Thank you. I'm sorry; I didn't realize the question was for me.
We're not economists, at the Canadian Centre for Elder Law. I am not able to crunch numbers, but I would like to make two further points about raising the GIS and the OAS. First, when we think about those numbers, it is useful to think of them as an investment, and think of old age security as a kind of preventative care. We spend lots of money on supporting seniors who have worsened health, worsened safety, because they can't meet their basic expenses. A homeless senior, or a senior who isn't able to see a physician, is going to have a much worse health situation that costs us a lot of money toward end of life and being in the hospital emergency. So if we're worried about the money, if we invest in helping keep seniors healthy they'll cost us a lot less as they age.
Second, there has been some research recently into the basket of goods measure and the cost of living in different parts of the country. It is problematic to think that it costs the same amount to live in Vancouver as in Charlottetown. It is worthwhile to think about how we approach the OAS and the GIS in a way that reflects the actual cost of living in different communities across the country.
In Vancouver, seniors really suffer because they cannot afford housing in the city, but they also cannot afford to move. They can't afford to move to a less expensive city when they're older because the community that helps keep them well is where they have been living. We know all the factors. Isolation increases mortality and abuse, and decreases quality of life. We want to keep seniors where they are, but if they've been living in an expensive city, they can't afford to continue to age in that city, so they are in a real catch-22 trying to live on OAS and GIS.