Statisticians often cite that old adage that there are “lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
That phrase was coined long before computer technology was common, so maybe people who use it should add “information from cyberspace” somewhere to that expression.
The Advertiser recently received a well circulated email that contains just enough truth in it to cause problems and which has inundated MPs’ offices.
In fact, Wellington Halton Hills MP Michael Chong used the front page of his recent Newsletter to constituents to try to set the record straight. He answered the question “Is the government changing the Old Age Security residency requirement to just three years?
“The short answer is an emphatic no,” he wrote, noting that the issue “generated much interest and public outcry as Bill C-428, An Act to Amend the Old Age Security Act. Rarely a day passes without my office receiving a phone call, email or letter opposing Bill C-428.”
That bill is not government legislation but a Private Member’s bill introduced by Ruby Dhalla, the Liberal MP for Brampton-Springdale and it was seconded by Bob Rae, Liberal MP for Toronto Centre.
Chong said if it is passed, it would reduce the time required for a person to live in Canada from 10 years to three years, in order to qualify for monthly Old Age Security.
Chong’s assistant, Jim Smith, said in an interview first reading simply means parliament hears about the bill but does not debate it. The bill is now in line to receive a second reading.
At second reading, the Bill is debated in the House of Commons. After debate is finished, a vote will be held about sending it to a House of Commons standing committee for further study. If the majority votes against it, the bill is declared defeated and may not be introduced until a new Parliament is formed.
Chong said, “I am strongly opposed to this Private Member’s Bill, and will not be voting in favour … at any stage. Conservative Members of Parliament are strongly opposed to this Bill. I, along with my caucus colleagues, will vote against this legislation when the vote takes place at second reading.”
Chong wrote in his Newsletter, “I understand and agree with constituents that this Private Member’s Bill is too generous in providing an Old Age Security Pension to someone who has only lived in Canada for three years. I can assure you that I will do everything I can to work toward its defeat.”
Smith explained the maximum amount people can collect for Old Age Security is $524 a month. But, people do not have to be living in Canada to collect it. To qualify for OAS, people have to have lived in Canada for 40 years between the ages of 18 and 65. For every year they fall short of that 40 years, they lose 1/40th of the OAS.
The OAS, Smith said, goes to everyone who qualifies who earns less than $67,000 a year. After that, the higher the income, the lesser the amount of OAS payment, until the recipient has an income of $109,000 per year. After that level, the recipient gets nothing.
The OAS should not be mistaken for the Canada Pension Plan (CPP), which pays to a set maximum what people have paid into it over the course of their working lives.
Smith added that people with really low income can also qualify for the Guaranteed Income Supplement, to a maximum of $961 per year – which is based on their income – not including the OAS. That supplement is for people with incomes under $29,000 a year.
The problem that Chong’s staff faces every day comes not from rumours that the government is planning the changes, but people’s outrage at what they see is an overly generous government towards immigrants.
In the case of the email to the Advertiser, an untrue addition to the complaint about the OAS was a comparison showing that immigrants qualify for more than $16,000 more in government aid than ordinary Canadians who have lived in Canada all their lives.
That one could fall under “lies, damned lies, and statistics” – or maybe blame the internet.
Smith said that particular rumour has been around for at least six years and is simply untrue – as well as being a problem.
“Yeah, it is,” said Smith. “People read it and they totally think there is someone getting more money than me – who hasn’t lived in Canada and contributed.”
He said since the OAS issue went into cyberspace, Chong’s office averaged two phone calls a day with complaints about immigrants being treated better than lifelong Canadians.
Chong’s explanation in his Newsletter helped a little.
“Now it’s down to one a day,” Smith said with a chuckle.
He also noted there is another way for the OAS bill seeking a reduction to three years from 10 can be defeated.
“If there is an election” he said, explaining that all bills die on the order paper when an election is called. If that happens, they have to restart the entire process in the new parliament.
