Sure.
My first point is I don't know, with respect to the New Brunswick decision. Frankly, I'm not sure what the nature of the expert evidence was there specifically.
However, I will say that one of the pre-eminent concerns in that case was the fact that there are existing highly complex pension structures that are predicated on the idea that people will retire at 65. So what the court was doing there was I think treading quite a fine balance between legitimate employer workplace concerns and pre-existing structures and the rights of employees to be free from discrimination. That's why they really said the test here is a good faith one based on the intentions of the employer. The employer can't be using a pension plan as a sort of sham to retire people at 65.
In terms of your second question—I think your second and third questions are related—with respect to the idea that you're going to have some sort of differentiation, whether it be based on skills testing or medical testing, in respect of age, and would it be a good idea to have an explicit legislative provision in the legislation that allows for that, as opposed to, say, going down the road of having to prove a bona fide occupational requirement, it's our position that, yes, a specific exception is necessary. And that's really so that we avoid five-year periods of litigation that go to the question of whether or not a specific test that is applied.... As we've heard, these tests do exist. In the airline industry, tests increase in frequency at age 40. It's important that neither employers or employees are going to court to try to justify the validity or invalidity of those laws every time an issue arises.