Yes, thank you.
The third comment is that it's very difficult to effectively monitor a ban on child labour, and it's even more random when monitoring relies on written reports, as is intended here.
That being said, if you are planning to check your facts against written statements, ideally it should be about the worst forms of child labour, to avoid two problems. First, the unintended consequences of a strict ban should be avoided, that is, one prohibited job being replaced by another, like prostitution or child trafficking, that's even more dangerous. The second issue to avoid is the concealing of visible forms of child labour through clandestine employment. If the definition of child labour is too broad, communities that consider some forms of child labour to be legitimate will hide evidence of such work and turn it into a form of clandestine labour.
Some adverse effects of regulation have been observed in the past, and I'd like to draw the committee's attention to them.
Focusing on the worst types of child labour is a good thing, because in any event, the situation would be improved for a child facing difficult circumstances. In other cases, one would risk affecting situations in which the child's work and pay provide crucial assistance to their family in dire straits. For example, imagine a single-parent family where one parent has died and a 13‑year‑old boy becomes the sole breadwinner for the family. Some countries don't have the social safety net that we have in Canada, and parents find themselves in dire straits there. It's much more common than you might think.
So that's a realistic perspective that I'm trying to put forward here.