To answer the question. Yes, according to aging stats in order to keep it affordable down the road.

If age kept as now, estimated to cost $108B in 2030 or was it 30 years from now? 

Money can't buy back your youth when you're old Or the loss of a loved one or a love that's grown cold Make one thing for certain when it comes your time You leave this old world with a satisfied mind

(1) The people now retiring paid into the "fund" over many past years... and they show receive a pension based on past payments... and not who will be paying into the fund over the next series of years.... 

(2) Canada is not suffering  as confirmed by recent stats... not on who pays  but on how much OAS draws out of the government as a percentage of the total paid out by the government.

(3)  and  if the age at first receipt is changed... That should be phased in over decades not years...

Read #1 above

You get today on the basis of what you have paid over years past.

If you paid on the expectation of a full pension  at age 65  then 65 it is.

------------------------------------

Adjust the year  for OAS one month at a time..

65 years and one month... then 65 years and two months.

No big change all at once...

65 today

70 in 5... or 10 ...  or 20 years....

"1) The people now retiring paid into the "fund" over many past years... and they show receive a pension based on past payments... and not who will be paying into the fund over the next series of years...."

OAS comes out of general revenue, there is no fund. Unlike the CPP you and your employer didn't pay into OAS directly but through taxation. There are some that have never paid any taxes but are still eligble for the OAS. Call it an old age perk if you like.

Money can't buy back your youth when you're old Or the loss of a loved one or a love that's grown cold Make one thing for certain when it comes your time You leave this old world with a satisfied mind

Just a way of hoping more people die before they get a chance to collect it thats all ...

They say they can't afford it blah blah change pension .. Well I work hard for my pension now in the town I am from there are 100's or 1000's  of welfare cases that go fake looking for a job and yada yada I bet if they put Restriction on it like any young and able person has 3 months and then they get taken off I bet that could make up the difference but no instead just keep making it harder and longer for the ones who deserve and leave easy for those whom are just lazy and love the system...

I know elderly and single mother etc. use welfar system and I am not talking about them I am talking about my buddies and thousands of other young people that get on welfare and then show up at business dressed like a bum put a resume on the counter and walk away without a word just to say I LOOKED FOR A JOB

Harper will be done soon enough anyways he is making life way to costly for canadians and is losing touch with what it's like to be middle class ..Hmmmm Harper how about you come with me and try being a mill operator till your 67 cuz I know by time I am 67 most of my body will be to sore to keep going to work but I bet at 67 you can still easily get on a jet and talk in a microphone and o wait sit in the house of commons etc.

General Revenue is OUR money.

It is us who paid taxes over the years.....

Even though OAS is not a "fund"  we have paid for it every year...

If Stephen Harper was to announce tomorrow that the age at which people will be eligible for Old Age Security was going to increase to 67 in the year 2025, who would protest?

Not the over 50s: they'll still be able to start claiming at 65 as planned.

Not many of the under 50s, either. Some under-50s won’t protest because they can’t be bothered. It’s not worth fighting to get a few thousand dollars of Old Age Security payments a couple of decades from now.

Other under-50s won’t protest because they believe an increase in the pension age won’t affect them: people who enjoy their jobs, and plan on working until 67 in any event; high income people, who would have to repay any Old Age Security anyway.

An increase in the OAS eligibility age might also be accompanied by an increase in the age at which RRSPs must be converted to RRIFs, or an easing of the RRIF withdrawal rules, bolstering support for a change in the pension age.

As Kevin Milligan has argued, increasing the age at which people are entitled to receive Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement won't produce huge savings. But it's not the absolute savings that matter, it's the savings relative to the political cost incurred - and for an increase in the pension age, those political costs will be manageable.

That’s why the the U.S. is raising its full retirement age, and the U.K. is raising its state pension age. We will raise our pension age because it saves money, and has little political cost.

more.........

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/frances-woolley/raising-the-retirement-age-consider-it-a-done-deal/article2319568/

“I have decided to stick to love...Hate is too great a burden to bear.” ― Martin Luther King Jr.

"working past 65, so it doesn't mean that much to me..."

It is a "money" thing, not a "working vs retirement" thing.

Should the rules change so that the old age pension is paid at 67 instead of 65, it means that all Canadians eligible for full pension who start collecting Old Age cheques from that point on would lose 24 payments of $540.12 for a total of $12,962.88 in 2012 dollar (adjusted for inflation in future years).

That loss of $12,962.88 (adjusted for future inflation) would apply regardless whether you decide to keep working or not.

Maybe $12,962.88 "does not mean much" to you but it means a lot to most Canadians reaching the golden age.

'They could have made pensions the same way as EI works..."

They could have but they did not for very good reasons.

Old Age pension is something for ALL Canadians reaching the golden age of 65.  It is not based on participation in the workforce like EI. It is not based on paid contributions over the years like CPP.

It is part of the Canadian social fabric where we all get assistance when we reach the age of 65 (taxpayers with very high income may lose it through pension clawback at tax reporting time).

Those of us in the workforce and paying taxes have seen a portion of our taxes over our working life pay for your grandparents and parents as they reached the age of 65 and expect our children and grandchildren will do the same for us.  It is part of that social contract.

And the concept of Old Age pension is pretty universal although retirement age varies from countries to countries.  Until recently, Europeans generally received Old Age pension payments at an earlier age.  However, it has recently become apparent that their economy could not afford the luxury of early pension payment as too few workers were paying taxes to support retirees.

We have been hearing for years that there won't be a Canada Pension by the time some of are ready to retire.

This could be a way of saving the plan.

I am not happy with the idea of having to wait 2 more years to get it, but I intend to work past 65 anyways and would like it to be there when I do retire.

I need the 13k just as much as anyone else does, but I can wait a couples years and I am willing to forfiet it if it means the pension plan is still there at age 67.

We live much longer than we did when the Canada Pension Plan was brought in and we are much healthier and at 67 than our parents and grandparents were at 65.

Anyone who works at a job that is physically demanding have power tools to perform their jobs that were not available 30 to 60 years ago.

There is no reason for all Canadians to waive that $13,000.  There are many more ways for the federal government to assure the money is always there for that program.

Selling off that CBC and Canada Post would go a long way to protect it.