Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his most relevant question.
Age was not mentioned. If the House passes our motion and establishes a committee to develop a strategy and agree on a mechanism, then we will have to set the parameters.
To reassure my colleague, there are some very specific indicators. First, there was the age of 55 years which was established in the former program and which did not generate outlandish costs, as I mentioned earlier.
In its recommendations, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities proposes 50 years. The point raised by our colleague is the following. For a person, for instance, who started to work at a very early age, who has paid EI premiums all his or her life and who will soon turn 45, 47, 48 or 49 years of age, could there be a mechanism allowing that person to receive that benefit nonetheless?
Obviously, that person will be in a better position to return to the labour market if he or she is 45 or 50 years old. We do not want that mechanism to be in place today. However, it is already clear that there are very specific indicators that can tell us what kind of rules should be put in place in that regard.
For instance, if the age was set at 50 years, which means 5 years younger, people in that age bracket are more likely to go back to work than those who are over 55 years old. The cost is thus much lower and not a lot of additional costs are generated.
I share your view that one has to take into account the situation of those people who have spent 30 or 35 years of their life in the labour market and who find themselves in a financial dead end today.