To the editor:

I read with interest Doug Stead’s letter to the editor of Oct. 14 regarding Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla’s Private Member’s Bill C-428, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act (residency requirement).

I would like to take this opportunity to state my position on this bill.

Bill C-428 was introduced into the House of Commons by Ms. Dhalla last June. The purpose of this bill is to lower the required number of years an individual must reside in Canada before receiving Old Age Security (OAS) from 10 to only three years.

In the months following the introduction of the bill, individuals and seniors organizations across Canada began writing and calling their MPs to protest this bill, and our riding was no exception. My office received dozens of emails and phone calls regarding this legislation.

I was told by many of you that it is unfair for newcomers to this country to receive a lifelong, publicly-funded benefit made possible by the hard-earned tax dollars and pension payments of those who worked all their lives in Canada.

I want to state in no uncertain terms the government of Canada and I, personally, do not support this bill.

Three years is too little a time to reside in Canada before receiving OAS benefits, and would cost Canadian taxpayers over $700-million to implement. This is not acceptable.

I believe the current 10- year residency requirement period strikes an appropriate balance between an individual’s contribution to Canadian society and the economy and his or her access to pension benefits. It is reasonable to expect a person to live in Canada for this minimum period of time before being granted the right to OAS benefits.

With that in mind, I do not intend to vote in favour of Bill C-428.

Cathy McLeod, M.P.

Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo