Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am in fact in favour of what our colleague Mr. Moore was asking about.
I also think that the bill that would enable us to make the requested corrections would apply to those on which we managed to agree unanimously, as you said, Madam Chair, because they are not on substantive issues.
As for amending the retirement age, I too understand that the charters are a good reason to make this correction. However, shouldn't it go through the usual legislative process, meaning the introduction of a bill that goes through all the reading phases in the House, the review in committee, and so on?
I understand from Ms. McAteer's testimony that we don't have any explanation of why the mandatory retirement age was repealed in one instance but not the other, and yet we're prepared to make this correction. Isn't that a little reckless? Shouldn't we take the time to do things properly, even though there is a 95% likelihood that at the end of the exercise, we would agree to the amendment you moved this morning?
I'm somewhat ill at ease with making the change simply because it appears to make sense on the surface. I' d like to hear arguments both for and against this correction.
What do you think?