Thank you, and thank you to all the witnesses.
In particular, congratulations, Professor Aiken, on what I thought was a masterful summary of the modus operandi of this government on these issues. I might have added an indifference to whether their laws are consistent with the charter, as another attribute.
I also agree with you totally on the title. I think I'd rather have no such incendiary title, or perhaps no such bill, but given the limits of our power—almost total limits—at least I think one should remove the word “cultural”, because there are many communities who see this as an attack on them. Whether or not this is the intent of the government, that is the perception of many communities. There's no need to keep that word in the title.
But we don't have much time, so I'd like to ask you, Professor Aiken, about the substantive question of the age of 18. Are you suggesting that we make that change in this bill? If so, I would ask you how we would do it.
Also, sometimes, as you yourself have implied, there are unintended consequences or implications of things that one does in a positive spirit. Are there unintended consequences or risks or negative factors that might accompany such an amendment?