I said two things. I said the OAS component—the more-or-less automatic component that's only taxed away at high incomes, actually completely up to $120,000—would be the component that you would gradually move forward in time, for later years. But the GIS component would come in and fill the gap completely. So it would have no impact at all on a low-income senior at age 65.
In fact I was not even studying that myself. That was what I read that Richard Shillington had told this committee. I was saying that made some sense because it still allows the potential saving on the OAS side but doesn't pose the problems that you're describing. I mentioned in my testimony that I understand there are people who are just hanging on, just trying to get to the age when they are eligible for these programs, because they are so impoverished.
I don't want to go on about it too much, but in terms of my own research, I think what is sometimes thought of as a problem of senior inequality is in fact that there are more seniors who are working further into the period that we used to think of as retirement age. That will necessarily cause some inequality if you just look at the seniors population. I argue that the more appropriate way is to think of inequality in terms of the broader population. In fact, at some level, inequality is being reduced because they're having incomes that are more like those of the rest of the population.
I accept there are value judgments that underlie all of this. At the same time, as everyone here is aware, you have to have a system that can be funded. Perhaps splitting the difference is allowing the sort of description that Richard gave.