Thank you for the question. I want to thank the member also for his interest in the history of OAS and GIS and Canada Pension Plan. I too am very passionate about those institutions.
Our forefathers just after the war recognized that there was a huge need to look after those people who had moved out of the workforce. If we look at the history, and we think about what the circumstances were then, we had moved from an agricultural society heavily into manufacturing during the world war. After that time there was a change in culture, where on the farm it was expected and normal that parents were to be looked after by their children. However, that became increasingly difficult after that time.
So the government introduced OAS in 1952. There was a call for more, because originally it became very obvious that it was inadequate and that many people didn't have the opportunity to save for retirement.
In the sixties—I believe it was 1962—the next phase was introduced, and of course that was the CPP. CPP has evolved and has changed. GIS was introduced as the guaranteed income supplement in 1967. We've made a number of other changes—I believe we had some changes in 1987—and correctly noted at the end of the nineties that we had to make some more adjustments because of the demographics. There were more people retiring than entering the workforce—or that it would become the case at some point. We recognized that we had to make some more changes.
At that time the government of the day put into effect some provisions that would ensure that the system would continue. Then, of course, our government recognized that other changes needed to be made, and those changes were made, I believe, in 2009.
The point being is this: we have a system in place that is enviable, and within the world today it ranks among the top. I think we're number two. I don't suggest we need to stop; I think we need to continue to evolve. We need to continue to correct and make things better.
But as I said earlier in response to the last question, there was an omission made. It became evident through cases that there were benefits for those, when they were receiving those benefits, were passed on to their spouse or their children. Of course, the whole essence of this bill is to stop that ever happening in a case where there was a crime committed—murder, first-degree, second. We're hoping we can change that as well to manslaughter, so that would never be the case.
I hope that answers the honourable member's questions.