I've actually been disappointed that the federal government hasn't taken stronger steps in this area. I know there's a very strong feeling among many MPs who would share your view and that of Mr. Albrecht that retirement at age 65 is probably not a good idea.
One thing that really interests me as a researcher is that among experts--the demographers, and so forth, particularly in the Canadian government, who by the way have done some wonderful work in this area--the climate of opinion changed very suddenly around 2003. Before that, experts were saying it didn't matter whether we got rid of mandatory retirement or not, that it wasn't a very important issue.
But if you now read the literature coming out of the federal government in terms of looking at workplace issues, quality of life, and so forth, they've turned around dramatically, arguing that mandatory retirement definitely should be gotten rid of. They're following the same kind of research that's going on in Europe, where that change in climate is taking place, which is very interesting. It took place, as I said, around 2001 and 2003. The expertise now, labour market expertise and so forth, is arguing very strongly that we need to get rid of it. So if the federal government decided to move in that area, it would have lots of research to draw upon.
I hope I'm not overstating this, but it seems to me that the Canadian Human Rights Act has this shameful part in it that permits employers to get rid of workers on the basis of age, and they don't even give an age, just whatever is prominent in the workplace. I think this is a very sad comment. I believe the first thing to be done is to get rid of that particular permission of that particular part of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Also, as I mentioned in my presentation, I think the federal government should be more proactive in encouraging workers to stay longer and make it possible for them to stay longer.