Thank you, Madam Chair.
I do have a question for our witnesses, but I'll maybe turn back to you too with regard to the process.
If we as a committee flag a particular clause that we wish to not advance, what is the amending process on that? How do we pull that clause and say that we will pass the bill except for that clause?
Clauses 13, 33 and 34 have been flagged.
First, clause 13 relates to the Canadian Dairy Commission Act:
A member of the Commission ceases to hold office on reaching the age of seventy years.
That would be repealed.
Likewise, clause 33 relates to the Farm Products Agencies Act:
A person who has reached the age of seventy years is not eligible to be appointed a member of the Council and a member thereof ceases to hold office on reaching the age of seventy years.
Clause 33 and 34 remove that requirement.
Our witnesses said that they can be substantive. That's substantive. To say that someone has to retire upon turning 70 or 71, or that they can continue on in their role, is a substantive change. I'm not saying we couldn't make that substantive change, but it's up to us to balance what is substantive and what isn't and what is controversial and what isn't. If you're someone who's waiting for someone's mandatory retirement before your appointment to one of these commissions, and then we change the rule or don't change the rule, it has an impact on that individual.
If the explanation is that removing this requirement around age is the direct result of perhaps a court case—maybe someone challenged the mandatory retirement and the court struck it down and now we're just simply reflecting the decision of the court—that's one thing, but to me, these three particular amendments are substantive, number one, and they could also be controversial. Mandatory retirement in many different fields can become a controversial subject. Even here, we have mandatory retirement for senators at age 75.
Unless there is an explanation, Madam Chair, I think that crosses the line. The amount of time we're focusing on this is just one day. I would want to consult here more broadly, with experts, unless it's simply a matter of reflecting what is currently the case. Otherwise, if it's changing the law, I think we would have to reject it.