My answer is the same with respect to the New Brunswick case. We weren't involved in that case, but the Supreme Court was dealing with the legislative interpretation.
On the issue of whether courts talked about the impact on benefits and pensions and so on, in the Vilven decision--indeed, Professor Kesselman, who was here this morning, was a witness in this case. The Federal Court talked about his testimony on the issue of what would be the impact of removing mandatory retirement. So there is evidence in this case.
And on the third, does the legislation allow it, the Canadian Human Rights Act already allows for a bona fide occupational requirement. It's a fair point that in some cases it'll lead to litigation, because you have a specific case. The issue is, does that meet this obligation? The legislation, however, is flexible in that it already allows for the making of regulations to specify the standards for undo hardship, and that's subsection 15(3). So there is already this power down the line to put in place regulations.