I confess to being a little confused. Back in December, the federal government eliminated the last vestiges of mandatory retirement in Canada. It did this by repealing the sections of the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canada Labour Code that allowed employers to force their employees to retire at a certain age—that age being 65, in most cases.
This action was accompanied by voices of approbation all around. David Langtry, acting chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, applauded the government’s move, saying in a press release, “We’re not born with date stamps saying our fitness for work expires at 65.” These are lofty words, which, to my mind, signalled we were embarking on a new era in which 65-year-olds would no longer be stigmatized as being too old to work.
Then, six weeks later, rumours started to fly that the same government was going to raise the retirement age for Old Age Security (OAS) to 67. Some of the same people and organizations that had applauded the end of mandatory retirement had a very different reaction to the OAS proposal. Interim Liberal leader Bob Rae said, “…at what point does the federal government take some responsibility about the status and position of the most vulnerable and needy people of our society?” (italics mine). Susan Eng, CARP spokesperson, said, “These are really bad economic times for people, and it makes them worry about their future, their ability to avoid poverty in old age.”
The same cohort, those ages 65 to 67, were affected by both measures. Hence, the source of my confusion. I am not sure how I am being asked to regard people in this age range. When advocates for the rights of 65-year-olds are pushing to remove age discrimination in the workplace, they refer to them as “older workers.” When the government expresses its intent to take away OAS from the same group, however, the labels change. Older workers suddenly become “seniors” who are described as “vulnerable and needy” and as people who have apparently already descended into “old age.” It doesn’t exactly make them sound like the kind of people you want to hire for your business!
OAS was originally meant to be a protection against the disability of old age. A universal program such as OAS is more convenient than a means-tested program and carries none of the stigma. The only question for debate is getting the starting age right. Why 65? When Bismarck first introduced OAS pensions in Germany in 1889, pensions started at 70, an age which only 3% to 4% of Germans at the time ever attained. When our own Old Age Security Act was introduced in 1952, pensions also began at age 70. Since then, we have added on approximately six more years to our lives. An equivalent program today, therefore, would start pensions at 76. Choosing 65 as the age when people generally need protection against the “disability” of old age is not just arbitrary, it sounds wrong.
We can agree that many, if not most, 65-year-olds are fit for work, and many want to continue working. For the sake of the economy, we’ll need to encourage them to do so as the worker-to-retiree ratio starts diminishing in the years ahead. On the other hand, many other 65-year-olds are fit for work but do not want to keep working. I would point out that the same is true for many 45-year-olds; the only difference is choice. If 60-somethings had saved sufficiently over time to take early retirement, then more power to them. But should they be expecting the assistance of government to make it happen if they are still able-bodied and if earlier retirement is now contrary to the public interest?
This still leaves the question of what to do for the 65-year-olds who cannot work and need financial assistance if they are to make ends meet. We need to continue to help them, but I would note that there are 58-year-olds and 62-year-olds in the same boat. It isn’t as if moving OAS retirement age from 65 to 67 unleashes a new problem. We already have a problem, and it doesn’t necessarily arise at 65.
I agree with Langtry that we weren’t born with date stamps saying our fitness to work expires at 65. But nor were we born with date stamps saying we’re entitled to government-provided pensions at 65 when we are still fit to work.