Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank our two witnesses. Their presentations were very insightful.
I would like to begin with a short comment, which will lead to a question. I will follow up on what Ms. Charlton said earlier. At times, I am under the impression that apples and oranges are being compared.
Population aging and the retention of older workers in the workforce constitute a broad issue. However, that issue covers very different realities. For a professional such as a notary, lawyer or chemist, working until the age of 70 or 75 without problems is not difficult to imagine. If you are an astrophysicist and your name is Hubert Reeves, it would appear that you can even keep working until the age of 178. However, it's a whole different story for garbage collectors, factory workers in an assembly line, construction workers or grocery store cashiers, who spend all day on their feet.
Moreover, 70% of Canadian workers have no supplementary pension fund. That means most of them are relying only on public funds, especially Old Age Security. I agree with letting people work longer, but don't you think that should be up to them? Don't you think that should be an opportunity to be seized. Wouldn't you agree that workers should not be forced to work longer only for financial reasons, such as not being able to afford food otherwise?