Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate so much Madame Cornellier's testimony. It said everything that women know and have experienced in the workforce.
Madame, you mentioned that it's not the 1970s anymore, but, unfortunately, women who are seniors are living the effects of that long-standing gender discrimination.
I think about flight attendants, specifically, who, in the 1970s, had to sign papers that they needed to leave their profession at age 32, because their looks weren't good enough for them to be flight attendants anymore. They couldn't be pregnant.
I was having a conversation with my own mother a couple of weeks ago. She worked in a doctor's office. When she got pregnant and visible, she had to leave. She had to leave the doctor's office.
I really appreciate your testimony so much today and talking about how all of these policies need to have a GBA+ analysis.
I really thank you for shining a light on the invisible and undervalued work that women have done. Even when we talk about employment insurance, it was built for men. It was built for men, who were perceived as the breadwinners, but if women hadn't been there doing the unpaid labour, those men would not have advanced in the way they did. Women were caring for children and for family members. I raise my hands to you.
I have two questions for you, Madame Cornellier.
Do these two levels of seniors disproportionately disadvantage women, and how? Why do we need the $6,500 cap, or the $5,000 cap as it stands right now?