NDP government would restore OAS retirement age to 65 in first year: Mulcair

TORONTO - An NDP government would reverse changes to Old Age Security by restoring the retirement age to 65 instead of 67, New Democrat Leader Thomas Mulcair said Friday.

The governing Conservatives introduced the changes last spring and they are slated to take effect in 2023. The government says the measures will help ensure the sustainability of the pension system.

Speaking at a town hall meeting sponsored by the seniors' organization CARP, Mulcair said the NDP would kill the changes within its first year of forming a government.

OAS benefits denied: Immigrants told to produce residency proofs

After 40 years as a registered nurse, Yvonne Gardner never thought she'd have to beg to get her federal pension benefits.

For 14 months, the Toronto retiree has been struggling to prove to Service Canada that she's eligible for the $500 monthly Old Age Security (OAS) pension.

In the latest twist, she was asked for copies of plane tickets for all of her travels in and out of Canada since moving here from England in 1975 — a mission impossible — as proof she has lived here the minimum 10 years required to qualify.

Toronto teacher denied Old Age Security pension needs proof of immigration

Elisabeth Horley McLeod has a Canadian passport and citizenship, and annual income tax returns to prove she is Canadian. She has lived and worked in this country for more than 60 years.

But the retired Toronto school teacher, who turned 65 last year, was denied her Old Age Security when she applied for the government-funded pension.

The reason: She couldn’t produce the landing papers to show the date she arrived from England with her family when she was four.

Forcing man, 65, to retire discriminatory, court says

After 34 years as a reporter for the St. John Telegraph Journal in New Brunswick,  Khalid Mallik was forced to retire in March 2008 when he turned 65.  The Journal's parent company Brunswick News Inc., took the position  that Mallik had reached normal retirement age and consistently failed to meet performance standards. 

So, the company fired him using a  clause in the collective agreement which appeared to authorize the dismissal. He received a special severance package of 52 weeks pay worth $48,009 as required by the agreement.

The census is making Harper's arguments for him

It is astonishing, given the results of the 2011 census, that the Harper Conservatives put as much effort and political capital as they did into killing the mandatory long-form census. For the data set released Tuesday, like no other before it, affirms Prime Minister Stephen Harper's vision of Canada.

To be more precise, the data affirms large parts of Harper's guiding conception of the emerging threats to Canadian quality of life, which is now driving all aspects of federal economic and social policy. Health care is the single, glaring exception.

Not keen on the age of eligibility for Old Age Security rising from 65 to 67, beginning in 2023? Please. Nearly 15 per cent of the population now is 65 or older — nearly five million Canadians. And the trend is accelerating. So-called near-seniors, those aged 60 to 64, are the fastest-growing age group, with centenarians not far behind. If people live longer, doesn't it stand to reason we should also work longer, if we're able? How will all the work that needs to be done, get done, if we don't?

Changes to Old Age Security equal big savings for Ottawa, big costs for seniors

Raising the Old Age Security eligibility age to 67 will save Ottawa $10.8-billion a year once the plan is fully implemented in 2030, according to new figures released by the government.

Federal ministers have long resisted opposition demands for a price tag on the OAS changes, but Finance Canada decided Friday to release a preliminary estimate that was compiled by the Office of the Chief Actuary.

The gradual phase-in of a higher OAS eligibility age from 65 to 67 is contained in the Conservative government’s omnibus budget bill, C-38.

Harper government pilloried in Commons over pension report 'coverup'

OTTAWA — The Harper government was accused in the House of Commons Friday of a political "coverup" over its decision to clamp a lid of secrecy on a draft report it prepared in 2007 on the costs and "policy implications" of Canada's aging population.

The development came in the wake of an exclusive Postmedia News report which revealed that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty received a copy of the report five years ago from his senior bureaucrat, and that his department has now formally rejected a request to have it publicly released.

Opposition parties accused the Conservative government Friday of hiding its plans to slash future seniors' pensions, and called on the Tories to release the report.

Old Age Security affordable without changes, watchdog says

Canada can afford its Old Age Security system without making younger Canadians wait an extra two years to receive benefits, Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page insisted in a report Thursday.

Page first reported that on Jan. 12, 2011, but is repeating his assertion in a new report. Page wrote the report in response to questions from MPs on the House finance committee.

The Conservative government's move last December to limit the increase in health transfer payments to the provinces starting in 2016 — increasing the amount of money the federal government transfers every year but tying the increase to nominal GDP, which is projected to be lower than the current six per cent increases — means there's more room for spending or tax cuts, Page says.

Harper government refuses to release secret report on pensions

OTTAWA — Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's department has clamped a lid of secrecy on a draft report it prepared in 2007 on the costs and "policy implications" of Canada's aging population, Postmedia News has learned.

But the very existence of the report — now confirmed by Postmedia News through an access to information request — raises questions about the Harper's government's transparency on the politically explosive issue of seniors' pensions.

After federal bureaucrats drafted the taxpayer-funded report in 2007, the Conservatives decided to keep it under wraps. They introduced four budgets and ran in two elections without publicly signalling that cuts to the pension system could be in the offing.

PM must come clean on pension changes

Prime Minister Stephen Harper must come clean about the real reasons for his changes to the age of accessing Old Age Security: to persuade/force Canadians to work longer.

Mr. Harper’s original justification for changing the age of accessibility — because it will be too expensive for the federal government in the future — has been deflated via reports by Ken Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, as well as by the C.D. Howe Institute and by the authoritative Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD).

So why did he suddenly spring the proposed change in Switzerland without the courtesy and courage to inform Canadians first? Was it to impress his foreign friends? Perhaps, but as likely, it was to hide his real motive, which was exposed by a recent study by the consulting firm of McKinsey & Co.

The report linked the OAS changes to the charges surreptitiously introduced to delay access to the Canada Pension Plan. Taken together, they are designed to induce Canadians born after 1958 (that is, only a portion of the Baby Boomers as well as subsequent generations) to work beyond 65.

To achieve the same objective he could have retained the original age to access OAS and added incentives to voluntarily delay access (as he did with CPP). And he could have engaged in an open and honest discourse with Canadians in Canada as to why he was making the proposal. But, obviously that’s not how he operates.

Finally, benefits existed under the previous system for accessing CPP as old as 70 rather than at 60 or 65. However, the average age of retirement is still 62. This suggests that Mr. Harper’s policy may not attain its objective in the future because, whether he likes it not, Canadians may continue to act as they please.

Original Article
Source: Star
Author: William Gleberzon

Old Age Security savings pegged at $10B, Flaherty says

The Conservatives' planned changes to Old Age Security will save Canada anywhere from $10 to $12 billion, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said Monday.

He let slip the number after a question period in which his colleague, Human Resources Minister Diane Finley, refused to answer questions about the estimate.

Flaherty's officials also refused to provide the estimate at a briefing to parliamentarians at the end of April, although they did give it to reporters covering the federal budget on March 29.

Speaking to reporters after question period, Flaherty allowed that he has heard an estimate of $10 billion.

"I've heard that number, I've heard $12 billion also. Something in that area," he said.

Federal Budget 2012: CARP members supporting NDP, not Tories

OTTAWA—CARP, the national seniors group, says for the first time in four years its members are expressing more support for the federal New Democrats than Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives.

An internal poll of 2,600 CARP members found support for the NDP has risen to 39 per cent, substantially above 31 per cent support for the Conservatives. The Liberals trailed at 25 per cent, CARP said.

The shift in CARP members’ political support is a major change, said Susan Eng, vice-presidency for advocacy.

“In our internal polls, the NDP always languished way behind as a distant third,” Eng said in an interview. “That stands to reason. We’ve got a very conservative-leaning crowd.”

Bureaucrats pitched pension reform to Harper after election

Bureaucrats warned the Harper government days after the 2011 federal election about financial pressures on Canada's pension system and highlighted possible options to explore, while noting other countries were increasing the age of eligibility for retirement benefits.

Documents titled "SECRET, Advice to Minister" - prepared in May 2011 for Human Resources Minister Diane Finley and obtained by Postmedia News under access to information - lay out a road map for the Conservative government's controversial decision to gradually increase the age of eligibility for Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement to 67 from 65.

The documents provided a few pages of short-and long-term options for the government to explore on "Responding to Pressures on Families and the Retirement Income System." However, the options listed are all blackedout from the documents released by the federal government.

The Conservatives never discussed any possible changes to OAS and GIS in the lead up to the May 2, 2011, federal election or in the subsequent throne speech, which has led opposition parties to accuse the Tories of hiding their agenda from Canadians during the campaign.

Raising OAS hurts those who most need help

Seventy is the new 60. Sixty is the new 50. If you believe everything you read, increasing the age for OAS eligibility from age 65 to 67 might make sense. But the fact is that not everyone feels ten years younger or has a well-paying full-time job so they can postpone retirement and work longer.

In a new report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, economist Angella MacEwan reports that a 2008 Statistics Canada survey of older workers (55+) found that only 30 per cent retired because they were financially ready.

One in four fully-retired workers over 55 listed poor health as their reason for retirement, and 89 per cent of older workers who were unemployed and not looking for work cited long-term disability or short-term disability as a barrier to paid work. A further 7 per cent of retirees left the workforce to care for a partner.

Furthermore, another one in five retired because they were displaced by layoffs or plant closures. Older workers who are displaced  because of plant-closure or layoff often face longer periods of unemployment than younger workers and end up in lower paying jobs.

Canadians feel ‘betrayed’ by Harper move to change Old Age Security payments, emails show

OTTAWA—“Betrayed.” “Cheated” “What about your own fat pensions.” And the kicker, “Hands off OLD AGE SECURITY.”

Canadians didn’t hold back when Prime Minister Stephen Harper first floated his proposal to overhaul old age security benefits earlier this year.

They unleashed a fury of angry emails to his Ottawa office, furious at the proposed changes and equally unhappy that the prime minister had chosen to pitch the idea to an exclusive forum in Davos, Switzerland, rather than telling Canadians first about his cost-cutting plans.

And there were plenty of questions about why the Conservatives had stayed silent about the contentious issue during last spring’s election.

“We would not have voted for the Conservative Party if we had known this was in the works,” wrote one person all in capital letters to drive home the point.

“Please do not mess with old age security pension,” said another echoing the sentiments of most readers.

OAS rollback will hurt low-income seniors: report

Many Canadians will spend their golden years in poverty, if a government decision to change the eligibility age for retirement benefits isn't reversed, according to a report released by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

The report notes rolling back Old Age Security (OAS) eligibility to 67, from 65, not only will create hardship for seniors unable to delay retirement — those who are sick or in physically demanding positions, for instance — but also for low-income Canadians who desperately need that benefit to get by.

"It means suffering for people in their old age," says Angella MacEwen, a CCPA research associate. "Choosing to work longer is one thing. But forcing Canadians without workplace pensions or large savings to work full-time past 65 is unfair, especially given the high probability that the jobs many are able to find will be part-time and low paid."

In her report, released Monday, MacEwen notes it would take a considerable amount of hours working in low-wage jobs or self-employment to replace the maximum OAS/GIS (Guaranteed Income Supplement) benefit of about $14,000 per year for individuals, or even to replace the basic OAS benefit of a little more than $5,000 per year.

For many Canadians, in fact, it will require doubling their annual income.

The New Retirement Age Might Be 70

For those in the working world now in their forties, their dream is to retire before age 65.

But according to a new survey, Later Retirement: The Win Win Solution by the CD Howe Institute, the new retirement age will probably be age 70.

The report's author, Peter Hicks, doesn't think it makes sense to continue basing everything on age 65 when the retirement age could move to age 68 or 70.And Hicks writes the delay in retirement will have "positive economic, fiscal and social effects on Canada."

"Delaying work-retirement transitions by five years would have large, positive economic and fiscal effects, significantly reducing the much-discussed negative effects of population aging on growth and pension funding. Other gains in social well-being appear likely, if harder to quantify."

Read Federal Budget coverage by Huffington Post Canada

This might seem strange considering most of us have heard dire warnings about retirement in the future - that it will have a negative effect on country's economy and there won't be any money left to pay pensions.

Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan: soaring returns, and still carrying a shortfall

The Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan recorded a solid 11.2 per cent rate of return last year, pushing its net assets to an all-time high of $117.1 billion.

But even as pension managers from around the world come to study how Teachers’ delivers its steady returns, the plan still faces a preliminary $9.6 billion funding shortfall, as of Jan. 1, 2012.

Persistent low interest rates and changing demographics are to blame for the shortfall that can be seen as a harbinger for other pension plans.

“The cost of pensions, obligations and liabilities continue to grow faster than our assets notwithstanding the great investment returns,” said Jim Leech, Teachers’ president and CEO, at a media briefing Tuesday.

The Teachers’ pension plan has 180,000 active members, but the number of pensioners is now 120,000. With retirees living longer, their retired years now exceed years worked.

“Obviously, pensions were never designed to earn enough money for members to be retired longer than they actually worked,” said Rosemarie McClean, senior vice-president, member services.

Low-income seniors will pay the price for OAS plan

Canadians wondering why government is making them wait longer to retire won't find the answer in the new federal budget. Instead of a full and rational explanation, there is nothing but a thin repetition of previous assertions.

One thing is clear; the plan to move Old Age Security eligibility from 65 to 67 will have the greatest impact on low-income seniors, just the people such a program should protect.

Delaying OAS eligibility by two years is a double whammy for the poor. Not only will it cost them the $540 a month OAS payment, they will not receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement, a program that exists only to help those with meagre incomes. It provides a further $732 a month.

Without those two sources of income, seniors of limited means will not be able to retire. At best, they will have a full Canada Pension of $986 a month. That's not enough to live on.

The government argues that the long advance notification will allow "ample time to make adjustments" to retirement plans. That's great advice for middle-class people who ought to save for their retirements, but for low income earners, time isn't the problem. It's money. The median income for Canadians is about $29,000. If you only make enough to get by, adding to retirement savings isn't an option.

The Conservatives say we're healthier and living longer, so it makes sense to force a delay in the retirement age. The thinking is that retirement should be a fixed number of years, but one might better argue that work should be a fixed number of years.

How much will you lose from OAS deferral?

Announcing a bad policy 10 years in advance doesn't make it a good policy.

So the fact that the Harper government is giving people at least 10 years to prepare for two years of life without an important source of income, hardly makes it OK -- as so many media commentators have tritely implied. In fact, in this case it makes the policy even more unfair.

Likewise, the fact that many young Canadians seem to have (wrongly) resigned themselves to the fact that public pensions won't be there for them when they retire, hardly eases the pain of this unnecessary, destructive measure. Consider this quote from a Gen X-er (a self-employed marketer ... sigh) in the Hamilton Spectator: "I was pretty sure any government-funded retirement will not exist for my generation." That's a tragic sentiment, both because of its defeatism, and its misplaced lack of confidence in public pensions. Because the clear reality is that it's private individual retirement plans that will not be there for him. Compared to those Ponzi schemes, public pensions are like the Rock of Gibraltor -- especially for precarious workers like our self-employed marketer. If the Conservatives are counting on fatalistic attitudes like that one to allow this policy to sneak through, I hope they're proven wrong, for two reasons: I want the policy to be defeated, but I want young people today to have more faith and hope in the solidarity and cohesiveness of future society.