I am told that would be in order, not necessarily for the reason you specified but because the definition of “child” wouldn't be known until the regulations were passed. If the regulations were to say that the child was 18 years or less, it would be in order, and if they didn't, it wouldn't be. We don't know that except by what you're saying.
I'll go along with your advice to say that's in order as an amendment. We'll allow that amendment to go forward.
You've moved NDP-1 and explained it. We'll then have a vote on that.