Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome to our witnesses today. Maybe I'll start with Mr. Roy.
Mr. Roy, we've had a number of witnesses appear before the committee. I'm not certain whether you've watched some of the previous meetings leading up to where we are today, but one of the common questions that have been asked is the question my friend and colleague Mr. Fragiskatos asked earlier about age of eligibility. Not one witness to date has suggested we fiddle with the age.
You heard the reference, I think, today, to former prime minister Harper raising that age to 67, which is not uncommon. I can tell you that a conservative Republican in the States right now, Ms. Haley, is flirting with changing the age of eligibility in the United States. Of course, we watched last year in France as a million people took to the streets when their government tried to increase the age and redefine what it is to be a senior. It seems almost universal that at every level of government, in the eyes of a government, a senior becomes a senior when they turn 65.
I think you're the only one here today who hasn't been asked that question. I didn't see a recommendation from you in terms of changing that age or hear one in your testimony. Can you provide your opinion in that regard and tell us why it may or may not be important to retain the age of 65 as the age of eligibility?