Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Yes, indeed, the United Nations definition of a child is 18, and we weren't talking about the difference between critically ill and disabled in our discussions. We understand the difference. What we were suggesting is—as is already the case in the Canada Pension Plan, for example—that the definition of a child extends beyond 18. In the Canada Pension Plan it extends to age 25 if that child is completely dependent upon the parents and is in post-secondary education.
We heard from a lot of witnesses, many witnesses, who suggested to this committee that an arbitrary cut-off at 18 potentially disenfranchised a considerable number of individuals who are in the same boat, such as persons who may be caring for a disabled person who happens to be 19.
I understand, Mr. McColeman, that there are other government supports, but we're not talking about government supports; we're talking about when that child becomes critically ill. We understand that the definition means something very substantial, something much greater than merely the child that we're looking after because that child is disabled.
In circumstances in which the child becomes critically ill, as Ms. Leitch has suggested, we are suggesting that the government could, through regulation, make allowances for exceptional circumstances, thus answering many of the criticisms that were levied by many of the witnesses who came here to suggest that an arbitrary decision at age 18 would leave too many people off that ought to be on.
I'm not suggesting that there aren't provincial programs, etc., that help in normal times, but we're talking about abnormal times when someone becomes critically ill. That is why we're suggesting that the government could, in fact, if it so chose, deal with regulations to cover some of the issues that were raised by many of the witnesses here.
Thank you.
