Old Age Security

Kevin Carmichael explains why going back to 65 is bad policy

Maclean’s editors on the changes to MP’s pensions; and on the death of Newsweek

The Speaker called for oral questions and the game of charades was rejoined

The Scene. What does it mean to act? What is change? What does one do when one takes something and makes it somehow smaller? How should one describe such action?

“Canadians do not have all the relevant information to understand the long-term impact of budgets”

The House is proceeding with debate at third reading for C-38 today, the New Democrats have thrown a reasoned amendment at the bill.

Though the Conservatives rejected similar entreaties by the NDP last month, the Liberals hope the prospect of several hundred votes will now convince the government to spit the budget bill. Specifically, the Liberals want the following removed from C-38.

On the Friday before the long weekend, the Harper government finally disclosed—three weeks after the opposition first asked for the figure—how much the proposed changes to Old Age Security were expected to save. As the CBC’s Laura Payton noted at the time, that estimate of $10.8 billion matched what a CBC reporter had been told on budget day.

In a note received just now, an official with the Finance Department explains how much will be saved by changing the age of eligibility for Old Age Security.

While the projected savings from raising the age of eligibility remain unexplained, the Parliamentary Budget Officer again says Old Age Security is currently sustainable and the Harper government is refusing to disclose a 2007 draft report into the policy implications of demographic changes.

Appearing before the finance committee yesterday, the Finance Minister attempted to clarify what he’d “heard” about the savings created by changing the age of eligibility for Old Age Security.

Funny how the opposition can’t seem to find much in this budget bill