Site Search

Custom Search

Thursday, October 1, 2009

Ruby Dhalla is back in the news

The federal member of parliament for Brampton-Springdale, Ruby Dhalla, is proposing in a private member’s bill that immigrants be eligible for Old Age Security after only being in the country for three years. Ms. Dhalla supports her proposal with a Conference Board of Canada report that six per cent of seniors in Canada continue to live in poverty despite the fact that more than 95 per cent of seniors in Canada collect Old Age Security. She states on her Web site that:

“As a Member of Parliament I consider it my responsibility to bring the concerns of these seniors forward in Parliament. It is for this reason I have brought forward Bill C428 [An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (residency requirement)] to ensure that all seniors have the opportunity to age with dignity and respect.”

Let’s be clear: Bill C428 seeks to amend the Old Age Security Act’s residency requirement and nothing more. Instead of sponsoring a bill that might benefit all seniors in Canada who continue to live in poverty, Ms. Dhalla chooses to pander shamelessly to the immigrant community exclusively.

This is how the member for Brampton-Springdale fulfills her “responsibility to bring the concerns of these seniors forward in Parliament.” Let’s ignore seniors who have contributed to Canada for a decade or more; let them continue to live in poverty.

But let’s add to Canada’s generosity towards those who enter the country at or near retirement age, while conveniently forgetting that the federal immigration family sponsorship program (reunification program) clearly places the onus of financial support upon the family of the immigrant, not taxpayers. That is our system: the immigrant family is reunited and the rest of Canada’s taxpayers are not asked to supplement the incomes of unproductive immigrants.

As points out here:

“Let us not forget that these elderly immigrants already take up their fair share of the social security burden to which they have not contributed either, when it comes to hospitals and medical care. Patient waiting lists have increased in Ruby Dhalla’s riding, as well as scarcity of hospital beds, because of the associated health risks that come with sponsoring elderly people to Canada.”

With Bill C428, Ms. Dhalla has shown callous disregard for those less fortunate than herself who are unable to cast their vote in her favour as repayment for “selective” legislation. Michael Ignatieff must be very proud.

Return to Main page »
© 2009 Russell G. Campbell
All rights reserved.

8 comments — This is a moderated blog and comments will appear when approved. Please don’t resubmit if your comment doesn’t appear immediately, and please do not post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable.

  1. William in Ajax Says...

    Ms. Dhalla wants to keep her seat in parliment, this little dangled carrot(C248) is for her riding exclusively.
    Seeing the slaughter comming, pandering to her ridings large immigrant base will guarantee her seat, in the next election.
    Typical Liberal!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Welcome to Canada. Prepare to see the patronage politics of India being played out in Canada. I am saying this as a person of Indian origin, things are going to get a lot uglier as these MPs become more comfortable with pandering.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dhalla is finished. Numbers in her riding have tanked for her.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If this is the start of what they are proposing for this country then we need to get off our duffs now and start fighting! (real conservative)

    ReplyDelete
  5. I wasn't really surprized by it. It's a win-win for her. By pandering to her riding she wins her riding if the bill passes, and if the bill doesn't pass she brands the Tories as 'anti-Indian' and wins her riding anyway. I don't resent her for trying, this is politics after all. The only reason she can do this is since there is such a high concentrations of Indians in her riding. She would be a fool not to take advantage of that. That doesn't make it 'right' of course, but since when has that ever mattered in politics?

    ReplyDelete
  6. As previously stated, lowering the residency time required from 10 to 3 years will enable one to receive only $38.00 monthly of Old Age Security (OAS) - however they would also be entitled to receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) of up to AN ADDITIONAL $1,131.47 per month TAX-FREE ! Our current OAS policy grants more disposable income benefits to a Canadian resident of 10 years as compared to a life-long Canadian living in Canada for 40 years - and now Dhalla wants to reduce it to only 3 years and they too would receive more than life-long Canadians.
    A more pressing issue with the OAS is a fact that the latest average payment of the OAS is 95% of the maximum monthly payment of $516.96 or $489.52 while the average monthly payments to widows and widowers is only 43% of the maximum monthly allowance of $1,050.68 or $451.71 monthly. Why such a disparity?

    info@detectapension.com

    ReplyDelete
  7. My wife and I came here as students and worked our way here. We are aware of people who have been here only for few years and have sponsored their parents for immigration visas. The parents get the visas but don't make home here! They misuse our health system. Also, their children get the tax shelter for looking after them. How fare are you in making three years for Old age pension?
    Who will pick up the tab?

    Are you using this as an incentive to get re-elected?

    ReplyDelete

ShareThis