If this Committee had initiated
a study on all Canadians of all ages, what would we have concluded? That some
are wealthy, while others live on the margins. That some have been here for
many generations, while others are settling into our country. We probably could
have concluded that most teen-agers lead very different lives from the average
30-year-old, though they are relatively close in age.
It would probably have
been impossible to write a report which fully encapsulated all of their realities.
The Special Senate Committee on Aging was struck in November 2006 with a mandate
"to examine and report upon the implications of an aging society in Canada".
In our first interim report in 2007, the Committee identified overarching questions,
including how to define the senior years. We identified the categories of the
young-old, middle-old and frail-old, categories which have arisen on a number
of occasions in the testimony before us. But do these categories do justice
to the diversity among seniors?
Having travelled across
the country to meet with seniors, it is abundantly clear that the diversity
among seniors is vast. To focus only on the frail elderly would be to neglect
the majority of people over 65 who continue to lead healthy, active lives. And
to focus only on the frailty of the “frail elderly” detracts from
the strengths of individuals in this group.
Clearly, there is much
more that differentiates the vast array of people over 65 than unites them.
So how do we write a report on aging? What is the common thread weaving through
the lives of such diverse people? As a starting point, they are united by being
in an age category which defines them as seniors. This categorization plays
a large part in defining the roles they are expected to play in society. Too
often, the categorization of “senior” overtly or subtly limits the
horizons of the possible. This is ageism.
