A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian? I don't think so...

[alphazip]

I have a question on a related matter. I first came to Canada as an international student, and studied here for four years. 16 years later, I landed as a permanent resident. Will my 4 years in Canada as a student count towards my OAS? On the one hand, it seems silly that they would. On the other, everything I've seen simply says 'years lived in Canada after the age of 18'. I was older than 18, and I was living in Canada . . .

Also, do 'years' mean calendar years, or 'years of time'. In 1990, I was only in Canada for 4 months; but from September 1990 to October 1991 I was in Canada for 10 months. From September 1990 to May 1994, I was in Canada for probably a total of 36 or so months, but only three of those calendar years did I approach 9-10 months per year. Anyone have an idea how the GoC calculates this?

Yes, they will count. Just make sure that you have/keep all records (visa, stamp, COPR) relating to your arrival in Canada and any absences from Canada, though you only have to report those that are in excess of 6 months.

 

[dpenabill]

Dpenabill, I'm not sure what country you immigrated from, but if it's a country that has a Social Security agreement with Canada (e.g., the USA), time spent in the other country (under that country's retirement system) can be used to qualify for OAS in Canada. (In other words, the 10 year qualification period could have been spent outside of Canada.) However, in that case, only a partial pension is paid, based on the number of years actually lived in Canada. This does not affect a person's entitlement to benefits in the original country, so a person can receive a pension both in Canada AND in the country of origin (e.g., OAS and Social Security).

As to your comment about "need", OAS only starts to be clawed back at an overall income of $71,592, and disappears entirely at $114,815. It's really the Old Age Supplement that is more related to "need."

Thank you for pointing this out, although I was aware of this. And it would apply to me except, again, as to how old I was when I finally became a PR. I got my "letter" from OAS some time ago (the one they send a month after a person turns 64). I do not recall what I ultimately calculated, but I would be entitled to some amount, a benefit in the range of $20 to $40 I think it was. But I am indeed still working, planning to work for as long as I can, and am making rather substantial contributions to CPP along the way (for just a bit longer . . . not sure what happens when I hit 70, coming all too soon . . . whether I still pay into CPP without it counting as a contribution toward my own pension or how that works), and I am already entitled to a full benefit from U.S. Social Security.

As for the distinction about the base OAS and the supplement, I clarified that in a subsequent post above.

On the contrary, if you're an American (and worked under Social Security) you're likely eligible for OAS right now! However, the monthly amount would not be much.

Yep. As noted, I got the "letter" some time ago.

But indeed, not much at all. Not enough to feed a cat these days. Enough to keep the bird feeder full I suppose, but we stop doing that this time of year to avoid encouraging birds to stay which might migrate; later, once winter is in full gear (probably about two or three weeks from now, but early December at the latest) we will restock the feeders . . . and perhaps I should do the paperwork so that Canada covers the cost eh.

. . . some dust covered international agreement to reduce statelessness . . .

While the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness is itself more than a half century old, it continues to be an important accord and is bolstered by many other subsequent international treaties and agreements. Between it and the earlier convention (I forget its name or the year it was initially adopted, in the mid-50s as I recall) for the protection of stateless persons, and in conjunction with more recent accords regarding refugees, these international laws constitute a crucial part of international relations, particularly in today's extremely volatile world. They serve to protect Canadian interests as much as they directly affect individuals.

Similar to Canadian constitutional law, this realm of international law is likewise complex, and while there are many lawyers in the world who have expertise in one aspect of it or another (such as lawyers whose expertise is representing and advocating the interests of refugees), expertise in the structural level of these laws is, similar to expertise in Canadian constitutional law, probably quite rare. In this regard, while Ben Perrin left the PMO well before Bill C-24 was tabled, he had long been Harper's key adviser in this area and I suspect it was his influence in the early stages of drafting or planning to draft the legislation that resulted in Section 10.4 in the Act. Indeed, I wonder if Bill C-24 might have overlooked the rendering stateless issue altogether but for Perrin's input. (Note, Perrin was long very close to Harper, one of a very few very close to the PM, the third leg so to speak, the three being Novak, Wright, and Perrin, and then Perrin like Wright became distanced from the PM largely due to the attempt to cover-up corruption related to Senate expenses, but Perrin taking the more or less high road while Wright, uncharacteristically according to many insiders, did not. The absence of both Wright and Perrin, leaving only Novak, may have been a key factor in the PM's demise.)

In any event, Canada is very much a party to international laws governing statelessness, and bound by them. While I hardly know how Canadian law is structured relative to certain laws having precedence or priority over other laws, I do know that these laws do have priority or precedence relative to laws governing the revocation of citizenship. Thus, it is simply not possible, without major changes to laws other than just those governing citizenship, to legitimately adopt provisions for stripping citizenship which would render individuals stateless (except as provided in the relevant accords -- and right, revocation for misrepresentation or fraud is allowed, under the international accords, even if that leaves the individual stateless, precisely for the reason you stated, and that is that any such citizenship is not legitimate to begin with).

So, the validity of the section 10.(2) grounds for revoking citizenship is dependent on including the section 10.4 provision which in effect precludes revocation of citizenship that would render persons stateless, and in doing so thus creates two groups or classes or tiers of citizenship.

The overriding issues of validity, constitutional and Charter issues, are far more complicated, and while jurists and pundits and others might speculate how the Supreme Court of Canada might decide these issues, there are again very few experts whose opinion regarding this warrant much weight. I have my own opinion, and while I have examined and researched this quite a lot, and I have many decades of professional experience analyzing legal issues, I recognize that the best I can do is mostly a bare guess. I can identify some factors and sub-issues which I think should be influential, but even as to this I cannot but guess how they will factor into what the Supreme Court decides . . . IF . . . if this is decided by the Supreme Court, and a big IF that is.

Among the issues:
-- does section 10.4 actually create two classes or tiers of citizenship, and if so is this constitutionally valid?
-- what is the nature of citizenship itself? A privilege (as several Federal Court justices have described it)? Or a right? Or something in between deserving greater protection than a privilege?
-- what is the scope of Parliament's power to take away a person's citizenship once that person is, legitimately, a citizen?

In this regard, Bigudi was perspicuous to challenge the meaning of the proposition that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.

This is more of an emotive expression than a proposition or logical statement, one intended to evoke the import of equality as well as the fundamental nature of what it means to be a citizen. It is catchy though. And I think it does indeed evoke important concepts in addition to the right sentiments.

By the way, to be clear, I do not think any reasonable persons, in any of the parties, are advocating that terrorists should not have their rights taken away. I know of no one who is not in favour of locking them up, taking away their right to freely move about in Canadian society. I know of no one who is not in favour of taking away their passport (there are various laws which allow the government to take away a citizen's passport; this does not mean the person is not a citizen).

The concept underlying a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian is that there is a fundamental difference between status as a Canadian citizen, which should be relatively inviolable, and the particular rights one has as a citizen, the latter subject to restriction, including totally taking them away, when there is a compelling government interest . . . such as there is in protecting the country and Canadians from terrorism and those who have or would engage in terrorism.

There is no need whatsoever to revoke the status of citizenship in order to do what is necessary to protect Canada or Canadians from terrorism. The question to ask, then, is why did the Conservatives incorporate this into its revision of the Citizenship Act? There are various opinions about this. The one that is most obvious to me is to give the impression that this government was doing everything possible to protect Canadians, even if it does not really do that, and doing so despite (perhaps even because) the included impression they are distinguishing two classes of Canadians, the old stock Canadian versus not just immigrants but the children of immigrants. Or, as Justin Trudeau and Tom Muclair describe it, the politics of division and fear.

 

[nope]

Yes, they will count. Just make sure that you have/keep all records (visa, stamp, COPR) relating to your arrival in Canada and any absences from Canada, though you only have to report those that are in excess of 6 months.

So when figuring this, they go by not absolute time, but residence for a majority of a calendar year? That would mean, since I started school at the beginning of the academic year in 1990, that I would have the following:

1990: 4 months
1991: 9 months
1992: 9 months
1993: 9 months
1994: 5 months

Would that be 3 years of credit for OAS?

 

[eaglesky]

Maybe off-topic but how much is max retirement amount (CPP,OAS,GSI) for a retired person ? for example a doctor who has $ 200K annual income gets same amount as a person with $ 60K?

 

[screech339]

Maybe off-topic but how much is max retirement amount (CPP,OAS,GSI) for a retired person ? for example a doctor who has $ 200K annual income gets same amount as a person with $ 60K?

It depends on whether you max out your cpp deduction or not. If you max out your annual limit of 2480 / year (employee/employer) or 4960 for self employed for a set number of years, you will get max cpp payout at retirement. If you only contributed half of the cpp contribution limit per year, then you will get half of the max cpp payout.

OAS has a max pay but it depends on how long you lived in Canada. Live 40 years in Canada, get max OAS, lived 20 years in Canada, you get half OAS. Of course it would be clawed back depending on how much retirement money you have saved up at retirement.

 

[eaglesky]

It depends on whether you max out your cpp deduction or not. If you max out your annual limit of 2480 / year (employee/employer) or 4960 for self employed for a set number of years, you will get max cpp payout at retirement. If you only contributed half of the cpp contribution limit per year, then you will get half of the max cpp payout.

OAS has a max pay but it depends on how long you lived in Canada. Live 40 years in Canada, get max OAS, lived 20 years in Canada, you get half OAS. Of course it would be clawed back depending on how much retirement money you have saved up at retirement.

Imagine 2 person who max out their CPP deduction and has lived in Canada for 50 years but one of them has over $200K annual income and other middle class one has 60 K annual income .As I heard from somebody and read Canadian's government websites they both will get max CPP , OAS , Guaranteed supplement income(If apply because this one is for low income seniors) something around $ 2000 monthly. Is it correct?

 

[alphazip]

Thank you for pointing this out, although I was aware of this. And it would apply to me except, again, as to how old I was when I finally became a PR. I got my "letter" from OAS some time ago (the one they send a month after a person turns 64). I do not recall what I ultimately calculated, but I would be entitled to some amount, a benefit in the range of $20 to $40 I think it was. But I am indeed still working, planning to work for as long as I can, and am making rather substantial contributions to CPP along the way (for just a bit longer . . . not sure what happens when I hit 70, coming all too soon . . . whether I still pay into CPP without it counting as a contribution toward my own pension or how that works), and I am already entitled to a full benefit from U.S. Social Security.

Well, the current full OAS monthly payment (40 years of residence) is $569.95. That amounts to about $14.25 per year of residence. So, if you have resided in Canada for 5 years, you would get roughly $71.25. As I mentioned, it's not the number of years spent in Canada at age 65, but the number of years in Canada when your payments begin. Each year you wait to apply, it will be another $14.25 added to your monthly pension. Take note that if you need to use U.S. Social Security credits, Service Canada will take well over a year to process the application.

 

[steaky]

In contrast, the OAS, the Old Age Security benefits, are determined by how long the person has lived in Canada after the age of 18. Where you were born is irrelevant. The CoPR establishes the date you came to live in Canada for purposes of the OAS. The amount of this benefit is not at all dependent on any contribution made, but is dependent on (1) need (many Canadians will not get anywhere near a full OAS benefit because they already receive income from other sources, like CPP and private pensions), and (2) number of years since becoming a resident of Canada, after age 18 (minimum is 10 years, and maximum benefit comes after 40 years; in between the benefit is proportional depending on years in Canada). Thus, someone who immigrated to Canada in their early 20s will be entitled to the full OAS benefit, regardless of where they were born, subject of course to whatever the current limitations are based on other income. In contrast, for example, I came to Canada so late in life I will not qualify for OAS, as I am still way short of being in Canada ten years while I have already reached retirement age.

How about a person who got his/her Canadian citizenship by decent?

 

[alphazip]

How about a person who got his/her Canadian citizenship by decent?

If you have lived in Canada for at least one year, you can use U.S. credits to qualify for partial OAS. If you're a citizen who has never lived in Canada, you're not entitled to any Canadian pension.

 

[alphazip]

Imagine 2 person who max out their CPP deduction and has lived in Canada for 50 years but one of them has over $200K annual income and other middle class one has 60 K annual income .As I heard from somebody and read Canadian's government websites they both will get max CPP , OAS , Guaranteed supplement income(If apply because this one is for low income seniors) something around $ 2000 monthly. Is it correct?

I've found that this is a good site at which to ask this type of question: http://retirehappy.ca/how-much-will-the-government-pay-you/