In some ways, it just expresses the intent. Where we were coming from with this subamendment was to try to have consistency in the approach and language in the bill, but perhaps focusing more on the legal interpretation of it rather than just a policy intent.
Mr. Schaan, could you comment on that? Having the phrase “best interests” in the preamble doesn't necessarily have.... It is about the intent in some respects, and it does express the intent we share. We've heard that all around the table. It's just that it's also a legal term that exists in family law and doesn't exist in commercial law.
I understand how the legality of that term could impact what we want in the preamble if we're focusing on interpretive consistency and expressing it. However, if we take a step back from that, we recognize that the purpose of this bill, which all parliamentarians agree on, is to protect minors, in my view.
Could you comment? If the ambition or purpose of the bill were expressed in the preamble, including with “best interests”, it doesn't necessarily change the nature of the bill, other than the fact that it would then be interpreted as wanting to protect the best interests of children.