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

[kimmy]

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.

Well, they're all targeted at "segments" of the population, but things like the child tax credit and the sports tax credit are available to anybody who can procreate, while Dhalla's plan is of benefit exclusively to immigrants who want to bring their parents to live in Canada.

I think, given all the worry about falling birth-rates, aging demographics, and so forth, that everybody should be agreeable that making it easier for people to afford to raise children is a praiseworthy objective. Conversely, I'm still stumped as to how bringing in old-people from abroad is of benefit to Canada as a nation.

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

I support the present plan which involves reciprocity.

Well, you compared it to tax-credits designed to encourage "positive" behavior, such as sports and transit passes and child tax credits... so I figured there must be some "positive" to this that I must be missing.

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?

(You're just pleading for me to make this about race, aren't you.)

You seem to be telling me that Dhalla's constituents are calling for recently arrived old-people to get OAS benefits. I believe that few Canadians would actually support such a plan, so I'm curious as to what "constituents" she's speaking up for.

When most MPs talk about their constituents, they're referring to people who live within the geographic boundaries of their riding, the people who elected them. I suspect that the constituents in most ridings would kick the ass of an MP who presented such a proposal to the House, so I'm left with two possibilities.

Either Dhalla lives in a riding with truly unusual demographics.

Or, Dhalla considers her constituents to be not the people who live within the bounds of her geographic riding, but the immigrant community as a whole.

So, I'm just curious, so that I can understand why a Member of Parliament feels that advocating for such a turd is a political winner for her.

-k

Edited October 6, 2009 by kimmy

[jdobbin]

Well, they're all targeted at "segments" of the population, but things like the child tax credit and the sports tax credit are available to anybody who can procreate, while Dhalla's plan is of benefit exclusively to immigrants who want to bring their parents to live in Canada.

I think both programs are too narrowly focused.

I think, given all the worry about falling birth-rates, aging demographics, and so forth, that everybody should be agreeable that making it easier for people to afford to raise children is a praiseworthy objective. Conversely, I'm still stumped as to how bringing in old-people from abroad is of benefit to Canada as a nation.

I just don't think the tax credit is the best way to do it. And given how some tax planners have said how complicated it makes our tax code, I don't think it is the easiest way to achieve a goal.

Well, you compared it to tax-credits designed to encourage "positive" behavior, such as sports and transit passes and child tax credits... so I figured there must be some "positive" to this that I must be missing.

I regard both as too narrowly focused and unfair.

[kimmy]

I regard both as too narrowly focused and unfair.

But I bet you were in favor of nationalized daycare when that was in the Red Book, weren't ya?

-k

[msj]

I think, given all the worry about falling birth-rates, aging demographics, and so forth, that everybody should be agreeable that making it easier for people to afford to raise children is a praiseworthy objective. Conversely, I'm still stumped as to how bringing in old-people from abroad is of benefit to Canada as a nation.

Maybe it acts as an incentive to get the young people to come to Canada?

If I were to go to another country it sure would be better if I could bring my parents along.

(You're just pleading for me to make this about race, aren't you.)

No.

If you can't see a difference between legitimate views and racist views - well, that's your problem.

Argus, unnecessarily, made it personal about Dhalla.

By making it personal he clearly was referring to her ethnicity. It didn't help that he got her origins wrong (and, who can blame him - why would anyone expect a person who doesn't have a white tone to their skin to be a real live Canadian? )

You seem to be telling me that Dhalla's constituents are calling for recently arrived old-people to get OAS benefits. I believe that few Canadians would actually support such a plan, so I'm curious as to what "constituents" she's speaking up for.

I also believe few people support this change.

As I have already STATED, AD NAUSEUM - I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS CHANGE. NEITHER DOES DOBBIN FOR THAT MATTER.

However, this is not to say that some people have good reasons to support it:

IF I came to Canada and was now a Canadian (I know, I know, still not Canadian enough or loyal enough for some people ) then I could see myself supporting such a measure.

It would help alleviate some of the financial pressure of bringing my parents to Canada (once again IF I was an immigrant).

And just because few people now agree with the bill does not mean that people could not become convinced to support it.

I doubt I would change my mind on the issue, but I certainly see more merit to the issue than I did previously (not much but more than the zero I saw in it yesterday).

When most MPs talk about their constituents, they're referring to people who live within the geographic boundaries of their riding, the people who elected them. I suspect that the constituents in most ridings would kick the ass of an MP who presented such a proposal to the House, so I'm left with two possibilities.

Either Dhalla lives in a riding with truly unusual demographics.

Or, Dhalla considers her constituents to be not the people who live within the bounds of her geographic riding, but the immigrant community as a whole.

So, I'm just curious, so that I can understand why a Member of Parliament feels that advocating for such a turd is a political winner for her.

-k

MP's should be representing their constituents interests period.

This is a free country and she should stand up and do something for that segment of her constituency that would find this important.

Just like other MP's should stand up and fight against the bill.

MP's regularly pursue policy to the benefits of some of their constituents for which they believe would benefit some Canadians - gay rights is one example.

-------

What I find amazing is the zeal with which people like you attack our democratic system merely because you disagree with this bill.

Look, I agree the bill is stupid.

Dhalla still has every right to bring the bill to the table.

She has done so (and she did so very well if the video is any indication).

I guess it comes down to that old line from Volataire: I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Well, I disagree with bill C-428 but I defend Dhalla's right to bring it to the table.

If only she and one constituent believe this is important then that is good enough for me.

I guess all I'm saying, is give democracy a chance.

If her constituents don't like it that much, then they can always kick her out at the next election.

[jdobbin]

But I bet you were in favor of nationalized daycare when that was in the Red Book, weren't ya?

No, I didn't.

I favoured working with the provinces since I believed they had the best idea what their needs were on daycare. I did not favour national daycare. Ultimately, it was the provincial/federal program that went through.

By the way, I didn't favour the gun registry either. I believed the best way for gun owners to to record their weapons was on their firearm certificates which they kept themselves.

Edited October 6, 2009 by jdobbin

[capricorn]

I also believe few people support this change.

As I have already STATED, AD NAUSEUM - I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS CHANGE. NEITHER DOES DOBBIN FOR THAT MATTER.

I gather that neither does the Liberal party.

Grits distance selves from Ruby Dhalla's old age benefits bill

The Liberal party’s seniors and pensions critic says she will not support a contentious bill introduced by one of her fellow caucus colleagues that would improve access to Old Age Security pension benefits for seniors.

The legislation, tabled by Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla, was designed to allow elderly immigrants to qualify for the pension benefits after being in the country for three years, instead of the current requirement of 10. But Judy Sgro, the seniors and pensions critic, said the Liberal party wants to come up with a more comprehensive approach to addressing pension issues.

“The leader (Michael Ignatieff) and the Liberal caucus feel the solutions to the challenges facing our national pension and retirement systems must be addressed holistically and with a comprehensive national vision,” Sgro said in a statement released late on Monday afternoon. “Expenditure of public dollars must never be made without careful consideration of the long-term ramifications on the public treasury.”

Sgro said the Liberal party believed that increasing Old Age Security benefits “was not the most appropriate method” to improve government support for new Canadians. She estimated that, if adopted, the plan would cost the government between $300 million to $700 million.

http://www.canada.com/business/Grits+dista...9101/story.html

I am relieved that Dhalla's bill as presently constituted probably won't fly. I think seniors need a longer attachment to Canada than 3 years to qualify for full or pro-rated OAS benefits. Another thought, if this provision was to pass, wouldn't seniors returning to their country of origin not be entitled to continue receiving the benefit? The law of unintended consequences is mired with possibilities.

[msj]

I am relieved that Dhalla's bill as presently constituted probably won't fly. I think seniors need a longer attachment to Canada than 3 years to qualify for full or pro-rated OAS benefits. Another thought, if this provision was to pass, wouldn't seniors returning to their country of origin not be entitled to continue receiving the benefit? The law of unintended consequences is mired with possibilities.

My gawd people are bloody lazy:

2. Who can receive the Old Age Security pension?

We look at two things to determine if you can receive the Old Age Security pension: your age and your years of residence in Canada.

If you fall into either of the categories below, you may be eligible to receive the Old Age Security pension.

Category 1 - People living in Canada

You are 65 or older.

You live in Canada and are a Canadian citizen or a legal resident at the time your pension is approved.

You lived in Canada for at least 10 years after reaching age 18.

Category 2 - People living outside Canada

You are 65 or older.

You left the country and you were a Canadian citizen or a legal resident of Canada when you left.

You lived in Canada for at least 20 years after reaching age 18.

If you do not fall into either of these two categories, you may still qualify for a pension since Canada has social security agreements with many countries. If you have lived in one of these countries or contributed to its social security system, you may qualify for a pension from that country, from Canada or from both countries.

That last part is important because it goes back to page one of this thread where reciprocal agreements are mentioned.

Oh, and I have also taken the time to compare the text of Bill C-428 to the OAS act and it does not appear that the bill intends to change the 20 year rule.

[Mr.Canada]

My gawd people are bloody lazy:

That last part is important because it goes back to page one of this thread where reciprocal agreements are mentioned.

Oh, and I have also taken the time to compare the text of Bill C-428 to the OAS act and it does not appear that the bill intends to change the 20 year rule.

See if Dhalla had said that she wants to work with some of the countries we don't have agreements with to set this up. that would be fine but to expect Canada to foot the entire bill is ludicrous and irresponsible.

Edited October 6, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[msj]

See if Dhalla had said that she wants to work with some of the countries we don't have agreements with to set this up. that would be fine but to expect Canada to foot the entire bill is ludicrous and irresponsible.

I agree again!

But of course I would since I already mentioned reciprocal agreements on page two (post #21)!

Hey, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Maybe you would like to add my picture to your collection on your bed stand?

[Mr.Canada]

I agree again!

But of course I would since I already mentioned reciprocal agreements on page two (post #21)!

Hey, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Maybe you would like to add my picture to your collection on your bed stand?

I thought this was common knowledge... These agreements aren't new and I read about them years ago. That's why I didn't mention it before. I'm mentioning it now because it fits with my pov.

[msj]

I thought this was common knowledge... These agreements aren't new and I read about them years ago. That's why I didn't mention it before. I'm mentioning it now because it fits with my pov.

Ha, you read about it in the link in your OP.

Well maybe - we've already considered that one, "typographical" error and all.

You read about it on here.

Given that you can't tell the difference between CPP and OAS, excuse me while I have another laugh.....

[Mr.Canada]

Memebers of Ruby's own party do not support her motion. I find this hilarious not to mention embarrassing. She is done in the next election and I won't be sorry to see her go. Maybe she still knows that Bollywood producer who can get her into some more movies.

[msj]

She is done in the next election and I won't be sorry to see her go.

Then that's democracy.

I doubt people will remember this issue and care that much to vote one way or the other.

Well, other than the racists - but they wouldn't vote for her anyway.

[kimmy]

Maybe it acts as an incentive to get the young people to come to Canada?

If I were to go to another country it sure would be better if I could bring my parents along.

I've never read anything to suggest that Canada has any difficulty attracting young people.

I also believe few people support this change.

As I have already STATED, AD NAUSEUM - I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS CHANGE. NEITHER DOES DOBBIN FOR THAT MATTER.

Yes, you've made that clear. And I've not accused you of supporting it. However, you and Dobbins both compared it to other programs that are supposed to be in the interest of the nation, so the question of how this is idea is supposed to be in the interest of the nation was a natural.

And, you're claiming that she's doing this on behalf of her "constituents", and that is what I am pursuing. I'm interested in finding out what "constituency" wants this to happen.

However, this is not to say that some people have good reasons to support it:

IF I came to Canada and was now a Canadian (I know, I know, still not Canadian enough or loyal enough for some people ) then I could see myself supporting such a measure.

Yeah, no kidding. If the government decided to start giving money to natural blondes, I could see myself supporting such a measure too.

MP's should be representing their constituents interests period.

This is a free country and she should stand up and do something for that segment of her constituency that would find this important.

Just like other MP's should stand up and fight against the bill.

If me and two friends wrote to our MP and suggested that tax credits for natural blondes was an awesome idea, and he stood up and proposed it in the house on behalf of his constituents, but 99.9% of people in this constituency actually think the idea is completely idiotic, does my MP still get to say it's what the constituents are asking for?

MP's regularly pursue policy to the benefits of some of their constituents for which they believe would benefit some Canadians - gay rights is one example.

I've not bothered to watch Dhalla speak on the subject, but if she wants to argue this as a social justice issue, I will be fascinated to see how that plays out.

What I find amazing is the zeal with which people like you attack our democratic system merely because you disagree with this bill.

Look, I agree the bill is stupid.

Dhalla still has every right to bring the bill to the table.

I am not questioning her right to do this.

I am simply skeptical about her motive.

I think it's a cynical ploy based on the assumption that immigrants will vote in blocks and that their loyalty can be obtained by championing a measure that-- if it were to succeed-- would be a bald-faced attempt to buy votes.

-k

[msj]

I've never read anything to suggest that Canada has any difficulty attracting young people.

And I haven't read anything to suggest that Canada has it easy.

So we have both admitted to some ignorance. BFD.

Yeah, no kidding. If the government decided to start giving money to natural blondes, I could see myself supporting such a measure too.

If me and two friends wrote to our MP and suggested that tax credits for natural blondes was an awesome idea, and he stood up and proposed it in the house on behalf of his constituents, but 99.9% of people in this constituency actually think the idea is completely idiotic, does my MP still get to say it's what the constituents are asking for?

And that person would have every right to do that.

Of course, Dhalla's bill is much broader than natural blondes as it, potentially, involves the parents of thousands of Canadians (albeit, immigrant Canadians rather than natural blondes).

Oh, I know, immigrants don't have as much persuasion as natural blondes.

I've not bothered to watch Dhalla speak on the subject, but if she wants to argue this as a social justice issue, I will be fascinated to see how that plays out.

Of course you haven't.

Why take the time to familiarize yourself with the subject.

My gawd people are lazy.

I am not questioning her right to do this.

I am simply skeptical about her motive.

I think it's a cynical ploy based on the assumption that immigrants will vote in blocks and that their loyalty can be obtained by championing a measure that-- if it were to succeed-- would be a bald-faced attempt to buy votes.

-k

I think the only ethnic block voting that goes on in Canada is done by natural blondes.

[kimmy]

And I haven't read anything to suggest that Canada has it easy.

oh? I'm sure I've heard that we turn away a lot of people and could accept way more than we do if we were so inclined. In fact, I've heard we're actually pretty choosy. If Ruby were to argue that we need to do something like this so that we can attract more immigrants, I guess she could do so, but I doubt she'd be so foolish.

And that person would have every right to do that.

Of course, Dhalla's bill is much broader than natural blondes as it, potentially, involves the parents of thousands of Canadians (albeit, immigrant Canadians rather than natural blondes).

Well, I had hoped to illustrate why a moronic proposal benefiting only an exclusive group to the detriment of everybody else being touted as "for the constituents!" would be a complete load of crap, but I guess I missed the mark.

Oh, I know, immigrants don't have as much persuasion as natural blondes.

No? Us blondes haven't got Ruby Dhalla in the House trying to give us money, that's for sure.

I think the only ethnic block voting that goes on in Canada is done by natural blondes.

I don't buy that for a minute. I bet Ruby doesn't either.

-k

[msj]

Yeah, no kidding. If the government decided to start giving money to natural blondes, I could see myself supporting such a measure too.

If me and two friends wrote to our MP and suggested that tax credits for natural blondes was an awesome idea, and he stood up and proposed it in the house on behalf of his constituents, but 99.9% of people in this constituency actually think the idea is completely idiotic, does my MP still get to say it's what the constituents are asking for?

-k

I really should have given this part more thought.

I could have applied Argus thought:

This is the problem I have with natural blonde politicians. They are basically the representatives of their own blonde hair follicles, not the broader community around them. They know who is responsible, in their riding, for getting them elected, and those are the people they work for.

He is a blondie in a riding with a high number of northern europeans who vote for him every election BECAUSE he's one of them. He knows who his real constituency is.

Another reason why I feel you should not be able to have citizenship until at least 7 years of brunette roots in Canada.

Or, I could apply reasons not related to this mythical, blonde, MP and his two blonde friends:

The policy is poorly constructed based simply on blonde hair follicles yadda yadda yadda (I mean, really, do I need go on with such an obvious straw man?)

Edited October 6, 2009 by msj

[msj]

oh? I'm sure I've heard that we turn away a lot of people and could accept way more than we do if we were so inclined. In fact, I've heard we're actually pretty choosy. If Ruby were to argue that we need to do something like this so that we can attract more immigrants, I guess she could do so, but I doubt she'd be so foolish.

I'm sure we've heard lots of things.

For a person who can't be bothered to watch a simple video in the OP - well, excuse me while I ignore your listening skills, too.

Well, I had hoped to illustrate why a moronic proposal benefiting only an exclusive group to the detriment of everybody else being touted as "for the constituents!" would be a complete load of crap, but I guess I missed the mark.

No, it hit the mark well.

Look up straw man arguments.

Then stop applying them.

[msj]

oh? I'm sure I've heard that we turn away a lot of people and could accept way more than we do if we were so inclined. In fact, I've heard we're actually pretty choosy. If Ruby were to argue that we need to do something like this so that we can attract more immigrants, I guess she could do so, but I doubt she'd be so foolish.

If you were to watch the video you would know that she presents it as a case of equality.

I don't buy this argument on the grounds of the reciprocal agreements as I have already mentioned.

Nevertheless, I do appreciate her argument.

It's just that I don't buy it for the reasons I have already outlined; none of which involve anything to do with her personally, unlike certain others in this thread.

I also have nothing against natural blondes.

[kimmy]

I'm sure we've heard lots of things.

For a person who can't be bothered to watch a simple video in the OP - well, excuse me while I ignore your listening skills, too.

Ok, I watched the video and it's even more awesome than I imagined it might be.

Aside from dishonestly referring to the reciprocity agreements with specific countries as "discrimination" against others, she also refers to South America, Africa, and the Caribbean as "countries".

That was super and I'm really glad you convinced me to watch it.

No, it hit the mark well.

Look up straw man arguments.

Then stop applying them.

It's not a straw-man. It's directly comparable.

- benefits only a small segment of the populace.

- membership in that segment is defined by circumstances of birth, not behavior or merit.

- it's to the detriment of everybody else.

- it's an MP representing a small, vocal group as his constituency, when in fact most of his constituents would probably be strongly opposed to the notion being presented.

-k

[Mr.Canada]

I'm sick and tired of politicians wasting our money or otherwise trying ti give it away like this. I don't understand what the argument in this thread is. Her own party is against this bill and most if not all on MLW are against this bill so what's the problem?

[jdobbin]

I don't buy that for a minute. I bet Ruby doesn't either.

But will the Tories buy it? There are media reports saying Ruby Dhalla will cross the floor to the Tories because they will support her OAS bill.

Weird.

[msj]

Ok, I watched the video and it's even more awesome than I imagined it might be.

Aside from dishonestly referring to the reciprocity agreements with specific countries as "discrimination" against others, she also refers to South America, Africa, and the Caribbean as "countries".

That was super and I'm really glad you convinced me to watch it.

I wouldn't call her dishonest. Just because you and I disagree with her does not mean she is being dishonest.

There are differences of opinion that are just differences of opinion.

It's not a straw-man. It's directly comparable.

- benefits only a small segment of the populace.

- membership in that segment is defined by circumstances of birth, not behavior or merit.

- it's to the detriment of everybody else.

- it's an MP representing a small, vocal group as his constituency, when in fact most of his constituents would probably be strongly opposed to the notion being presented.

You left out the part about the group of blondes who have a reciprocal card in their back pocket and the other blondes who have the non-reciprocal cards in their back pocket.

Your analogy is nowhere near close enough to be called "directly comparable" and, whenever one uses a weak analogy to directly compare to the original argument, it is a straw man argument.

Edited October 6, 2009 by msj

[Moonbox]

I wouldn't call her dishonest. Just because you and I disagree with her does not mean she is being dishonest.

To me, and the majority of the country, it appears as though she's trying to pull a fast one on us. If she's not being dishonest then perhaps she's just having a hard time disguising her contempt for the average born-and-raised Canadian. This proposal has so little merit that either her concept of fairness and what's right for Canada is all screwed up, or she's every bit as stupid as people perceive her to be.

[msj]

To me, and the majority of the country, it appears as though she's trying to pull a fast one on us. If she's not being dishonest then perhaps she's just having a hard time disguising her contempt for the average born-and-raised Canadian. This proposal has so little merit that either her concept of fairness and what's right for Canada is all screwed up, or she's every bit as stupid as people perceive her to be.

If I called a politician stupid every time I thought they had contempt for the voter, well, my vocal chords wouldn't work.

BFD.