Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If I hadn't been here continuously since we began studying this bill, my impression would be that you are industry witnesses, that you're trying to make sure the bill is as weak as possible and that you're trying to make life as easy as possible for yourselves. I let Mr. Garon speak before me because I was sure his comments would align with mine.
Our purpose here as parliamentarians is to make laws, not to please industry. We're here to protect Canadians. That's my perception, but I could be wrong. The Liberals have decided to introduce a subamendment to abolish a terminology that's recognized globally. The "best interests of the child" isn't a concept that we've invented; it's not some kind of political toy. It's recognized around the world, even in California and many American states.
I'm trying to understand the logic in all this, and I hope Mr. Turnbull will explain it to us. More than 50 amendments, moved by the Liberals, have been introduced in connection with this bill, which, I repeat, was also introduced by the Liberals. The bill would enact three new statutes.
Personally, I am 62 years old; the Internet came into our lives 30 years ago, in the fax machine era. We're now in the artificial intelligence era, and the risks that children face will increase by a factor of 10. We have a duty to ensure that children are protected.
I'm going to ask a relatively simple question. If we adopt this subamendment and don't include this line, do you sincerely think children will be less protected?