Connect with us

Fraser Institute

Federal government should reject Bloc plan—and raise OAS age of eligibility

Published

4 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Ben Eisen

Recently, the House of Commons passed a private member’s bill by the Bloc Quebecois to increase Old Age Security (OAS) payments for younger seniors (aged 65-74) by 10 per cent. OAS provides cash benefits for most seniors in Canada, except seniors with very high incomes.

The bill, however, requires the support of Trudeau’s cabinet, which has so far refused to grant a “royal recommendation” that would allow the bill to become law. And that’s the right call. In fact, the government should go further and raise the age of eligibility for OAS.

Here’s why.

Governments should always be cautious with taxpayer money and strive to direct financial assistance to those actually in need. It’s hard to think of a worse strategy to achieve this goal than increasing OAS benefits for seniors who are a relatively high-income demographic. In fact, the share of seniors living in “low-income” is only about half of that for the working-age population. It may be a good idea to increase targeted assistance for the small number of seniors that struggle financially, but spraying almost the entire demographic with a firehose of scarce taxpayer funds is difficult to justify on equity grounds.

The idea also flies in the face of the Trudeau government’s promise in its last budget to work for “generational fairness” and help make the economy work better for younger Canadians who face a housing crisis and low youth employment rates among other economic challenges.

Why? Because any increase to OAS benefits would be deficit-financed (that is, the government would need to borrow the money) and the cost would fall on the shoulders of working-age Canadians who must pay the interest on the resulting debt. In other words, boosting the OAS would be a massive income transfer from younger Canadians to older Canadians.

Again, instead of boosting benefits for younger seniors—like the Bloc has proposed, with support  from Conservatives and the NDP—the federal government should go in exactly the opposite direction and increase the age of eligibility for OAS.

Simply put, people are living longer than when the program was first designed. And not just here at home but around the world, which is why there’s a clear international trend in increasing the age of eligibility for old-age benefit programs. According to our analysis in 2022, among 22 high-income OECD countries, 16 had either already increased the age of eligibility for public retirement programs above the age of 65 or were in the process of doing so. Several countries have also indexed the age of eligibility to life expectancy, to help prevent costs from spiralling out of control.

Canada was once on track to participate in this sensible international trend when the Harper government announced a plan to raise the OAS eligibility age from 65 to 67 (while giving ample lead time before the change to not disrupt the financial planning of Canadians nearing retirement). The Trudeau government reversed this decision (at great financial cost) in 2016 almost immediately after taking office. But now, the government would be well-advised to revisit the plan and raise the age of eligibility to 67, for the same reasons it’s reluctant to approve the Bloc’s motion and increase payments to younger seniors.

Ensuring income security for older Canadians is an important policy goal. But it’s equally important to achieving this goal in a way that does not unfairly burden working-age Canadians and directs money where it’s needed most.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Education

Students can’t use AI to cheat on standardized tests

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Michael Zwaagstra 

As the schoolyear winds down, many students across Canada will hand in their final assignments and write their final exams. Cutting corners and outright cheating in school is easier than ever. If you need to write an essay, just plug in the assignment instructions and let artificial intelligence (AI) write it for you.

A recent New York Magazine article provided numerous examples of college students using AI to write formal essays, generate programming code, and even draft personalized notes. Whether you need help creating an outline, finding relevant sources or writing an introduction, AI can do all these things and more.

Many K-12 students also use AI for their assignments. Anyone who is worried about being caught just needs to tell ChatGPT (or whichever AI program they use) to make it look like the essay was written by a high school student.

Catching cheaters is nearly impossible—and it’s getting harder as AI gets increasingly sophisticated. Even so-called AI detectors like Turnitin, which scan essays for patterns that indicate the use of AI, are far from perfect. In other words, there’s no easy or low-cost way to prevent students from using AI on their homework assignments.

Obviously, this is a significant problem. If students use AI to do most of their homework, they aren’t going to learn important academic skills. This does not bode well for their future or the general productivity of our labour force.

Fortunately, there’s one academic measurement tool available that AI cannot interfere with—in-person standardized tests, which are administered to all students in a particular grade at the same time and are assessed by outside evaluators using consistent criteria. They can be grade-level tests or exams that are required for graduation.

For example, Grade 12 students in Alberta must write diploma exams in core subjects such as English language arts, mathematics, social studies and science. These exams are created by the provincial Ministry of Education and are marked centrally by a group of teachers. They count for 30 per cent of a student’s final grade, with the remaining 70 per cent coming from the school-awarded mark.

Because all students must write the same exam and are evaluated according to the same standard, it’s possible to objectively determine whether students have met the appropriate academic outcomes. Importantly, students cannot use AI when writing these exams since all diploma exams are strictly supervised.

Thus, even if some students had, for example, used AI to write their English essays at home, their diploma exam marks will reveal the true level of their writing ability. If there are significant discrepancies between the diploma exam mark and the school-awarded mark, this can indicate where changes need to be made.

Unfortunately, many provinces do not have diploma exams, and this leaves their schools more susceptible to cheating with AI. For example, while British Columbia requires all Grade 12 students to write (but not pass) a literacy assessment, this assessment does not count toward a student’s final grade. Even worse, the assessment is “not based on a particular subject matter or course.” Thus, the B.C. literacy assessment has little value in combating the problem of AI cheating. This puts the burden of catching cheaters entirely on teachers and principals.

To make matters worse, standardized testing is on the decline across the country. Over the last decade in most provinces, standardized tests have been administered at fewer grade levels, given less value by provincial governments, and turned into non-content specific assessments. This is exactly the wrong direction.

If provincial education ministries are serious about maintaining academic standards, they must ensure that students write standardized tests at multiple grade levels and in a variety of subjects. Students need to know that their performance on these tests will impact their final marks and that they only hurt themselves academically if they get AI to do their work for them.

When it comes to AI, we cannot put our heads in the sand. Since AI isn’t going away, it’s important that we assess students with measurement tools where students cannot use AI to cheat.

Instead of moving away from standardized testing, every province should embrace and enhance this important measurement tool. It’s the best way to ensure all students meet basic academic standards.

michael-zwaagstra.jpg

Michael Zwaagstra

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Continue Reading

Alberta

Albertans need clarity on prime minister’s incoherent energy policy

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

The new government under Prime Minister Mark Carney recently delivered its throne speech, which set out the government’s priorities for the coming term. Unfortunately, on energy policy, Albertans are still waiting for clarity.

Prime Minister Carney’s position on energy policy has been confusing, to say the least. On the campaign trail, he promised to keep Trudeau’s arbitrary emissions cap for the oil and gas sector, and Bill C-69 (which opponents call the “no more pipelines act”). Then, two weeks ago, he said his government will “change things at the federal level that need to be changed in order for projects to move forward,” adding he may eventually scrap both the emissions cap and Bill C-69.

His recent cabinet appointments further muddied his government’s position. On one hand, he appointed Tim Hodgson as the new minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Hodgson has called energy “Canada’s superpower” and promised to support oil and pipelines, and fix the mistrust that’s been built up over the past decade between Alberta and Ottawa. His appointment gave hope to some that Carney may have a new approach to revitalize Canada’s oil and gas sector.

On the other hand, he appointed Julie Dabrusin as the new minister of Environment and Climate Change. Dabrusin was the parliamentary secretary to the two previous environment ministers (Jonathan Wilkinson and Steven Guilbeault) who opposed several pipeline developments and were instrumental in introducing the oil and gas emissions cap, among other measures designed to restrict traditional energy development.

To confuse matters further, Guilbeault, who remains in Carney’s cabinet albeit in a diminished role, dismissed the need for additional pipeline infrastructure less than 48 hours after Carney expressed conditional support for new pipelines.

The throne speech was an opportunity to finally provide clarity to Canadians—and specifically Albertans—about the future of Canada’s energy industry. During her first meeting with Prime Minister Carney, Premier Danielle Smith outlined Alberta’s demands, which include scrapping the emissions cap, Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, which bans most oil tankers loading or unloading anywhere on British Columbia’s north coast (Smith also wants Ottawa to support an oil pipeline to B.C.’s coast). But again, the throne speech provided no clarity on any of these items. Instead, it contained vague platitudes including promises to “identify and catalyse projects of national significance” and “enable Canada to become the world’s leading energy superpower in both clean and conventional energy.”

Until the Carney government provides a clear plan to address the roadblocks facing Canada’s energy industry, private investment will remain on the sidelines, or worse, flow to other countries. Put simply, time is up. Albertans—and Canadians—need clarity. No more flip flopping and no more platitudes.

Tegan Hill

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X