Yes. Thank you.
Right now, the way it's set up, it is designed on the premise that two people can live as cheaply as one. But if you remove that one salary, that person now is only living on one salary, which is greatly reduced. Let's not kid ourselves, we all know it's greatly reduced.
What do I think is the benefit there? If we can look at removing that cap—and let's say for argument's sake it's $600 a month—I don't know the exact figures—but if you can remove that cap and the woman then applies, and that CPP moves to the woman, that $600 then becomes her income until she dies. I will use that as an example. Now, that $600—two live as cheaply as one—but that woman is still living, probably, in the same house. Or she has to find another method of care. She still has to have transportation. She still has to eat. She still has to get around. She still has to take care of her family. So that money would allow her to live in the same lifestyle that she, I guess, sort of enjoyed when she was living with her husband, without having the pressures of going back to work.
There's the other side of that, Ms. Smith. It's very hard being 65, going out and getting a job, because people look at you and they think that you're at a dead end. But it's not true. It really is fulfilling to work at 65. I'm only 57. We know that, don't we?