Thank you.
I think one of the things we have to remember is that this minimum requirement of three consecutive months of attachment to a workplace is for all the leaves under the act. It's maternity leave. It's bereavement leave. It's all of the leaves, so it would make it inconsistent within the legislation.
The other thing I think we have to acknowledge is that if someone's only been on the job two or three days and, unfortunately, needs bereavement leave, that's paid by the employer. I think it's reasonable to suggest that employers have an employee with an attachment to their place of employment prior to receiving that benefit.
The third thing is that without doing an in-depth analysis, as we're talking about with the other CPC-9 and the motion at HUMA right now, I don't think it would be responsible, frankly, to put something like this into legislation.
For those reasons, I won't support it.