I know you will have other witnesses you will be able to ask about this as well.
Certainly I can speak for the medical practitioners that I've talked to, including medical associations that represent large bodies of physicians, for instance, who have responded very positively to the concept of reasonable foreseeability, and have felt that it's a good choice of terms. Practitioners are comfortable with this for the most part.
We had three choices. We could have said nothing about the proximity of death. We could have specified a specific amount of time—six months or 12 months. However, the concept of reasonable foreseeability is a concept that respects the professional judgment of a health care provider. I'm glancing at some of my notes from when I spoke to representatives of the Canadian Medical Association, who felt that one of the things they liked about it was the fact that we can't cover all eventualities. It's very difficult in legislation to speak to all of those individual cases that might exist. As Minister Wilson-Raybould talked about, it was a way of defining just how grievous a condition is to ensure that we didn't include, for instance, a benign or an episodic type of condition, but a condition that put the person on a trajectory toward death.
As I said, we've had very positive responses to that. I have not had any requests from medical associations that this be removed for some reason. It was felt to be very respectful.