That confirms what I was thinking. I don't just want to question the officials; I also want to speak to my colleagues.
The impression that could give Quebeckers and others watching us—there must be a few—is that the act is designed to make life easier for foreign businesses. It suggests that we think Quebec's civil law and Canadian jurisprudence are too complicated and that it's better to yield to the dictates of democracy and the courts. California businesses want to sell products to our children, but it's so complicated for them to do so that we have to do everything in our power to pave the way. That's how it's going to be understood. We're giving the impression that the minister has decided to play along with those businesses and make every effort to facilitate matters for them.
Actually, this isn't the only place in the bill where you sense this intent to facilitate matters. There are the self-regulation issues in part 3, but I'll come back to them—I don't want the chair to rule me out of order. This isn't a blanket criticism of the entire bill, but I get the impression from reading it—and it contains a lot of positive elements—that we're trying to please big businesses.
My impression in this instance is that, if we don't adopt the Conservatives' amendment, we'll be disregarding the best interests of the child in order to please businesses, which I really find unpleasant.