This is important. I am happy that our colleague, Mr. Jean, has brought up this matter, because I wonder what this would in fact change, in the end. It seems to me that the removal of the qualifying term “disadvantaged“ would eliminate the arbitrariness of the matter. Indeed, this would call into play a form of judgment.
Who is disadvantaged by age? It seems to me that the question should be put. My impression is that the word “disadvantaged“ gives the provision a meaning that could discount the entire value of the text. I am asking the question because were we, by chance, to decide to pass the amendment, the only word that would disappear would be “disadvantaged“. The only thing that would then be left to do would be to make the corresponding changes wherever the term “disadvantaged“ is used.
Someone might be able to tell me at what stage one becomes disadvantaged by one's age. I also put the question to our colleagues from the NDP. Is it at my age or at yours, Mr. Chairman? At what stage is one disadvantaged by a disability? The question is the same whether it is a mental disability or a physical disability. It seems that this term creates a certain ambiguity, and that it must be removed. I am not challenging your decision for now, but I would like to better understand it.