Thank you for your questions, Mr. Robillard. I am going to answer in English.
The main premise behind the entire bill from the beginning was always that the EI benefits and their flexibility be secondary to the employer's trying to accommodate reassignment for the individual.
It has always been the thought, and in different discussions that I've had and in various iterations of the bill, it was always the intent that the employer first try to find other accommodations. In this particular situation with my constituent, Melodie, she was unable to do that because her employer didn't have any other type of work for her to do.
To answer the first part of your question, yes, that was always the intention.
As for the second part of your question relating to the Quebec model, the strategy specifically asks that the study look at other provinces and other countries on how they deliver maternity benefits. The Quebec model is a very robust model that all of the other provinces could look towards for guidance and direction.
Yes, we spent some time looking at that model. A private member's bill is very limited in the sense that you can't introduce new spending, so we couldn't do a lot of the things that model does. However, we very much encourage the study to look at the Quebec model and other models throughout the world.