The problem we had was that there was such a dialogue that was going off on tangents, and what people believed and what was actually happening were two different things. As a constituent assistant for 11 years, I had people coming in and asking when their old age security would be reduced. That was the messaging getting out there.
It was very well done, and bravo to those people who were sending out that negative messaging. However, as I indicated, it was not going to affect anyone until 2023. There was not one single senior at that time who was going to be affected by the changes in the old age security.
That said, I do recognize that for some people it's difficult. If there's 70-year-old man married to a 50-year-old woman and they have to look at the allowance and the GIS, there are different things we need to look at there. But the fact is that not one single senior in the 2015-16 election would have been affected by these proposed changes put forward by the former government in 2012.
With the demographic changes that we are going to see, do you think it's necessary to review old age security so that future generations can also have it? We recognize that the debt ratio is going to be an issue, as well as the work ratio. Do you think that's something that should be studied in this as well?