We're pretty close, yes. That's roughly 3.1% of GDP.
What we hear in the conversations around OAS and sustainability is about the growth in population. We don't disagree with that. We just agreed on the figures. There is no problem there.
What we don't hear in the equation, though, is people talking about the incremental average growth in GDP that happens year to year, which leads us to believe that the OECD and the Parliamentary Budget Officer are correct, that it is sustainable as it is.
As well, changes will be made after 2017 to the Canada health and social transfer that will reduce the liabilities for the government. So there is more flexibility than what is being spoken to here.
What's important to us, and the reason we ask you to provide any of the materials of analysis that might have been used, is for us to be able to confirm whether we are right or wrong. It is very difficult for us sitting here when we get a witness who responds that he is limited in what he can say. In fact, it's very frustrating.
The government at one point told all departments they had to look for efficiencies. They had to save money to address the deficit, so that happened about a year and half ago, somewhere in that time range.
Prior to the government calling for deficit-fighting measures, was your department already looking at making this change from 65 to 67?