I'll continue the dialogue, with due respect, in terms of getting this bill right, if that's what your intent is, I hope. But if you go into the very section you cited, proposed subsection 206.8(2)—and other members around the table might want to read it—the very critical exclusion that I pointed out and you first stated to me, or maybe inferred from somebody else, is with respect to a minor, a 16-year-old or 17-year-old. If you look at the section that you cited to me, in your own wording here, it says:
if that person is the spouse, common-law partner or adult child
So I hold my ground in saying that you have not excluded that of a minor child, a minor here, somebody who is 16 or 17, or whatever it happens to be here, under that age.
I still say, and I will insist, that I'm not really informed of anything new here with respect to the section that you cite, because you still have the difficulty of the minor child. I have sympathy when kids go astray and do things they shouldn't, but in this circumstance, that is a major problem for your bill, and that is not addressed in the section that you pointed out to me.
I would go to my colleagues here, because I didn't get their response before, but how do you feel about that fact?
Martin, Arlène, and Michel, I ask you, because we've heard from France already in respect of this. How do you feel about this, I would say, troubling or concerning aspect of the bill? Would you prefer to have more of an exclusion in that amending section, or are you supportive in the very tone that was mentioned before?