World Economic Forum Eyes Canada’s Pensions: The Global Push to Reform OAS

Davos elites warn of a $400 trillion retirement crisis and urge higher ages, targeted cuts, and market-friendly tweaks, while Canadian seniors face the greedy fallout of slashing their hard-earned Old Age Security benefits.

The buzz around reforming Canada’s Old Age Security (OAS) program has ignited a fiery generational clash, and honestly, it stinks of a greedy scheme to strip seniors of their hard-earned safety net just to patch up failures elsewhere. OAS kicked off in 1952 as a universal pension for folks 70 and up, dropping to 65 in the 1960s, handing out tax-free monthly checks averaging $740 for under-75s and $814 for those older in 2025. But with clawbacks kicking in at individual incomes over $93,454 (up to $186,908 for couples keeping full benefits), it’s already not truly universal. Costs are skyrocketing from $48 billion in 2016 to $89 billion in 2026, projected to hit $136 billion by 2035, eating up one-sixth of federal spending. Proponents paint this as unsustainable, but their “fixes” feel like straight-up theft from retirees who’ve paid into the system for decades.

Who’s salivating over these cuts? Outfits like Generation Squeeze, championing debt-saddled youth, demand slashing OAS for “wealthy” seniors (couples at $180,000-plus) to funnel cash toward housing aid or low-income elders. Think tanks such as the Fraser Institute and C.D. Howe push hiking the eligibility age to 67 or beyond, mimicking global trends, all under the guise of “targeting” aid better. Fiscal conservatives nod along, blind to seniors facing 40% marginal taxes plus clawbacks already. It’s sold as equity, but it’s really about raiding pensions to cover government shortfalls.

Enter the World Economic Forum (WEF), those Davos elites meddling in global pensions with a keen eye on reforms. WEF reports highlight a massive $400 trillion global retirement savings gap by 2050, driven by aging populations where retirees outnumber workers 26-to-100 by mid-century. They push shifting from defined-benefit to defined-contribution plans, raising retirement ages, and channeling pension funds into “patient capital” for infrastructure and innovation. It’s code for big finance profiting off workers’ savings while governments offload burdens. WEF’s Global Risks Report warns pension crises will “bite” super-aging societies like Canada soon, urging structural overhauls that echo our domestic greedy grabs. They’ve even hosted workshops to “support” reforms in places like Chile and the U.S., but critics see it as elite influence peddling that favors markets over people. 

Against this? Seniors’ warriors like the Canadian Association of Retired Persons (CARP) blast it as a broken promise, demanding debates before any slashes. The Bloc Québécois wants expansions, not cuts, while unions and progressives decry dividing generations. Liberals and NDP steer clear, knowing it’s a political landmine.

Bottom line: This “reform” reeks of greed, shortchanging elders who’ve paid dues for decades to bail out a system failing the young. Fix the root causes like housing bubbles instead of generational theft. Canada can do better than this zero-sum nonsense.

BACKGROUNDER

Canada’s Old Age Security (OAS) program has undergone several key reforms since its inception, often driven by fiscal pressures, demographic shifts, and political realities. While some changes expanded access or benefits, major reform attempts, especially those perceived as cuts, have frequently faced fierce opposition and partial or full reversals. Here’s a clear timeline of the most significant previous reforms and attempted changes:

• 1951–1952: Introduction of OAS. Following an amendment to the British North America Act, the federal government launched the Old Age Security Act in 1951 (effective 1952). It provided a universal, non-contributory pension (demogrant) of $40 per month to Canadians aged 70 and older who met residency requirements, no means test required. This marked a shift from the earlier 1927 Old Age Pensions Act, which had a strict, stigmatizing means test.
• 1965–1967: Lowering eligibility age and adding GIS. Under Prime Minister Lester Pearson’s Liberals, the eligibility age for universal OAS was gradually reduced from 70 to 65 over five years (completed by 1970), eliminating any remaining means-testing elements for the base pension. In 1967, the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) was introduced as a tax-free, income-tested top-up for low-income seniors to address poverty gaps, especially since the new Canada Pension Plan (CPP, launched 1966) wouldn’t pay full benefits immediately.
• 1989: Introduction of the clawback (end of full universality). Brian Mulroney’s Progressive Conservative government, amid deficit concerns, ended pure universality by adding a “recovery tax” (clawback) on OAS benefits. Seniors with individual net incomes over about $50,000–$60,000 (thresholds adjusted over time) began repaying 15% of benefits through the tax system, with full phase-out at higher levels. This policy—still in effect today (2025 threshold ~$93,454 individual income)—sparked backlash but survived, marking the first major restriction on benefits for higher earners.
• 1996–1997: Proposed Seniors Benefit (scrapped). Finance Minister Paul Martin’s Liberals, in a deficit-slashing push, announced plans to replace OAS and GIS with a new Seniors Benefit starting in 2001. It would have been more generous for very low-income seniors but featured steeper, household-based clawbacks (up to 70% marginal rates for middle/upper incomes over roughly $26,000–$52,000 single/$78,000 couple). Aimed at saving billions, it triggered massive protests from seniors, opposition parties, and even some Liberals. The proposal was abandoned before implementation, highlighting OAS as political “third rail” territory.
• 2012: Planned raise of eligibility age to 67 (implemented briefly, then reversed). Stephen Harper’s Conservative government announced in its 2012 budget a gradual increase in the OAS eligibility age from 65 to 67, phased in from 2023 to 2029 (affecting those born after ~1958). It included options to defer benefits longer for higher payments, justified by rising costs and longer lifespans. The move drew huge criticism as a betrayal (promised no changes in 2011 election), generational unfairness, and unnecessary (given CPP reforms). Justin Trudeau’s Liberals campaigned against it in 2015 and fully reversed it in 2016, restoring age 65.

Other minor tweaks include indexing adjustments (e.g., partial de-indexing attempts in the 1980s), residency requirement changes, and recent expansions like the 2022 permanent 10% OAS boost for those 75+. Overall, history shows outright cuts or major restrictions rarely stick without backlash, governments propose bold reforms for sustainability, but voter (especially senior) pressure often forces retreats or dilutions. OAS remains largely intact as a core, age-based benefit with targeted clawbacks.