# GIS entitilement



## tianyahaike (Feb 4, 2012)

My mother came from a country that does not have social security agreement with Canada. She came to Canada with visitor VISA and applied for permanent resident within and became a sponsored immigrant one and a half years later. She never left Canada since she came. Now, 10 years later, she has accumulated 10 years of residence in Canada but yet still under sponsorship. She was approved of the OAS, but was denied of GIS, which they say she needs to wait till the sponsorship period is over. I checked up the Old Age Security Act, nothing can be found to support such decision. Also, my understanding is that, if the sponsorship agreement is against the law, it should not be valid. Is my position correct?


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Because GIS is a welfare program, it falls to the sponsor to look after her, not the government.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

See http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/isp/oas/oasoverview.shtml

_Eligibility conditions: To receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement benefit, a person must be receiving an Old Age Security pension. The yearly income of the applicant or, in the case of a couple, the combined income of the applicant and spouse or common-law partner, cannot exceed certain limits.

Exception: Sponsored immigrants from countries with which Canada has agreements are not eligible for Guaranteed Income Supplement and Allowance during their sponsorship period (up to a maximum of 10 years) unless he/she:

* has 10 years of residence in Canada after the age of 18; or
* had resided in Canada as a Canadian citizen or permanent resident on or prior to March 6, 1996, became eligible for benefits January 1, 2001 or earlier; or
* was receiving benefits under the Old Age Security Act for the month of March 1996 or earlier._

I would ask for a review of this decision. The above excerpt certainly makes it sound as if she should be eligible either because she has been here for 10 years, or because her country of origin has no social security agreement with Canada. But perhaps there is something about the interpretation of "10 years of residence" that we are missing. It is possible it requires 10 years of permanent residency status, not 10 years of "residing in Canada", part of which was on a visitor's visa. The dept. should at least be able to explain to you where she fails to qualify.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

It might also mean 10 years before age 65.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

tianyahaike said:


> which they say she needs to wait till the sponsorship period is over.
> ...
> Also, my understanding is that, if the sponsorship agreement is against the law, it should not be valid. Is my position correct?


"They" are right - she must wait until the sponsorship period is over.
Can you explain what you meant by "if the sponsorship agreement is against the law"?
Are you referring to the sponsorship agreement that is part of the permanent residency application support that you would have provided for your mother?

A quick search on CIC shows that it is form# IMM1344EB.
Is that correct?
If so, not only is it legal, it is in fact highly binding for you.
If you are in violation of that agreement, the consequences can be severe.

And getting your mother to apply for GIS is indeed not a step in the right direction


----------



## tianyahaike (Feb 4, 2012)

HaroldCrump said:


> Can you explain what you meant by "if the sponsorship agreement is against the law"?
> Are you referring to the sponsorship agreement that is part of the permanent residency application support that you would have provided for your mother?
> 
> A quick search on CIC shows that it is form# IMM1344EB.
> ...


My points:
1. The law, which is the Old Age Security Act, should be the only guideline used to make decision.
2. According to the law, you really cannot find any clause that excludes her. In other words, she is eligible according the law.
3. The law and the agreement contradict with regard to her situation. This is similar to a employment contract where the employer wants to pay the employee less than the minimum rate.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

Has your mother ever worked here or contributed any income or payroll taxes to help fund the programs she now wants to access?


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Section 11(7)(e)(ii) precludes anyone from receiving GIS if they are currently under a sponsorship agreement. 

Quoting from the Act:

_Limitations on payment of supplement_

(7) No supplement may be paid to a pensioner for

(e) any month during which the pensioner is

(ii) a person in respect of whom an undertaking by a sponsor is in effect as provided under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Here's the link so you can check it yourself:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/O-9/index.html


----------



## tianyahaike (Feb 4, 2012)

MoneyGal said:


> (ii) a person in respect of whom an undertaking by a sponsor is in effect as provided under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
> [/url]


you missed (i) which is very important. note the relationship between (i) and (ii) is AND.


----------



## Sasquatch (Jan 28, 2012)

the-royal-mail said:


> Has your mother ever worked here or contributed any income or payroll taxes to help fund the programs she now wants to access?


^^^^^^^^^

Good question...... what's the response ?


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

Very good MoneyGal. No wonder OP is confused. The wording on the GIS web site doesn't match what it actually says in the Act.

Now, can you explain what is meant by: _(8) Paragraph (7)(e) does not apply to a pensioner where an event as provided by the regulations has occurred._

PS. Nevermind - I found it. It covers various untimely events affecting the sponsor's ability to continue supporting the applicant.

_Sponsorship Immigrants
22.1 (1) For the purposes of subsections 11(8), 19(6.2) and 21(9.1) of the Act, the following are events in relation to a sponsor referred to in those subsections:
(a) the death of the sponsor;
(b) the sponsor’s conviction of an offence under the Criminal Code relating to the sponsored individual;
(c) a determination that the sponsor is a bankrupt as defined in section 2 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act; and
(d) the sentencing of the sponsor to a term of imprisonment of more than six months.
...._


----------



## tianyahaike (Feb 4, 2012)

Hi OhGreatGuru, don't ignore 11. (7)(e) (i). You must be both (i) and (ii) will you be excluded from GIS.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

tianyahaike said:


> you missed (i) which is very important. note the relationship between (i) and (ii) is AND.


Well, what you said is that she's been in Canada for 10 years now, but got her permanent residency 8.5 years ago. 

11(7)(e)(i) and (ii) provide that no GIS is payable to a specially qualified individual who is under sponsorship. 

The Act provides that a “specially qualified individual” is "a person who has not resided in Canada after attaining eighteen years of age for an aggregate period of ten or more years."

"Resident" is defined as having attained the status of legal resident in Canada. See section 20(2)(1) of the OAS regulations: _a person who is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident of Canada does not reside in Canada for the purposes of the Act _

I didn't quote (i) as it seemed clear to me that she has not attained 10 years of residency in Canada - based on your original post.


----------



## tianyahaike (Feb 4, 2012)

Thanks MoneyGal. 10 years of residence in Canada is the requirement of OAS. Since my mother is approved of OAS, that means there is no question in this regard. This is what puzzles me.
By the way, where can i find the OAS regulations?


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

You do realize that if your mother does qualify she will only be getting around 170.00 per month at best based on the 10 years.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Well, then, I don't know. 

Here are the regulations:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,_c._1246/FullText.html


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

You can buy an annotated copy of the OAS Act (it's more than 500 pages and sold by CCH Canada). I don't have it, but searched the Google books version of the document (which provides a preview of some of the contents). 

I did find a reference on page 491 to a decision of the OAS Review Tribunal, which simply says that "The Tribunal has no authority or discretion to award GIS benefits to sponsored immigrants during the sponsorship term." 

So, I don't know how all of the elements of OAS, GIS, residency and sponsorship fit together, but it does sound as though being under a sponsorship agreement precludes an individual from receiving the supplement even if they are receiving OAS.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

According to the Sponsorship Agreement on the CIC website:










I read this to mean that _regardless_ of the rules and conditions for GIS, an immigrant under a sponsorship agreement is not eligible for the social benefits.
Has your mother completed the full 10 years of residence in Canada?


----------



## tianyahaike (Feb 4, 2012)

hi HaroldCrump, this is the thing. she's had 10 years of residence in Canada, and this is why she got the OAS approved. also, according to the law, it seems that she should not be excluded from GIS. but the agreement says she should not get the GIS. my question is simple: which one prevails, the law or the agreement?


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

MoneyGal said:


> ...
> 
> "Resident" is defined as having attained the status of legal resident in Canada. See section 20(2)(1) of the OAS regulations: _a person who is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident of Canada does not reside in Canada for the purposes of the Act ... _
> ...


This reference is incomplete. It goes on to list a whole lot of conditions under which a "resident" is not a resident for the purposes of the act. (i.e foreign diplomats; foreign military personnel on assignment in Canada; or their spouse or family members) I don't think OP's case falls into any of these categories


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Yes, which is why the annotated version of the Act is more than 500 pages. I listed the broadest definition, which speaks to the OP's situation as it has been described: 10 years of permanent residency in Canada. 

I'm doing a lot more linking and providing a lot more specific information than the OP, who is simply asserting that his mother (MIL? I've lost track) is entitled to this form of welfare.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

Like many on the forum most who are trying not to be nasty, this issue is very sensitive to most Canadians.
The idea of bringing immigrants to Canada to feed off our taxes.

I do understand that the question being asked is valid but I hope whatever changes the government makes going forward should first target those who come to Canada looking for welfare and that is what GIS is.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

On the face of it, it seemed peculiar to me that OAS and GIS would be using different definitions of eligibility and/or residency. But when I think about it there may be some logic to it. OAS eligibility is strictly based on age and years of residency - it is not income dependent. 

GIS, on the other hand, is income dependent, and sponsors have undertaken to provide the sponsored person with income support for a specified period of time as a condition of entry to the country. So I am starting to see a rationale for refusing to pay GIS during the sponsorship period.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

For what it's worth, here is a link to summaries of decisions by the OAS Review Tribunal on the issue of eligibility for GIS on the part of sponsored immigrants:

http://www.ocrt-bctr.gc.ca/dcn/oasres-sveres-eng.aspx?Su=2

There are 6 decision summaries presented, and in each one it is affirmed that a person is not eligible to receive GIS until their sponsorship agreement has ended, no matter the circumstances.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

Yes GIS bumps people with OAS & CPP to a minimum standard.

If someone came to Canada in the past ten years they get about 170.00 instead of 540.00 for OAS . To think OK now I'll see if I can get the rest of the minimum from GIS which is around 17,000.00 per year would be a joke.


----------



## tianyahaike (Feb 4, 2012)

Thanks all that have responded. I understand that people would not feel comfortable when a person who has come to Canada for just 10 years may have the same entitlement as the one who have lived here since their birth. If the law is to be changed to put more restriction, I would be all for it. What I am talking about now is how a person should be treated equally by the law. For most of the sponsored immigrants, if they come from a county with which Canada has social agreement(this is the majority, about 50 countries), they will be able to get OAS even before the 10 years limit(my mother couldn`t). During this period, the law clearly restricts them from getting GIS. But once they reach the 10 year limit, the will be entitled to GIS, even if they are still under sponsorship period(this is clearly stated on Service Canada`s website). So it looks like once the law permits, the sponsorship agreement can be set aside.

There is no such statement as `the law restricts people from getting GIS who is still under sponsorship`. The law doesn`t say this. This should be the result of the execution of the law, and this is true for most of the cases. For most of the immigrants, they came to Canada on the same day as the one when they became a permanent resident. This is not the case of my mother.

What I am trying to clarify now becomes a legal issue, and the answer seems to be obvious: the law should win over the agreement, if they contradict. I am also trying to invite people to find anything valid from the law that would disqualify my mother`s case, so that I won`t feel being mistreated.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

The people you should be asking are the Tribunal members, not us.


----------



## Saniokca (Sep 5, 2009)

You guys are being too nice.

In this particular case tianyahaike, the sponsoring gig should be yours for life. I wouldn't even allow OAS. Zero is a great number.


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

I'm still puzzled by this situation. Obviously the OP's mother has been in Canada for at least ten years - she must have been or she wouldn't be eligible for OAS. And the sponsorship period for parents is 10 years. So why would the OP still be subject to the sponsorship rules?

It's my opinion that someone in the OPs mother's circumstances (someone who has never paid into Canada's tax system or contributed in other ways) should not be eligible for OAS or for GIS, but my personal beliefs are beside the point. If the law needs to be changed, change it. But in the meantime, we have to abide by it. I'm just trying to understand what the law is in this case.


----------



## orange (Oct 23, 2011)

Perhaps there is some confusion as the OP states the mother has lived in the country for 10 years, but in the original post says she came on a VISITOR'S VISA 10 years ago...and did not become a sponsored immigrant until one and a half years later - meaning she is only 8.5 years into her sponsorship agreement. She has been living in Canada for 10 years, but not as a permanent resident...it seems as though she simply let her visitor's visa expire and remained in the country without proper papers until her sponsorship application was approved. This is very common as it is much easier and faster to apply for status from within the country, especially if you come from a country with long processing times.

I know of many individuals who have had their time in the country count towards their residency requirements for permanent resident and citizenship while under visitor and student visas, so perhaps this time was counted during OAS consideration as well - it would make sense as this is what they do for PR and citizenship. However, GIS cannot be claimed while under sponsorship, so that is why it can be denied. 

tianyahaike, is it correct that your mother has been IN canada for 10 years but only a sponsored immigrant for 8.5 years? If this is in fact the case your mother will be eligible for GIS once the sponsorship is complete.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

^ This, as far as I can tell, which is what I've been saying (in this thread) for a while now.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

tianyahaike said:


> Thanks all that have responded. I understand that people would not feel comfortable when a person who has come to Canada for just 10 years may have the same entitlement as the one who have lived here since their birth. If the law is to be changed to put more restriction, I would be all for it. What I am talking about now is how a person should be treated equally by the law. For most of the sponsored immigrants, if they come from a county with which Canada has social agreement(this is the majority, about 50 countries), they will be able to get OAS even before the 10 years limit(my mother couldn`t). During this period, the law clearly restricts them from getting GIS. But once they reach the 10 year limit, the will be entitled to GIS, even if they are still under sponsorship period(this is clearly stated on Service Canada`s website). So it looks like once the law permits, the sponsorship agreement can be set aside.
> 
> 
> The law really needs to be changed fast, when the government is talking about cutting a program that has been in place for Canadians since 1952 due to cost and we have people coming to Canada for welfare because there own sponsor family don't want to support them it does go to the heart of the matter.
> ...


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

Saniokca said:


> You guys are being too nice.
> 
> In this particular case tianyahaike, the sponsoring gig should be yours for life. I wouldn't even allow OAS. Zero is a great number.


I'm an immigrant myself and I totally agree. It makes no sense that Canadian taxpayers are supporting older immigrants who arrive here when they are close to or after retirement and are able to receive OAS and GIS after 10 years. The financial support of elderly family members should be the sole (and it should be legally enforced) responsibility of the sponsors.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

I would even argue a similar thing for young sponsored immigrants, with the obvious caveat that if they're working and paying income and other taxes, then that is obviously a different situation and they should be eligible for things like CPP and UI based upon their own contributions. The trouble with the older ones is if they never work here and pay these same payroll taxes.


----------



## Saniokca (Sep 5, 2009)

CC, I would think that there is a high percentage of immigrants on this forum (myself included).

We have enough freeloaders here already... No need to bring more.


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

the-royal-mail said:


> I would even argue a similar thing for young sponsored immigrants...


I think transfer payments for young family class immigrants should be kept as is. It is simply an investment because these young immigrants will grow up and become tax paying Canadians. I can't see any such upside for Canada from very elderly new immigrants.


----------



## tianyahaike (Feb 4, 2012)

calm down, people. it's no use to pure your anger over here...i am not the law maker.
special thanks to moneygal and ohgreatguru who have been very patient to talk about the issue.


----------



## Saniokca (Sep 5, 2009)

tianyahaike said:


> calm down, people. it's no use to pure your anger over here...i am not the law maker.


Good thing you're not... You just happen to use the system.

Enjoy the free lunch.


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

tianyahaike: although in my earlier post, I defended your mother's* legal *right to receive OAS and GIS if she meets the legal requirements, that doesn't mean I approve of it. I think that you have raised a lot of negative feelings in this thread by your attitude, which seems to be that those of us who have paid taxes in Canada all our lives should just shut up and pay your mother money that she has no *moral* right to. I notice that you answer some questions but you ignore others that you don't want to deal with. I would appreciate it if you would explain to us the basis on which you feel justified in expecting Canadian taxpayers to support a woman who has not contributed in any way to Canadian society.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

Good post Karen. I am not angry. But I have definitely noticed how cagey the OP has been in their responses. They seem to be leaving out lots of key information and attempting to focus the attention onto us when in fact the attention needs to be on the answers to the questions we have posed. All of them. OP isn't helping their cause by being so coy about the whole matter.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

We still don't have a clear answer from the OP whether his mother has completed 10 years as a _permanent resident_ or was part of those 10 years as a visitor.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

Well folks I don't really think the OP will post further.

I'm frustrated as an early retiree to see a government wanting to change OAS as the sun sets on me. After many years of paying 25,000.00 to 35,000.00 in taxes doing my part for Canada.

Both of my kids struggle to find their place in life I and my wife subsidize the shortfall for them.
I have no problem with immigration we need it and would not take issue with someone who has worked for twenty years then applied for assistance out of need or even ten years as long as they are doing what they can.

I believe the OP had every intention of putting their parent on the gravy train from day one. The twisted logic of well it's the law.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

The very first post is clear on this point, is it not?


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

^ OK, yeah that is right.
So mum has completed 8.5 years as a permanent resident and the sponsorship agreement will end after only 18 months more.

In that case, I don't understand the OP's impatience.
18 months is not much - time flies.

The bigger question for me is - if the OP is able to support his mother without GIS thus far, why the eagerness to burden the tax payer by claiming GIS.
She is already claimed OAS, which is more than enough in my opinion.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

And also, despite what the OP claims, I think the law is very clear on this point as well. And I provided a link to the regulations (also clear) and to six decisions of the OAS Review Tribunal on the eligibility of OAS recipients under sponsorship to GIS, all of which are unanimous in saying there is zero eligibility when someone is under sponsorship. 

I don't know what more "evidence" could be provided in support of the (existing) decision w/r/t the OP's relative's case. [shrug]


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

HaroldCrump said:


> The bigger question for me is - if the OP is able to support his mother without GIS thus far, why the eagerness to burden the tax payer by claiming GIS.
> She is already claimed OAS, which is more than enough in my opinion.


Kind of a silly question - if you can get free money, why wouldn't you go get it?


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Four Pillars said:


> Kind of a silly question - if you can get free money, why wouldn't you go get it?


That is a rhetorical question, right?
_Someone_ is paying for it


----------



## stephenheath (Apr 3, 2009)

HaroldCrump said:


> That is a rhetorical question, right?
> _Someone_ is paying for it


Yes, but if it's not you paying for it? If I was offered free money (free for me) that I knew you were paying for Harold, I'd say "sure, I'll gladly take it". Unlike many others though, I'd at least have the courtesy to invite you for dinner and share my windfall with you


----------



## tianyahaike (Feb 4, 2012)

I didn't answer some of the post because I was initially seeking answer and don't want to be involved in 'moral' discussion, which could be endless and ending up nowhere. And I was wrong, there is not much useful information that I can find here other than being morally questioned by some people without even looking into the case. So I feel necessary to share some of my view on the issue:
1. Remember, the Old Age Security Act is not called Old Age Security Act for Canadian-Borns. And the purpose of this act, as you all understand, is to provide old age security. If any of you think people should be excluded from the security based on the birth origin, then I would think the following should also be valid: the GIS should be totally removed, because based on my income and savings, I don's see any chance in the future that I will be qualified for this money, why my tax dollar should be going to other's pocket?
2. People may think since you are under sponsorship, it's morally not right to claim GIS. The answer to this is, they have misunderstood the relationship between the law and the sponsorship agreement. Here is some background: the Old Age Security was once amended in 1996. Before that, people could legally claim the GIS according to the law while still under the sponsorship. The 1996 amendment added that people under agreement are not qualified for GIS, unless they have accumulated 10 years of residence in Canada. Who can answer me this question: why does not the law simply say whoever under sponsorship agreement is not qualified? 
I didn't expect this post could have raised so much discussion, and also didn't expect it could make some people feel bad. I hope this can help those people feel little better.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

tianyahaike said:


> I didn't answer some of the post because I was initially seeking answer and don't want to be involved in 'moral' discussion, which could be endless and ending up nowhere. And I was wrong, there is not much useful information that I can find here other than being morally questioned by some people without even looking into the case. So I feel necessary to share some of my view on the issue:
> 1. Remember, the Old Age Security Act is not called Old Age Security Act for Canadian-Borns. And the purpose of this act, as you all understand, is to provide old age security. If any of you think people should be excluded from the security based on the birth origin, then I would think the following should also be valid: the GIS should be totally removed, because based on my income and savings, I don's see any chance in the future that I will be qualified for this money, why my tax dollar should be going to other's pocket?
> 2. People may think since you are under sponsorship, it's morally not right to claim GIS. The answer to this is, they have misunderstood the relationship between the law and the sponsorship agreement. Here is some background: the Old Age Security was once amended in 1996. Before that, people could legally claim the GIS according to the law while still under the sponsorship. The 1996 amendment added that people under agreement are not qualified for GIS, unless they have accumulated 10 years of residence in Canada. Who can answer me this question: why does not the law simply say whoever under sponsorship agreement is not qualified?
> I didn't expect this post could have raised so much discussion, and also didn't expect it could make some people feel bad. I hope this can help those people feel little better.


#1 No one on this board ever suggested OAS should be only open to 
Canadian Born people. The issue for most is someone who has contributed nothing to Canada or society. 
I will never see a nickel from GIS and I've paid taxes in this country for forty years. GIS is a welfare grant met to supplement retirement not pay for it.

#2 Who has been paying for your mother until now clearly you have been.
Did something change that your not able to continue?

#3 Don't try and paint folks on this board as racist for questioning your morale compass.
What would you do if the tribunal came back and said your mother must leave the country ?

Lets leave ethnic issues out of it, the tax payers of Canada would really like to know why your mother should be supported with our tax dollars.
How many people do you think will be able to come to Canada to start new lives if much is demanded from the tax payer.


----------



## tianyahaike (Feb 4, 2012)

"GIS is a welfare grant met to supplement retirement not pay for it." This is not accurate. This is for low income seniors.
Ok, let's change 'Canadian-borns' to 'Whose who worked for 40 years in Canada'. Still you think somebody takes your money if not worked for 40 years is the same as I think somebody takes my money if his/her income is low.
Something has changed that she is entitled.
Don't worry, that won't happen. But I know the tribunal will correct the error, if there is any.


----------



## Koala (Jan 27, 2012)

If someone has worked in Canada, they have been paying taxes. Even if someone never had a job but lived here for years they have probably contributed and benefitted taxpayers in other ways. For example, a woman who never 'worked' but raised children (future Canadian income earners), allowed her husband to work more, probably volunteered, and spent money in Canada has contributed to Canadian society. 

An elderly person who moves to Canada probably isn't going to benefit the taxpayers, and if they are obtaining paid for/subsidized medical care, GIS, OAS, etc. they are adding a burden to taxpayers.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

tianyahaike said:


> "GIS is a welfare grant met to supplement retirement not pay for it." This is not accurate. This is for low income seniors.
> Ok, let's change 'Canadian-borns' to 'Whose who worked for 40 years in Canada'. Still you think somebody takes your money if not worked for 40 years is the same as I think somebody takes my money if his/her income is low.
> Something has changed that she is entitled.
> Don't worry, that won't happen. But I know the tribunal will correct the error, if there is any.


My Google search say's your country of origin is China.
Is it not custom to care for the parent because the folks I know from China do take care of the parent.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

tianyahaike said:


> "GIS is a welfare grant met to supplement retirement not pay for it." This is not accurate. This is for low income seniors.
> Ok, let's change 'Canadian-borns' to 'Whose who worked for 40 years in Canada'. Still you think somebody takes your money if not worked for 40 years is the same as I think somebody takes my money if his/her income is low.


There _is_ a difference.
Your mother is sponsored immigrant under the family class subject to the sponsorship agreement (granted, for only 10 years).
The premise of the family class is family re-unification.
Those that came to Canada as workers, students, businesspeople, etc. are allowed to sponsor not just their immediate families (spouse, kids, etc.) for parents, grandparents, etc. as well.
There are provisions in the law that allow sponsorship of cousins as well.

The intent is purely family re-unification.
The intent is not (and never was) a social assistance loophole.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

That is well put Harold, given that the OP's mother likely does live with them the money would only really be going into the OP's pocket not to the mother.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

I understand the sentiment against giving OAS to someone who in our minds (mine too) doesn't deserve it, but the fact is that it is possible to collect OAS under those circumstances.

I'm not sure why the negativity is being directed towards the OP (ie please justify your actions, does this person really need the $$) when in fact it should be directed at the lawmakers of the country. 

The OP can't change the laws.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

GIS vs. OAS. I don't know that anyone is arguing about OAS. GIS is explicitly a welfare program, and people under sponsorship are not eligible. The OP is asking why this is, and implicitly how he or she can get around the restrictions.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

Sorry, I meant GIS.

I didn't read that she was trying to get around the rules - more trying to clarify what the rules were and wondering if a mistake was made.


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

> ...Also, my understanding is that, if the sponsorship agreement is against the law, it should not be valid...


I agree with Four Pillars that it is the law that needs to be changed, and I admit that it isn't fair to blame the OP and the mother for taking advantage of the law as it currently exists (although I still think it's morally wrong).

I just went back and re-read the original post, and I'm puzzled by the OP's comment that I've quoted above. Why does he/she think that the sponsorship agree might be against the law? If I've understood correctly, the mother has been in Canada for ten years, making her eligible for OAS. Of that ten years, she has been a permanent resident for 8 1/2 years. Isn't the law quite clear that the sponsor (in this case the OP) is responsible for the immigrant's support for ten years after they receive their permanent resident status? So doesn't that make it quite clear that the mother is still subject to the sponsorship agreement for another year and a half? Am I missing something?


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

The OP is claiming that because the mom is eligible for OAS, GIS eligibility should follow, even though mom is still under a sponsorship agreement.


----------



## Saniokca (Sep 5, 2009)

Four Pillars said:


> I'm not sure why the negativity is being directed towards the OP (ie please justify your actions, does this person really need the $$) when in fact it should be directed at the lawmakers of the country.
> 
> The OP can't change the laws.


I don't think there's anything preventing you or me to walk into a food bank and get free food. Would you be ok if "dinks" (double income no kids) with income of 170k+ doing that?

It's not just a legislation issue, it's also a moral issue...


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

> I don't think there's anything preventing you or me to walk into a food bank and get free food. Would you be ok if "dinks" (double income no kids) with income of 170k+ doing that?


Actually, I think there is, at least in B.C. I believe you have to have some kind of authorization to be able to register at a food bank here, although I don't know how it works. I assume it has to be issued by a social worker, but I'm not sure of that.


----------



## Saniokca (Sep 5, 2009)

I just remember that in uni I knew people who went to the food bank and then I would see them at the local bar...

what if one of the "dinks" makes 150k and the other 20k (or less) and they're not married but live together? I would assume it would be pretty easy to qualify for free food...


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

Saniokca said:


> I don't think there's anything preventing you or me to walk into a food bank and get free food. Would you be ok if "dinks" (double income no kids) with income of 170k+ doing that?
> 
> It's not just a legislation issue, it's also a moral issue...


Hmm..when you put it like that...

I see your point that even a gov't program can have a moral component. Personally I tend to think of gov't programs/benefits as a free for all where anyone who qualifies should take advantage of them. Ie if I wasn't deserving of the benefit, then I wouldn't qualify for it.

By my definition, nobody who legitimately qualifies for a gov't handout is abusing anything. 

Something like a food bank is likely less regulated and uses more of an honour system. Of course there can be, and likely are abuses.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Maybe this is my lack of understanding of the immigration system, however:

This is a case of an elderly relative being sponsored under the Family Class.
This class of immigration is a non economic class (i.e. not workers, students or business folks) and is intended purely for family re-unification.
Those that qualify under this class (such as the OP's mother) are often elderly relatives (parents, grandparents, etc.).
Such folks become permanent residents with the assumption that the sponsors are responsible for taking care of them life-long.

IMHO, there is a big disconnect between the intent of this class of immigration and the qualification criteria for social assistance programs like OAS and GIS.


----------

