I sense we're getting into the area that I made some comments about earlier.
As I look at the motion of what we're setting, I'll read it out loud and see where it takes us. It says:
The Committee then begin a new study entitled: “Engaging Experience: Opportunities for Older Persons in the Workforce”;
That this study focus on employment opportunities for older persons and the supports available to them through the federal government....
In the introduction of the briefing book done by the Library of Parliament, it says:
....the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities agreed to begin a study of the economic opportunities available to older persons in the workforce, the obstacles preventing older workers from participating more fully in the labour market, and the federal support available to increase opportunities
Those are the specific outlines of the study. I suppose if you increase the age from 65 to 67, by that very nature you're attracting a certain measure of older workers to the workforce that may not have otherwise been there. But that is ancillary to the main object of our study. I don't think it is appropriate to get into the future planning as it may relate many years hence, in terms of raising the age with respect to receiving old age security and the impact it may have on the workforce.
That's my thinking on this subject. Unless somebody wishes to challenge it, that is what I would rule, so we're not going to ask for models, stats, or information with respect to that.