Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If I can just take a brief step back on this, I want to acknowledge MP Turnbull's proposal to try to find a way to put CPC-1 and NDP-1 together.
I want to acknowledge your opening remark that you're supportive of the idea of the preamble going into the legislation itself. I want to thank the government for a genuine effort, I believe, to try to do the overall statement.
On the proposed subamendment, if that's the right term—it says “Mr. Gaheer”, but I think it's in your name now, Mr. Turnbull—our discussion here isn't about parts (c) and (d), which I think show the problem with the references to the artificial intelligence act and bring in an element of MP Masse's amendment. I don't have a problem here; I think we have total agreement with that.
As MP Vis just pointed out, we're struggling with the loss of what we think is a very important concept: the best interests of the child. I have a couple of things I'd like to ask questions about and one thing to make sure about.
Mr. Schaan or Ms. Angus—I don't know who the appropriate one is on this—just to take a step back, what we're talking about here is that the idea of the best interests of the child, as stated in our discussion of these amendments last time, is a subjective construct. That's a legal term, right? I'm wondering if you could explain for everyone watching—to know why we're having this discussion—what a subjective construct is when looking at legislation.