Ruby Dhalla to give full pensions after 3 years of residency!

[fellowtraveller]

Oh, and OAS has residency requirements that elederly immgrants would not meet.

I wonder too at the personal financial guarantees Canadians have to put up for family reunification immigrants, they cannot collect welfare, and OAS is a form of social assistance....so how would this bill even be possible?

[msj]

Full pensions after 3 years of residency is absurd.

Why do you not comprehend the very link that YOU linked to?

1) It is not "pensions."

It is one pension - the OAS.

2) It is not "full."

The pension would be prorated and the article itself estimates it to be about $38 per month rather than the full amount of ~$500 per month.

Why the dishonesty here?

I mean, most, if not all of us are in agreement that the law should not change.

So why be so dishonest about it?

I suggest that you read the link that you posted in the first place.

Read it slow and repeatedly until you understand its meaning.

[Mr.Canada]

Hands of our money! Canadians have had enough of Ottawa politicians treating our tax dollars like their own personal piggy banks to spend on a variety of pet projects they have.

Ruby and Michael must never get their hands on our pocket books again!

[msj]

Wow.

There's a first: change the subject from your own OP rather than slink away or fess up to not understanding the story that you linked to in the first place.

[kimmy]

Not dissimilar to things like the Fitness Tax credit.

I oppose both Dhalla's and the Tory tax credit plan. Both try to appeal to subsets of the population and are ill thought out. One doesn't take into account the importance of reciprocal agreements with other nations and the other complicates the tax code.

I don't think the comparison is accurate.

We offer tax credits to encourage activities we think are of benefit to society.

Getting more kids to participate in sports is supposed to encourage physical fitness (and lower healthcare costs in the future.) Encouraging people to buy transit passes instead of driving is supposed to help the environment. (etc)

What benefit is providing Old Age Security benefits to people who just got off the boat supposed to provide to our country? Where's the pay-off? Help me figure out how in 10 years I'd think "hey, it's a good thing we started giving newcomers old-age security benefits". As far as I can tell, the only benefits are to their immediate families.

The point here is to focus on the issues while ignoring the colour of the skin of those pushing the issue.

The fact that Dhalla is pushing an issue on behalf of her constituents is exactly what a MP is supposed to do.

It is up to other MP's to push back if they (and, more importantly, their constituents) disagree with the policy.

I have already provided a link to an online petition against this bill and would encourage anyone to sign it (hopefully for the reasons I have outlined in my posts above rather than the "fact" that Dhalla is "one of them.")

What constituency is Dhalla actually representing here?

She's proposing something where only some families of immigrants will benefit and everybody else takes it up the ass.

Is her "constituency" supposed to be the people within the boundaries of her riding? Or is she representing some other constituency which is defined in terms other than the traditional "MP-constituent" relationship?

-k

[Argus]

OAS can only be collected by Canadians.

I'm not speaking about the legalistic term bestowed upon foreigners. I'm talking about actual Canadians.

And I don't think you're a Canadian three years off the boat, just because some bureaucrat stamps your papers.

[Oleg Bach]

Can I say to Ruby..."why don't you go back to where you came from?" - She still sends a bad smell up my nose...why is it we have a society that rewards the self centered and the wicked while we systemically impoverish and destroy our good people?

[Argus]

Fair enough.

You prefer ad hominem attacks.

Oh I love it when some self-righteous egotist calls me names and then gets sulky because I return the favour.

First on Dhalla with your anti-immigration and, yes, racist remarks and now by insulting my intelligence.

Consider it colateral damage. I mean, I couldn't have been aiming at it since I haven't ever seen it, right?

Had you provided some substance to back up your arguments in the first place, rather than spew a bunch of non-sense unrelated to bill C-428 maybe I wouldn't be laughing so hard at you right now.

I always provide responses which are based on the quality of the post I'm responding to. If you feel my answer was low on the substance side you can consider the lack of same in your inital posting to be the cause.

[msj]

Can I say to Ruby..."why don't you go back to where you came from?"

So you want to tell her to go back to Winnipeg?

Would you wish that upon anyone?

[i've been to Winnipeg and it is quite nice - in June]

Edited October 5, 2009 by msj

[msj]

Oh I love it when some self-righteous egotist calls me names and then gets sulky because I return the favour.

[snip various other unsubstantiated nonsense]

So you prefer to continue the insults rather than deal with the substance of the matter.

I have no problem with snide remarks here and there - dishing them out or taking them.

To see post after post of nothing but insults with nothing of substance to back them up?

Well, that's bad form on your part.

I still don't see the need for these types of insults. Either argue the points or slink away....

Edited October 5, 2009 by msj

[Argus]

I still don't see the need for these types of insults. Either argue the points or slink away....

I argue whatever point is raised in a particular post. If I failed to deal with any in yours that would be because you failed to raise any.

[Shady]

Fair enough.

You prefer ad hominem attacks.

First on Dhalla with your anti-immigration and, yes, racist remarks and now by insulting my intelligence.

Had you provided some substance to back up your arguments in the first place, rather than spew a bunch of non-sense unrelated to bill C-428 maybe I wouldn't be laughing so hard at you right now.

I didn't read any racist remarks, and I'm getting sick of the "agree with me or you're racist" debate strategy that seems to be prevalent on the left.

[jdobbin]

I don't think the comparison is accurate.

We offer tax credits to encourage activities we think are of benefit to society.

Getting more kids to participate in sports is supposed to encourage physical fitness (and lower healthcare costs in the future.) Encouraging people to buy transit passes instead of driving is supposed to help the environment. (etc)

My point is that they are targeted to segments of the population. They make things more complicated, they are applied less fairly and their accomplishments are unproven given what the money could be use for instead.

What benefit is providing Old Age Security benefits to people who just got off the boat supposed to provide to our country? Where's the pay-off? Help me figure out how in 10 years I'd think "hey, it's a good thing we started giving newcomers old-age security benefits". As far as I can tell, the only benefits are to their immediate families.

I haven't advocated for the member's bill.

I support the present plan which involves reciprocity.

[jdobbin]

I'm not speaking about the legalistic term bestowed upon foreigners. I'm talking about actual Canadians.

And I don't think you're a Canadian three years off the boat, just because some bureaucrat stamps your papers.

I don't support the member's bill.

[fellowtraveller]

OAS can only be collected by Canadians.

Untrue.

It can also be collected by legal residents.

[Cuzzin E]

Leave Ruby alone. She is mine & I will marry & make love to her every hour

[Guest American Woman]

Ughh, I made a mistake a typed in CPP instead of the correct term OAS. That's what I meant and I'm sure you know that msj, knock it off please...people make typographical errors, the world is an imperfect place.

So why haven't you edited your post to correct your mistake? If it were a "typographical error," seems logical that you would have corrected your error when it was pointed out to you. Yet you haven't done that. Doesn't say much for your credibility.

[jdobbin]

Untrue.

It can also be collected by legal residents.

Correction: Full Citizenship or Permanent Resident who has lived in Canada for 10 years.

The only real difference between a Permanent Resident and a Citizen is the right to vote and the fact that Permanent Residents have to re-apply every five years.

Full pensions are only granted to those who have lived in Canada for 40 years after age 18. Anyone who has lived in Canada that long strikes me as having the same right to a pension as a citizen.

Edited October 5, 2009 by jdobbin

[fellowtraveller]

Full pensions are only granted to those who have lived in Canada for 40 years after age 18. Anyone who have lived in Canada that long strikes me as having the same right to a pension as a citizen.

??? Being a citizen does not qualify you for OAS, you must be a resident as well. A citizen who has never lived here won't get a dime. A resident non-citizen who has lived here a long time will get OAS benefits. It is not a pension, not in the usual sense in that we pay nothing into it specifically. It's more a social benefit.

[jdobbin]

??? Being a citizen does not qualify you for OAS, you must be a resident as well. A citizen who has never lived here won't get a dime.

Hence, the addendum that you have to have lived in Canada for 40 years for a full pension.

A resident non-citizen who has lived here a long time will get OAS benefits. It is not a pension, not in the usual sense in that we pay nothing into it specifically. It's more a social benefit.

Think that is why it is called old age security. It really isn't a pension related to work but an income supplement for those who have lived in Canada and are more or less retired. In many cases, it is taxed back if your retirement income reaches a certain threshold.

I don't think anyone will support less than ten years requirements for partial OAS. I do favour expanding reciprocal agreements though.

Edited October 5, 2009 by jdobbin

[msj]

I didn't read any racist remarks, and I'm getting sick of the "agree with me or you're racist" debate strategy that seems to be prevalent on the left.

This has nothing to do with agreeing with me or else you're being racist.

In fact both Argus and I agree that the proposed change is stupid.

Argus clearly made an argument based on race by including Dhalla in with "immigration politicians" and "BECAUSE she is on of them."

He made this statement out of ignorance, as Dobbin has pointed out, since Dhalla was born and raised in Canada.

Of course, if she was white and had a white name I suppose Argus would find some other labels to apply (since Bob Rae is the seconder of the motion I suppose the label would be socialist or marxist or some other unrelated term since he "looks" Canadian).

The reason it is unrelated to the topic is because, as an MP, it is her job to represent her constituents.

Whether she is "one of them" or not isn't relevant - unless she isn't fit to be MP because she is in Canada illegally but then, once again, that is unrelated to the OP.

I have already put forth sound reasons why I think bill C-428 is stupid (that do not involve anything to do, personally, about Ms. Dhalla) on a previous page.

Instead of focusing on those reasons, Argus has to focus on her and her ethnicity.

That is an attack on the person rather than the substance of her bill which is why I brought up the ad hominem argument that he relies on rather than sound reasons which is my preference.

So, Argus can disagree with my reasons with respect to bill C-428 all he wants (although I haven't read anything to indicate this one way or the other).

He can dislike the bill for his own reasons.

And, yes, I do think that the reasons he expressed are racist and irrelevant to the substance of the bill.

Edited October 5, 2009 by msj

[msj]

What constituency is Dhalla actually representing here?

-k

I imagine it is Canadians who are able to bring their parents over to Canada based on the immigration rules.

What is wrong with that?

Does this constituency not count?

Are they not "Canadian" enough?

[msj]

I argue whatever point is raised in a particular post. If I failed to deal with any in yours that would be because you failed to raise any.

Well, Argus, then put me on ignore if that works for you.

Either way, I'm happy to have offended you with my reasoning that you still can not comprehend.

[msj]

delete dp.

Edited October 5, 2009 by msj

[Mr.Canada]

I imagine it is Canadians who are able to bring their parents over to Canada based on the immigration rules.

What is wrong with that?

Does this constituency not count?

Are they not "Canadian" enough?

If they don't have Canadian citizenship they aren't Canadian at all.

Would a person have as much loyalty to Canada after only living here for 3 years? I don't think so which is why people in Canada always call themselves something else first instead of saying they're Canadian, they use some hyphenated country in front of Canadian.

People who are loyal and proud to be Canadian wouldn't do that. Wouldn't water down the term Canadian with anything else. They would leave the name pure and unblemished. Instead we have a nation of people who are hyphenated Canadians.