Procedure and House Affairs committee  Allow me to now answer your underlying question. Indeed, the deduction may not be a very high amount, at the end of the day. Even if all the days of non-attendance over a period of time were not justified, the percentage of the session allowance received by the member would remain high.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  The way the legislation is drafted, it really talks about covering those circumstances, the pregnancy situation and the caring for a child. The question became what period do you use. As you say, some legislatures will make no deductions at all, probably in line with the thinking that there are differences for members, who never cease to be members during the session and who continue to have pressures and obligations.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Yes, that's right. In its current form, the Parliament of Canada Act already accepts absences due to illness. In any circumstances where medical or illness reasons can be established, be it related to pregnancy or not, members can miss sittings. The idea behind the committee's recommendation is that the period leading up to the birth be included even without a medical certificate.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  That's correct. In fact, the member also maintains their responsibilities toward their constituents. That is why, in the context of the rules defined here, we think that the situation of members cannot really be compared with that of employees on parental leave. Even the expression “parental leave”, in my opinion, is not the best expression to be used in this case.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Exactly. In theory, an employee on parental leave is replaced by someone else, or it is expected that the individual will not be available to do the work. In the case of a member, the situation would be different.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair and members of the committee, following last week's letter from the Board of Internal Economy, I am pleased to appear before you today with my colleague Robyn Daigle, director of Members' Human Resources Services, to discuss the potential regulations on non-attendance related to maternity and paternity.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I would just like to make one clarification. Ms. Lapointe, in our discussion, we talked about doing the citizenship test on the knowledge of Canada in French. We had a discussion about whether or not this would be required. If paragraphs 1(1)(d) and 1(1)(e) of the bill are considered together to be joint requirements, the argument could be the second: knowledge of benefits and responsibilities should be demonstrated in French.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I indicated that the argument would be that the person can communicate with the federal government in the language of his or her choice. It would only be the part of demonstrating proficiency in the language that might require speaking French or providing some kind of evidence to satisfy the department that the person has an understanding of French.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  They would have to demonstrate that they have an understanding of French. What I was adding afterwards is that if it were found to be a violation of section 20 the issue would become whether this can be justified under section 1 of the charter, and there would be issues there.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  All I can say is that, in terms of the constitutionality issues, it would be the same discussion in that we would be asking ourselves whether this violates section 20. If so, we would then ask ourselves whether it is justified, whether the legislative objective in this province and in this context is sufficiently important to require knowledge of English in such circumstances and whether it is a minimal impairment.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  That's where the court in the Quebec case is dealing with the promotion of language. That's the element, with regard to section 1 of the charter, that has to be justified. The court will look at the purpose of the bill. Is it a sufficiently important objective that's being sought and that's infringing a provision of the charter?

Procedure and House Affairs committee  If I may, I want to go back to one comment you made, Mr. Christopherson. Not to be too technical about it, but I do take the confidentiality of the work of my office so seriously that I want to mention it. I understood your remarks to say that we did give legal advice to the member in this case, and I want to say I'm not here confirming whether we gave any advice, let alone what the advice would be.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Mr. Graham, all I can say on the matter is that this is really your decision. It is up to you and the committee to assess it. For my part, I try to indicate as best I can what the test is. It's a tough test. I have tried to identify some problems related to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  As I said with regard to the test, is there a credible argument to defend its validity? So we're really talking about something clear. With respect to section 20, the issue is whether individuals are prevented from communicating with the government in the language of their choice.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Right.