Wouldn't those retired people be very aware of the fact that it was the Conservatives that raised the retirement age to 67?  Not exactly an audience receptive to voting for the party that wanted them to work two years longer (while PP himself has already earned a million dollar pension from taxpayers by age 30-something).
 

Poilievre has stated repeatedly that retirement age will remain at 65. 

I listened to this as it was broadcast live on am740. Znaimer mentioned the retirement age change earlier in his introduction.

His brief speech begins about halfway on this podcast.

https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/conservative-leader-pierre-poilievre-addresses-carp/id1451843877?i=1000704351762

From inception and under the guidance of MZ, CityTV had presented itself on the political left regarding civic and, obviously, social matters. I think back to all the airtime given to councilman Jack Layton. Etc and so much more. The essence of his remarks though was the question that every lifetime Canadian is asking, "What happened to Canada and who is responsible?"

TomTV wrote:

Wouldn't those retired people be very aware of the fact that it was the Conservatives that raised the retirement age to 67?  Not exactly an audience receptive to voting for the party that wanted them to work two years longer (while PP himself has already earned a million dollar pension from taxpayers by age 30-something).
 

Canada does not have a mandatory "retirement age" for most workers. You can legally work past 65, work past 67 etc., unless you are in a rare job that involves enough physicality that the employer can legally get an exemption to require an earlier age cutoff for that type of work.
More than a decade ago, the Harper government proposed raising the earliest starting age for Old Age Security monthly payments to 67 from 65 to make the plan sustainable, similar to what many other countries were doing, on the basis that people are living longer than they used to, and because OAS is funded from general revenues, and not through worker contributions like the Canada Pension Plan and workplace pensions. The plan was dropped due to opposition.
But where are we at a decade later, now that most baby boomers have started collecting, or are soon to collect, OAS? We still have the age 65 OAS start age but the federal deficit has mushroomed to $61 billion; in other words the government has been borrowing and printing money just to keep the OAS start age at 65 instead of 67 as more baby boomers reached age 65.
Just last month the C.D. Howe Institute issued a report recommending that the earliest start date for pension benefits be delayed to 67, and not because of the cost with people living longer lives but instead to address expected labour shortages as Canada's population ages. 
https://cdhowe.org/publication/2024-labour-market-review-challenges-trends-and-policy-solutions-for-canada/
And kids if you don't know or remember who C.D. Howe was, you should google it because you might be surprised by what his political affiliation was.
I suspect Moses Znaimer understands the bigger picture here.
 

Last edited by DX (Today 10:12 am)

DX wrote:

TomTV wrote:

Wouldn't those retired people be very aware of the fact that it was the Conservatives that raised the retirement age to 67?  Not exactly an audience receptive to voting for the party that wanted them to work two years longer (while PP himself has already earned a million dollar pension from taxpayers by age 30-something).
 

Canada does not have a mandatory "retirement age" for most workers. You can legally work past 65, work past 67 etc., unless you are in a rare job that involves enough physicality that the employer can legally get an exemption to require an earlier age cutoff for that type of work.
More than a decade ago, the Harper government proposed raising the earliest starting age for Old Age Security monthly payments to 67 from 65 to make the plan sustainable, similar to what many other countries were doing, on the basis that people are living longer than they used to, and because OAS is funded from general revenues, and not through worker contributions like the Canada Pension Plan and workplace pensions. The plan was dropped due to opposition.
But where are we at a decade later, now that most baby boomers have started collecting, or are soon to collect, OAS? We still have the age 65 OAS start age but the federal deficit has mushroomed to $61 billion; in other words the government has been borrowing and printing money just to keep the OAS start age at 65 instead of 67 as more baby boomers reached age 65.
Just last month the C.D. Howe Institute issued a report recommending that the earliest start date for pension benefits be delayed to 67, and not because of the cost with people living longer lives but instead to address expected labour shortages as Canada's population ages. 
https://cdhowe.org/publication/2024-labour-market-review-challenges-trends-and-policy-solutions-for-canada/
And kids if you don't know or remember who C.D. Howe was, you should google it because you might be surprised by what his political affiliation was.
I suspect Moses Znaimer understands the bigger picture here.
 

O.A.S. at 65 please and thanks. NOT 67.