Jessy Bains
Biz/Tech Reporter

Increasing the age of eligibility for old age security from 65 to 67 may not be necessary, according to a report by parliamentary budget officer, Kevin Page.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper suggested the change would be necessary to compensate for the projected rise in cost of OAS from $36-billion in 2010 to $108-billion by 2030, but Page’s report suggests otherwise.

“Our conclusion is that we have a sustainable fiscal system at the federal level,” said Page. “We don’t see the current system creating a fiscal problem.”

Page said increasing gross domestic product will offset the increased costs of OAS in the future and the debt to GDP ratio will remain at the current level.

“We’re not saying the government should not look at changes,” said Page. “There should be a rich debate, governments do have policy choices.”

Page also said the government knew that the country would be facing economic challenges before cuts to GST were made in 2006.

“The government knew at that time we would be dealing with economic situations,” said Page. “Cuts to the GST could easily have covered the cost.”

Page said younger generations need to be more mindful that there will be fewer workers while the older generation needs to ensure they are not passing on a lot of debt.

Kirsty Duncan, Liberal member of parliament for Etobicoke North, said she is opposed to the idea of raising the OAS eligibility.

“It is absolutely reprehensible,” said Duncan. “I don’t know why the Conservatives want to attack seniors.”

Duncan said the proposed changes are unnecessary in light of Page’s report.

“The parliamentary budget officer has made it clear that the economy is strong and that this is a false crisis,” she said.

Voters were misled since the Conservatives never mentioned they would make cuts in the last election campaign, said Duncan.

“The government has an intergenerational responsibility,” said Duncan. “We have to consider our children and our grandchildren.”

Saadiya Abdul, 18, a first-year cosmetic management student, is not happy about the idea.

“I don’t think that’s fair,” said Abdul. “I feel upset that we have to pay [into the system] and we would have to work an extra two years and that sucks.”