I think I agree with what Marcel was saying for two reasons.
One is that the Chief Electoral Officer does serve, to some degree, a judicial role. The commissioner of elections makes the final decisions. But if we actually look at how the act is written, the Chief Electoral Officer appoints the commissioner and has a large say as to what gets presented to the commissioner. So he is playing a kind of judicial role. We appoint judges to retirement--not to age 65 but to age 75--but the thing is that the point of choosing that date for them is that they don't have to worry about their future employment. They go on to pension. In the days when we didn't have pensions, you appointed them for life. So they stopped being in that role when they dropped dead, and the point was that no one had to worry about buttering up somebody to take care of their future income. So I think there's an advantage to that. That was the first thing.
The second thing is that if we choose a term of, let's say, 10 years, for the sake of argument, I think there would be a natural reluctance to choose somebody who is older for that role. But the fact is, if you think about it, the best people to choose for a role like this are people who have served in a distinguished capacity as a provincial chief returning officer, and they might very well be 60 years old. I would hate to see us put ourselves in the position where we find future parliamentarians reluctant to look at a 60-year-old person who has performed well as the chief electoral officer of, say, Quebec, or Ontario, or British Columbia, as the case might be.