Your ability to express yourself in French this morning has been more than adequate.
Few of your government's reforms are in line with the NDP's thinking or, in many cases, that of Quebeckers. This measure, however, is the exception. Despite the fact that it is less than comprehensive or perfect, we see it as a step in the right direction. I want to stress how happy that makes me, as it has seldom been the case over the past year. That said, I want to take some time to consider certain aspects that seem a bit fuzzy or not quite as rounded out.
Let me begin by making one thing clear. In no way does my asking questions about the reform mean that I don't support parents with children who are ill or those with children who have died or disappeared. That point doesn't always seem to register with your government. Calling a reform into question does not mean you don't support those it is meant to help. As far as this measure is concerned, it is imperative that we do things right. I have three children of my own under the age of 14.
As I see it, the 35-week allowance for parents should their child “face a significant risk of death within 26 weeks” is a good thing. What I would like to know, however, is how did you arrive at 26 weeks.
How will Service Canada employees go about trying to determine whether the sick child is really facing a significant risk of death within 26 weeks? Even some oncologists can't answer that question. I would like to hear how that step will work to ensure a consistent approach is taken.