As I noted earlier, the Law Commission of Canada is an independent law reform organization that reports to Parliament. Its mission is to involve Canadians in law reform in order to ensure that the law will be relevant, dynamic, effective, just and also accessible to all. It must determine whether questions relating, for example, to age require reform. A number of paths are open. Just as the operators of amusement park rides have to ask whether the question of child safety on their rides is a question of height or maturity, we could ask whether restrictions on employment are a question of health, physical ability, incentives for turnover in the public service and whether there are other ways to achieve the same goal.
Age is used because it is a concept that seems to work, at least statistically.
However, no one pays any heed to those who are harmed by the generalisation. An exercise in reflection about legislation in order to eliminate unnecessary references to age should certainly be undertaken. However, that alone will not be sufficient. Even without a provision that prevents anyone over 65 from being appointed to the position, it is quite possible that nobody over 65 will ever be appointed to the office. Changes in the law do not always change the way people think.