That's a) anecdotal, and b) if planned carefully shouldn't be a material expense for most seniors.
Not to mention the fact that we are all going to have to suffer a little bit here. I've kept my job, but am facing challenges - I had to re-arrange my budget to make this work, and I don't see any reason a majority of seniors couldn't do the same. Maybe there's an argument to be made for those on the GIS, but this goes far beyond that. I suspect because it was never meant to address actual gaps in seniors' budgets that couldn't be resolved another way, but to make sure they know who to vote for in 2023.
Here's the problem I have with what you're saying.
GIS stops at an income under $20,000 per year.
As a single senior, earning $19,500 with GIS inclusive, living virtually anywhere in Canada, let alone Toronto or Vancouver, I can't see how you wouldn't be in poverty to begin with, or wouldn't still be after an extra $500.
I have no issue with your perspective as it applies to the high end of OAS earners (clawback starts at about 75k per year).
But at the low end I see a problem.
In the medium term, I would strongly support raising the retirement age, and reinvesting the savings from that in higher benefits, disproportionately benefiting lower income, and single seniors, at zero net cost.
(raising the age to 67 allows a benefit increase of about 25%, to age 70 about 40%)
I would aim for 70, and skew it so that people are who are in relationships (have another pensioner to split the bills with) see a 30% increase, while single seniors get topped up 50%.
That said, we're not there now.
As such if you want to use an existing funding channel, to assist a senior with less than 30k in income, you have to funnel that money through OAS, unless you drastically expand the income eligibility for GIS.
So I don't think this is particularly unreasonable; though it does show our senior income support programs to be poorly aligned/targeted, and underfunded at the low income threshold.