“Raising the age of eligibility for OAS is regressive legislation.”

 Dear Editor:

In response to the letter by Joseph Di Federico, Bolton, ‘Enterprise’

 Mr. Federico was looking for the right facts in all the wrong places when he challenged Scott Brison’s comments on Old Age Security.  Conservative think-tanks and organizations may not be the best place to check out economic facts that expose the current government’s ideology.  But, concerned about my hard-working tax-paying children’s right to get their benefits at 65, I thought it would be wise to go to a reliable source to get the facts on the future of Old Age Security in Canada.

 Enter Robert L. Brown, past president and fellow of the Canadian Institute of Actuaries, who just happened to pen an excellent article for the Globe and Mail titled, “Debate the OAS on facts.”  It turns out that the Chief Actuary of the OAS system reports regularly and publicly on the system’s financial health.  According to the Chief Actuary, we do not need to worry about the sustainability of our Old Age Security.

 Yes, the costs (including the Guaranteed Income Supplement) will rise from $37 billion today to $108 billion by 2030, but Brown reveals that these figures are “meaningless on their own.”  He draws on a number of factors including the fact that the OAS is taxable, that it is clawed back according to income, and that the number of recipients will fall drastically by 2030. For every Canadian aged 65+ in 2007, there were 4.7 Canadians aged 20 to 64.  By 2030, that ratio drops to 2.4, almost half the demand on the OAS.

 In addition to the economic facts, Brown also provides the example of the impact on a worker who retires at 65 and could easily live for another ten years.  “If you raise the age of eligibility for OAS from 65 to 67 you remove 20 percent of that person’s expected benefits.” Brown concludes, “Raising the age of eligibility for OAS is regressive legislation.”

 We should also consider these facts in light of the recent report by the Canadian Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page. He revised his original concerns about the OAS after the Conservative Government quietly broke a promise and announced on December 19, 2011 that it would no longer be transferring the annual 6% increase in Canada Health Transfers to the provinces.  Page recalculated that the increased revenue not only makes the OAS sustainable, but will provide enough cash flow versus payments to allow for enrichment of these programs.

 Mr. Di Federico, thanks for alerting us to seek out the facts.  Now, if every person aged 18 to 63 writes a letter to the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister, and our local MP, they might be better informed.  And at the next federal election, let them know how you will feel about losing 20 percent of your OAS retirement benefits.

 Skid Crease, Caledon

 Voter Suppression IS a Scandal

Letter to the Editor:

Responding to Claire Hoy’s Thursday, March 8, 2011 article: Robocall: not a real scandal

 Mr. Hoy, staunch Conservation defender, is doing a great disservice to democracy by trying to reduce the significance of the Robocall and vote suppression scandal.  A tactic described by Harper advisor Guy Giorno as a “despicable, reprehensible practice” certainly sounds like a scandal worth being taken seriously by intelligent voters.

 However, it turns out Mr. Giorno knows a thing or two about dumbing down an intelligent population. His attitude while manipulating Ontario’s curriculum devolution in the 1990’s was: It’s not our job to nurture critical thinkers, it’s our job to train productive consumers. Ten years later, reflecting on the impact of the change and conflict those decisions imposed on students, Giorno remarked, in a rare moment of empathy, “That’s unfortunate.”

 This is not the first time in history an intelligent society has been corrupted, and a democratically elected government has become a dictatorship.  We only have to look back to 1933 in Europe, on “the Night of the Long Knives” when opposition parties were banned, the intelligentsia were suppressed, labour unions were abolished, and a secret police state was established.  Using a Ministry of Propaganda repeating the mantra, using the country’s economic crisis as justification, and financially supported by wealthy industrialists eager to break the worker’s unions, one of the most despicable, reprehensible regimes in history was born.

 With most of our national newspapers and news channels being to the political right of centre, and a strictly controlled script from “our government”, the Canadian public is being numbed and dumbed to accept the first sound bite issued, and never really encouraged to look deeply into the issues facing us.  We end up getting the government we deserve, for better or worse.

 A free and uncompromised vote is the cornerstone of our democratic society, and I take that very seriously, Mr. Hoy.

Skid Crease, Caledon