal is to improve the lot of our seniors and of seniors who come from elsewhere, but who have integrated into Canada and Quebec, it seems to me we could stop going back and criticizing those who were in power for not taking certain measures. Instead we should consider the present situation. I believe we must build the future and stop looking back on the past.
I often hear the Conservatives—and this is part of their method—criticizing the Liberals for not doing one thing or another when they were in power. Perhaps I'm naive, but I think we have to improve the lot of our seniors. Bill will help seniors who come from elsewhere but live in Canada and Quebec. But there's something else.
When the issue of seniors arises in the House, I often hear Ms. Yelich compare Canada to countries that mistreat their seniors. Why instead wouldn't we compare ourselves to the best countries in the world in this area? I believe we should always have that kind of objective in view. I'm a priest, and I've always been told that, as a Christian, I should draw inspiration from Mother Teresa and try to imitate her rather than those who do not act fully on their Christian faith. The point is always to try to imitate the best. That's what I try to do. I don't yet come up to Mother Theresa's ankle, but I'm trying. I figure it should be the same thing for a country. There are seniors in Quebec and Canada. Could we become the best country in the world in the treatment of our seniors? If that's the case, we should stop comparing ourselves to countries that mistreat their seniors.
I'm here in the committee today because I'm concerned about the lot of seniors. This is my file. I read your bill, and, in my opinion, anyone who votes against it does not deserve to be an MP. I don't know how members who vote against this kind of bill can be elected. My colleague Mr. Lessard asked earlier whether the Liberals had a real desire to change things. That's what concerns me. The Bloc Québécois introduced Bill , which is at the second reading stage. I heard a speech by a Liberal who is very positive. However, I'm afraid we'll get to third reading and then vote against the bill. That's the kind of thing that disappoints me. It's as though we wanted to have a clear conscience with constituents or citizens who elected us. If that's really the case, I think that's dishonest.
We have to work for people. We are at the service of the public, not our own. We're not here just so that we can stay elected, but really to help the public. A bill for seniors must serve to help them and not to get us elected. I hope that's also what you believe, Ms. Beaumier, and that your party will support that kind of position. I would like to hear your comments on that subject.
:
We're going to resume our study of .
To our witnesses, we are delighted and honoured to have you with us today. The hearings will be in English and French.
We do understand that coming before a parliamentary committee takes a bit of getting used to. Please be assured that we're all very friendly and very pleased to have you with us. Again, we're honoured by your presence here today.
Resuming on , we have with us a number of people. From the Old Age Benefits Forum of Canada, we have Balkar Bajwa and Kuldip Sahi. We thank you for coming. From the Old Age Benefits Forum of Vancouver, we have Balwinder Singh Chahal. From the Immigrant Seniors Advocacy Network, we have Samuel Olarewaju and Kifleyesus Woldemichael. And as an individual, we have Raymond Micah.
Each group will have five minutes to present. We understand that at one point in time, when we had less witnesses, you may have been told ten minutes. We do have questions we want to get to. All the members are very anxious to discuss this bill with you.
We will start with the Old Age Benefits Forum of Canada.
Mr. Bajwa and Mr. Sahi, you have five minutes.
:
Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity.
Because of the time constraints, I would like to reduce the presentation I submitted to you earlier. I would like to concentrate on the points where this issue is opposed in general.
I have already appeared at some other forums on Bill C-362, and I presented certain views that might be in common with what I say today, but they are relevant here more than before.
The persons who oppose this amendment base their arguments on two main planks—permanency of connection of the beneficiaries with Canada, and their contribution. I feel privileged to take this opportunity to give my opinion on these two points here before this august body.
First, with respect to permanency of connection, most of the seniors have reconnected with their families after a considerable wait, and it is a cherished desire of every grandparent to spend the fag-end of their life with their children and grandchildren. Politicians must appreciate that they can never think of leaving them at this stage.
These people have left their previous country far behind. Canada, the most beloved country of their families, has also become their own country. It's not now a foreign country; it is their own country.
Most of the seniors have become citizens of Canada. They have taken a solemn oath by holding the Canadian flag that they will ever remain loyal and faithful to this country.
Respected members, are these facts not sufficient to justify their permanency of connection with Canada?
Second, the question of contribution regarding the seniors is clear and evident. Seniors bring along their rich academic and professional experiences, and they become a living source of academic and professional help to the family at all times. Particularly, they become an effective asset for the grandchildren in their school homework and further studies. They are the best source of transmitting their cultural heritage, which is full of enviable social and moral values. See them escorting small kids to the school or the school bus in the chilly, snowy weather. Is this not a contribution?
We can never ignore the long and rich background experience of elders. It becomes an asset for the younger generations who have yet to have these experiences. At certain crucial junctures of life or in vital decision-making situations, seniors render highly valuable opinions and advice. Most important, they remain available to their children at home. The house becomes a home that throbs with life all the time.
Income from disposed-of property in the native land and their current incomes and returns are all brought over here and judiciously invested in properties in Canada. Seniors make their families completely carefree from household errands and concerns, and thus the family members become more effective as Canadian workers and citizens. Seniors are the ones who brought up their sons and daughters, who are now contributing to the Canadian economy as professionals, skilled workers, and businessmen. Some of them are now serving as representatives in Parliament or in provincial parliaments.
I just heard some of the arguments here, and I think this issue has become a ball between political parties. I can quote certain occasions when Conservatives too sported this idea and decided it was discriminatory. I can adduce from the record that Mr. Gurmant Grewal, one of the Conservatives, moved a motion regarding this very issue. Another time it was when the Liberals were in power. I think we should not be made the victims of this political game.
Let us, sir, look at this respectable but useful section of our Canadian society a bit more compassionately. They should be honoured by having their economic and social security ensured. The amendment of this act will go a long way towards ensuring rights of equality for landed immigrants. Currently this fundamental right is being infringed, which leads to unfairness and injustice to them.
A parliament that can impose a condition has all the power and authority to remove it through an amendment. From this platform, I implore Parliament to make this amendment. It is a common and just cause for all seniors, yours and ours. At present, three years’ residency is a sufficient condition to enable them to get OAS benefits. It will surely go a long way toward eliminating two classes of Canadians in matters of OAS benefits. There should be no classes, no bifurcation of seniors.
Hence, I extend wholehearted support to Bill and appeal to all of you to consider it compassionately and favourably, and to recommend it to Parliament for third reading.
Thank you.
:
Honourable Chair, members, it's a privilege to be before the committee.
This weekend the federal Secretary of State for Multiculturalism was in Vancouver. He said that an official apology is coming. He also announced $2.5 million compensation, or a memorial, for the Komagata Maru incident, which happened 94 years ago in Canadian history.
You are probably wondering why I'm raising this issue, as I'm here to talk about old age security. I'll come back to it later, but you will kindly keep note of the situation I just mentioned.
My name is Balwinder Chahal. I am the secretary of the Old Age Benefits Forum. We have been pursuing this cause for the last ten years.
To summarize everything in five minutes is a challenging task, but I will try to do it. Then I'll let it for you to ask questions later, if you have any.
What we are asking here is this. First, for any senior to have to stay in Canada for ten years is just not justified; it's unduly harsh; it has an unjustified impact on seniors and their living conditions, their families, even their ties. Ten years is not the right thing to do.
By itself, the ten years is a harsh thing. There is another dimension to the whole thing. We have two classes of seniors in the country, one class who access it when they are 65, without waiting for ten years. There are others who are 65 who have to wait ten years.
Whatever the rules or the regulations, whatever agreements we have put in, can those agreements in any way touch the charter? The charter gives us equality. This is a matter of equality.
I will ask honourable members to consider the necessity of all those social agreements we are talking about. Do we have agreements for MSPs? Do we have agreements for EI benefits? Do we have agreements for CPP? No. So where is the need for an agreement at all? I'll show the fallacy: that agreements were used simply as a tool to deny benefits to a group.
When the Old Age Benefits Forum undertook this issue, at a time when another party may have been in power, they looked into it and saw that something was wrong. They brought out the papers, which I have in front of me. This is on access to the public...immigrant seniors, and it is part of the government regulations.
What they have done here is a change. From now on, seniors from agreement countries will be paid on a different schedule. If agreements haven't changed, how can the government change the pattern of payment? That shows that agreements didn't carry any force earlier and agreements don't have force today. But they're being used as a tool to deny benefits.
Secondly, on financial service fees, my honourable representatives were talking about.... Finance is an important matter, I won't say it's not, and it should be looked into. But looking at a greater angle, if the figures are right that have been quoted in Parliament, there are 4.3 million seniors over the age of 65 at the moment, of which number 4.078 million are being paid old age security. This leaves us with 4% to 5% of seniors who are not getting it.
The point is not about millions. Certainly it is a millions thing, but the point and issue here is that we are already spending billions on 95%. How justified is it to say we don't have the money for the 5%? That's the whole thing. Yes, it will be millions, but if we are already spending billions, why don't we do it? That's another thing to talk about.
Another thing is about the law challenge. Yes, it went to the courts of law, that's right, but the courts do not make the law; they interpret the law. They say this doesn't fall under discrimination as emphasized in the charter. Yes, that is so. But I say, before this august body, you have all the rights. If there is a difficulty....
Now I will come back to what I was saying earlier: 94 years after the Komagata Maru incident, today we are offering a national apology and money. It was legal to deny that ship--it was legal--but it was unjustified.
Similarly, this provision might remain legal, but it's unjustified. It's unequal and it's unfair.
That's what we are imploring you on. Is it talking about legality? Certainly not. It is talking about the basic system of justice and fairness. It has to.
Is it a good policy to give security to my friend and deny it to me? We are both Canadians.
Let me pull out my citizenship card. What does it say on the back of it? I'll read this and then I'll close my statement. I hope everybody will kindly take their copy, which says:
This...is a Canadian citizen under the provisions of the Citizenship Act and, as such, is entitled to all the rights and privileges and is subject to all the duties and responsibilities of a Canadian citizen.
It doesn't have any subject. It doesn't say anything about the fact that if I'm coming from this country, my citizenship is subject to that.
With that, certainly the current bill does not go 100% the way we would see it, but it is reaching a compromise where fair, reasonable provisions of residency are taken care of. Financial security is part of that, as is getting seniors their fair and due share so they can live with respect and dignity.
That's my respectful submission. Thank you very much.
Honourable Chairman and members of the committee, it is truly a privilege and an honour to be part of this particular discussion.
I came to this issue in 2003 when there was a caucus group that came to Toronto, and I was asked, in my capacity as executive director of the African Canadian Social Development Council, to come to speak about issues affecting seniors in our community. Of course, not being a senior, I had very little knowledge about what those issues might be. Therefore, because the council was a membership-based organization that has many groups that deal with the different populations that make up the continental African-Canadian community, I consulted individuals to give me some information. I didn't feel that it was sufficient information for the presentation, so I started to do further research, and lo and behold, that was the first time I became aware of this problem that impacted our seniors.
Our seniors were saying, “The problem we have is that we have no income.” That was something I didn't know about, and that was the impetus upon which I began to try to get others also to look into the issue vis-à-vis their own communities.
I belong to a group called the Alternative Planning Group, which has a membership that involves the councils of Chinese, south Asian, and Hispanic communities. So we did research and held focus groups, and all the seniors were saying, “Indeed this is a problem.” So we said, “Ah, this is something that we really, as a matter of decency, need to try to raise attention around.”
I say this because I do not come here to blame anyone for having come to the issue without necessarily having known of the problem previously. I come to you to say that there is in fact a reason, I guess, that all of us have a lacuna, a blind spot, about this issue.
One of the reasons is that, as we all know, previously, in the 1950s and 1960s, in the 1970s, in fact, and even up to the 1980s, the source countries, where people came from, were quite different. As Madam Beaumier rightly mentioned, they came from countries that were much more developed—in some instances, with social security systems even comparable to Canada's. Potentially, at least, individuals coming from those countries who had lived most of their lives there could have recourse if those systems were there to support them. So there was a comfort that was available.
There were also these agreements that Canada was able to establish, mostly with those kinds of countries, at least, in the beginning. So if Canada denied entitlement to its social security system for these individuals, there was something that potentially could be drawn upon. That changed in the 1980s with a change of countries, but for all that time, there was at least a basis for having some sort of comfort that everybody somehow would be catered to.
That has changed, and when it changed, unfortunately we didn't all immediately wake up to that reality. Now people are coming from countries where there are no such systems at all, where people will work all their lives not because they wanted to....
One minute, Mr. Chair? Okay.
Essentially, there are a number of questions that my paper—which I worked on overnight, literally, to put together—looks at, and I think you will get access to it when it's translated. What is the nature, source, and magnitude of the problem? How did it escape our notice? I've explained that. And what would it cost to fix it?
I actually did some estimates based on statistics from Canada Immigration and from Statistics Canada. Essentially my estimates—which I worked on overnight, so I haven't had a chance to share them with all my colleagues—are as follows.
It will essentially cost $470.5 million per year, because there are 56,263 individuals over the past 10 years who have immigrated as permanent immigrants under family class. If we assume that in the first five years of their stay here, they will be given the same benefits that are given under the OAS, which is one-fortieth of the maximum--which is $502.30--times five, that would be actually $62.80.
If you take the average GIS that is given currently, which is $634.02, you have a total entitlement for this individual, under this bill, of $696.82. This means $8,361 per person, per year.
Multiply this by these 56,000 people over a 10-year period, which is the period upon which people are denied entitlement, and you get $470 million per year.
In the context of good governance, in the context of doing that which is decent, in the context of a budget of $30 billion to look after seniors as a whole, in the context of an understanding within current practice that the support for seniors is actually divided--not only by the seniors themselves, not only by their families, but by government--I think it is possible that we can all rise to the opportunity that this bill provides to do good.
On the bill itself, we fully support it and we congratulate Madam Beaumier. There is a slight challenge that I think needs to be addressed, which is the sponsorship component. That also needs to be looked at.
On the sponsorship component, essentially, if left alone, one might have a pyrrhic victory. We do not do all this to achieve that. We want to have both a change in the act, under the OAS, that brings it down to seven years, and then a change in the immigration rules--it's in here, and you can read it—that also reduces the sponsorship obligation to three years, so that the purposes that such a change seeks under the act, under the OAS, will actually be achieved, effectively in practice.
Thank you very much.
Honourable Chairman, committee members, and guests, I want to thank you individually and collectively for giving us, particularly the African Seniors Advocacy Network members, this opportunity to bring this issue forward to you today.
We are very pleased to see support across the party lines for this particular bill, Bill , which was brought forward by Colleen Beaumier. We're equally happy that the intention of bringing this forward is to improve the livelihood of senior people in the community.
This issue is a long-standing one. It has gone on for many years. When we look at the G-8 nations of the world, statistics are being compiled all the time to be able to measure how each nation is doing. Various parameters are being used to judge each nation.
On the basis of that alone, I think it would be in the interest of Canada, of which I am a part today—and I'm grateful to the government for giving me that opportunity—to do whatever it can for seniors in order to ensure that the social life seniors are leading is commendable when other people around the world, in other G-8 nations, see it.
I want to thank you for the support that was given by other parties. We know those parties that are against it; we know those parties that are not against it. But we are not after which parties are in favour and which parties are not. The benefit is for every party. Whether there was a party in the past that ought to have done it and hadn't done it, and a new party comes in now and does it, the benefit is for everybody who is a Canadian, whether young or old. What somebody has not done in the past is the past. That is gone. We don't need to talk about or waste our time on the past.
What we want to talk about is what is happening now and what we can do to improve a situation that ought to have been corrected years ago but was not. That's what we're here for. So I want to thank you in that regard.
However, we strongly recommend that this act be reduced from ten years to three years. In a similar way, we also want the sponsorship obligation to be affected by reducing it from ten years to three years.
There's no point doing the old age pension alone, without taking into account the sponsorship obligation. There have been many situations in various communities in which those sponsoring their parents were having problems, not of their own making but because of what was happening, generally, in society.
The intention of children to sponsor their parents is a genuine one. But genuine as it may be, you can never foresee what problems you will run into. When problems come, as far as children are concerned, they have to take care of themselves. And they say, “Well, you're going to take care of yourself.” How can an old man take care of himself?
So there has been a series of problems among seniors with their children. That's the area we felt the sponsorship obligation needed to be addressed, as well as the old age. In fact, according to the rules, the obligation cannot end prematurely, even if the sponsored individual becomes a Canadian citizen. That's why they flagged that on my Canadian citizenship.
My daughter who sponsored me is still responsible for whatever happens to me before the 10-year period is over. Thank God, she has a job. She's working. So maybe I don't have that problem.
But there are other seniors who have that problem. And I don't tell myself that because I don't have the problem, I don't care about others. We're all seniors.
So we wanted that and the obligation stands, even if the sponsor's financial situation becomes difficult due to major predicaments they face, such as loss of job or illness.
In short, we echo the following recommendation from the Immigrant Seniors Advocacy Network. Number one, that amendments shall be made to all relevant existing acts and policies such that the entitlement of both the old and new immigrant seniors in federal, provincial and municipal income support groups, such as the social assistance program, is not compromised by the existence of an immigration sponsorship agreement between the sponsor and the newcomer senior and the Government of Canada.
Number two is that amendments be made to existing acts and policies to ensure that in all situations of genuine sponsorship breakdown--because we are looking at a genuine sponsorship breakdown and there are many--
Of course, by simply reducing both the residency period and the sponsorship obligation period to three years, all key matters relating to provincial social assistance programs and the challenging task of determining what situation of hardship involving a senior meets the test of genuine sponsorship breakdown, and which do not, are immediately addressed.
There is one other thing I wanted to mention. People have been using the word “discrimination” here, about when the Supreme Court looked at this matter many years ago. I think it's a misuse of words. It is not discrimination we're talking about. Nobody discriminated against me, nobody discriminates against us. What we are saying is that the law that was set up for this old age pension was set up in 1952. If we agree that the country is dynamic, the people in it are dynamic, the law too should be dynamic. In other words, the law too should change as the future changes.
It's not an issue of discrimination, but the law was made in 1952. We are now in the year 2008. How can we continue to use a law that was set up in 1952 to apply to our current situation in the year 2008? I wanted to mention that point.
I want to thank you very much. You will all get a copy of my paper.
I'll come to the second question first: what kind of frustration do we see? I can cite a living example, whom, in the interests of secrecy, I would not like to name. There is a gentlemen who migrated from India. He retired as a school headmaster, which we call a principal in our country here. He emigrated to this country in 1959, and went to work on farms. He was paying all of his Revenue Canada taxes right up until 1964.
In 1964 he was hurt at work, so disability payments kicked in. He received those payments for one year. At 65 years of age, they were cut off. The retired headmaster was looking after his family and giving educational advice to the young children, the grandchildren, and the neighbourhood children. At age 65, he had not been 10 years in the country and couldn't get anything—though he had already been working here. He was hard-pressed.
I saw that gentleman with real tears in his eyes, saying, “I have given my life to mankind.” He was not talking only of Canada or India. He said, “I have been teaching students, 1,500 to 2,000 people, and I worked with my hands when I came to this country, but now I am left alone.”
These are the circumstances that are happening. I would not like to experience that.
Now, the Old Age Benefits Forum was founded in 1994. Now it's been 14 years, which is a long enough period. We have knocked on every door possible. All the parliamentarians have files and files from us after we talked with them. We presented this to the Honourable at the time, when he was the finance minister. He agreed with us, but nothing happened.
A Supreme Court challenge was launched. But we are a voluntary body with no finances—nothing. We didn't have the finances to go there. And I will again say, it is not whether it is legal or not. You can say it's legal, but is it just? Is it fair? That's what I am asking.
If there are 10 people sitting in the room and we have money for 9, and we tell the person left, “Gentleman, you don't deserve it”, what kind of message are we sending? Is it a message of dignity and respect for the gentlemen? We are appealing for that. That is what a country like Canada....
And that's why I brought up the Komagata Maru issue. Let's not apologize after 94 years. This is an issue where I can say, with all due respect, that if parliamentarians don't do anything, you will see coming generations apologize one day that it was not the correct thing to do. We did that with the Chinese head tax, and let's not do it with this.
Thank you.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I was ready to speak a little more, but am only allowed to speak for two minutes. I want to give some enlightenment on three issues that were raised here before.
First is the issue of the Supreme Court's decision. I was a judge on the supreme court of my country, Ethiopia, for 30 years. I know the division of power between the court and the legislative bodies. The court said that while the law was not discriminatory, it must be amended or discussed by Parliament. They did not close it completely.
Second, this was the right decision, because the law or issue was on the wrong track. They said, no, the right track would be for the law to be amended by Parliament, by the government. That is why we came here: this law must be amended. We are asking for an amendment of the law. So there is no issue to challenge this bill raising the decision of the Supreme Court.
Third, I heard of a similar case that was rejected by a party in power before. We don't care about what has been done before. When it happened, we were in a great poverty, and we asked for a solution to our suffering. The decision that was made before by one party when it was in power does not bar our issue; it does not have a complete connection with it.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I want to thank you for being here with us. I'll try to be brief. I very much enjoyed each of your speeches, particularly the last, which is really revealing. Poverty can be seen among seniors. It's obvious; we see it. Even if we say we set partisanship aside, you have to recognize one thing. Mr. Woldemichael mentioned this: there is a division of powers, and we stand before political power. This may not be a partisan operation, but the decision that we must make is not based on technical elements. Do we have the political will to act, yes or no?
It's on that subject that I would like to hear what you have to say. The Bloc Québécois agrees. Ms. Beaumier was very honest with us. She said that part of her caucus was in agreement. She cannot answer for her caucus as a whole. We know that the Conservatives are opposed to this measure. Even though they tell us there are technical matters and they may not be able to support it, it's a matter of political will. Do we want it or not?
Earlier my colleague Mr. Gravel recalled that yesterday they allocated $30 billion for defence. They weren't concerned as to whether there were any technical problems; they announced their political will.
What are your arguments to convince our colleagues who still aren't convinced that Bill is right? Those arguments should be brief.
:
I will try to approach it.
My comments are, first, particularly directed towards honourable members of the ruling branch. You're asking the Liberals today why they didn't do it in their own time. Will the future not ask you that question also? Be mindful of that. That's simply asking. They didn't do it. I think the honourable Colleen Beaumier accepted it. I'm open to saying that the Liberals promised us that they would look into it right up to, I'll say, the prime ministerial level. But they didn't do it. Probably they did not have the political will at the time to do it.
Now show that will. We implore you to look at the changed times. It is the social and political thought of the Canadian system that has grown. We are looking into that. Let's not compartmentalize and narrow the events of where we were.
I have the exact words that our earlier Prime Minister said at a university in China. Whenever we go on the stage as politicians, from the Prime Minister to members of Parliament, we talk about equality. Equality is the first word. We talk about respect and dignity.
This is what we have come to let you know to make your job easier. We have not come to ask for anything from you. I will say that honourable members of Parliament should be thankful to us for bringing this issue to you and for giving you an opportunity to further refine the culture and laws of the country. We are trying to help you, to assist you. We are not here to ask for anything.
That's my submission to you.
:
Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you to all of you for your presentations. It's a shame that we're running out of time.
I don't know if you're aware, but two years ago I had the privilege of introducing what we called the “Seniors Charter” on behalf of the NDP. One of the items we enumerated in that charter was the right to income security, and we didn't say income security for some seniors; we said the right to income security. That charter passed in this House and was unanimously supported by all the Conservative members in the House, as well as the Liberal members. I think this really is a test of what we meant when we voted that way. I really appreciate these presentations in that context.
I think it's important for us to be clear on what we're doing here. This bill is not going to make any senior rich. In fact, if seniors are eligible for the guaranteed income supplement, then by definition they're the neediest seniors in our community, so what we're really talking about here is alleviating poverty among some of the neediest seniors in our community.
I really appreciated the comments made by all of you in one way or another about the important contribution of seniors. You know, often we characterize seniors as feeble and fragile and don't appreciate the intergenerational learning, the contributions to stable family life, and the very vibrant contribution that seniors still make in our communities. I think it's in that context that we have to look at this bill.
Right now in Canada we've got a quarter of a million seniors living in poverty. Other than saying that I agree with you all and that I am proud to support this bill, my only question is to Mr. Chahal. I just want to give you an opportunity to clarify, because when you held up your citizenship card, I think you may have left the impression with some members of this committee that this bill would only apply to newcomers who are now citizens, and that's not my understanding of the bill; I think this bill applies to anyone who has landed immigrant status or who would otherwise be eligible for the OAS. If I'm right, I think it would be helpful if you would clarify that point for us.