Colleague Daniel Proussalidis reported earlier this week on a motion that NDP Deputy Leader (and possible leadership candidate) Libby Davies had brought forward for the House of Commons to debate. That motion called on the government to eliminate the 10-year-residency requirement for access to federal Old Age Security and Canada Pension Plan payments.
The day after Proussalidis' story appeared, NDP MP Wayne Marston — his party's pensions critic — announced that the motion had been withdrawn. The line from Marston was that it was one of dozens of motions Davies had put before the House and that this particular motion was put there “in error”.
Well, if that's true, it's an error Davies — now the deputy leader of party that is the “government-in-waiting” — has made over and over and over and over again for more than 10 years:
- M-141 — June 6, 2011 — Ms. Davies (Vancouver East) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should eliminate the 10-year residency requirement, based on an applicant’s country of origin, for Canadian citizens to qualify for Old Age Security benefits.
- M-233 — March 3, 2010 — Ms. Davies (Vancouver East) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should eliminate the 10-year residency requirement, based on an applicant’s country of origin, for Canadian citizens to qualify for Old Age Security benefits.
- M-233 — January 26, 2009 — Ms. Davies (Vancouver East) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should eliminate the 10-year residency requirement, based on an applicant’s country of origin, for Canadian citizens to qualify for Old Age Security benefits.
- M-233 — November 20, 2008 — Ms. Davies (Vancouver East) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should eliminate the 10-year residency requirement, based on an applicant’s country of origin, for Canadian citizens to qualify for Old Age Security benefits.
- M-96 — October 16, 2007 — Ms. Davies (Vancouver East) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should eliminate the 10-year residency requirement, based on an applicant’s country of origin, for Canadian citizens to qualify for Old Age Security benefits.
- -seconded Ms. Savoie, Mr. Martin, Ms. Bell
- M-96 — April 4, 2006 — Ms. Davies (Vancouver East) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should eliminate the 10-year residency requirement, based on an applicant’s country of origin, for Canadian citizens to qualify for Old Age Security benefits.
- M-100 — October 5, 2004 — Ms. Davies (Vancouver East) — That, in the opinion of this House, the government should ensure that eligibility for the Old Age Security is based on a fair and just application by removing the ten-year waiting period required for some seniors who are sponsored immigrants.
- M-168 — February 2, 2004 — Ms. Davies (Vancouver East) — That, in the opinion of this House, the government should ensure that eligibility for the Old Age Security is based on a fair and just application, by removing the ten-year waiting period required for some seniors who are sponsored immigrants.
- M-168 — October 4, 2002 — Ms. Davies (Vancouver East) — On or after Friday, October 18, 2002 — That, in the opinion of this House, the government should ensure that eligibility for the Old Age Security is based on a fair and just application, by removing the ten-year waiting period required for some seniors who are sponsored immigrants.
- M-77 — January 30, 2001 — Ms. Davies (Vancouver East) — On or after Tuesday, February 13, 2001 — That, in the opinion of this House, the government should ensure that eligibility for the Old Age Security is based on a fair and just application, by removing the ten-year waiting period required for some seniors who are sponsored immigrants.
Why?
Bravo, David: this is real scar-tissue edge stuff. So, she keeps reintroducing a stack of Motions that never go anywhere year after year, and, as mere Motions, wouldn't change anything if they did — except to get people talking. (So, thanks!). And you missed all this at the time(s), and indeed would have again now, but for Kady. Where would we be without you?