Yes, okay.
The flexibility around retirement also seems to be an issue for women because they've had a lesser attachment and don't end up with as many years and as good a pension.
I noticed in one of the Library of Parliament documents that people come back to work after their supposed retirement. Is there a way we look at that, in terms of whether compulsory retirement has actually adversely affected people? How do you ascertain whether people have choice in whether they stay at work or not, or whether they have a choice to actually supplement their income?
Maybe I'll just fire these questions out, and then you can figure out who wants to answer which.
Is there any difference in rural and urban terms? One of the questions there would to me be about the security people have about housing and what income is actually disposable after they have a roof over their head. Is there a way you can disaggregate that for us?
It would seem that whereas the people who are living with someone else are sharing the rent, the people who are on their own are paying their rent on their own, so they would be doubly discriminated against, if you aren't separating that out.
I'd also like to know, in terms of disposable income, about the supports and services for these people who need a little help. Is there some variety across the country in what's covered and what's not covered for seniors, in terms of supports and services and help to stay independent—all of those things? In terms of how we're doing across the country, are seniors in certain parts of the country doing better than in other parts of the country on all of those?
That's my first little barrage.