Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Without denying the significance of Mr. Coleman's comments, I believe we have to look closely at what we are dealing with. Many of the witnesses we have heard were members of parents' associations. They all told us that the tragedy they were facing would not have been any less terrible if their child had been 17, 18, 19 or 20 years of age, especially if he or she was still dependent on his or her family.
Section 206.4(2) proposed at clause 5 of the Bill states that "every employee who has completed six consecutive months of continuous employment with an employer and who is the parent of a critically ill child…" Obviously, this refers to the parental relationship. If ever--God may help me--, my daughter were to become critically ill at 17 years of age and suddenly became eligible for Quebec social assistance at 18 years of age, because she would then be considered an adult, that would not change anything to my own situation as her parent. That would not change the terrible future I would have to have to contemplate, as many witnesses have told us. Some had to leave their job and had trouble covering their daily expenses.
Of course, the provincial support would be helpful but it would not be sufficient to cover everything and I would find it very difficult to believe that we would not want to help. I do not say that your observation is wrong but I do not believe that it would allow us to wash their hands of the situation, considering the position of all those parents who told us that their life would have been terribly shattered even if their child had been 19 or 20 years old.