That's helpful.
Lastly, I'll go to Mr. Généreux's points and some other points that were made, which you, Mr. Schaan, reacted to a bit with your remarks. Mr. Généreux said that it sounded like you're here on behalf of corporations or something—I've heard other comments like that—but from my perspective, our reason for being here and undertaking this really important work is very clearly to protect Canadians and children. It's also to ensure the interpretive clarity needed to allow us to live up to those obligations. That's actually in the best interests of children. If small and medium-size companies can't interpret this bill in a way that allows them to abide by it, and if there is ambiguity entrenched in it such that they can't possibly fulfill their obligations, they're going to need a court opinion or something else.
I just want to express the intent that I think we are aligned on. The ease of interpretation and the rise in obligations that you referred to are both parts of the same underlying objective and commitment. I want to leave it there.
I want to seek unanimous consent. I know procedure from being on the procedure and House affairs committee. I can't amend my own subamendment unless I have unanimous consent, but hear me out. In the spirit of compromise and collegiality and in the spirit of wanting to work constructively together, if you'll allow me, with unanimous consent, I'd like to revert to the original wording that was noted in part (b), which was, “Whereas the processing of personal information and data should respect minors’ privacy and their best interests”.
If we can agree on that change, I'd be happy to move it with unanimous consent, if the committee will humour me.