The suggestion in our written brief was an addition for a greater certainty clause. I suppose the answer to your question depends what that reasonable foreseeability requirement is trying to accomplish.
I have to agree with Ms. Gokool, that if the goal is to make a terminal illness a requirement, that's not something we would support and not something we have suggestions of how to achieve.
If—as it seems from the background documents that I've read, and from the minister's statements, and the statements in the House that I've seen—this is intended to apply to people like Ms. Carter, whose death was not necessarily reasonably foreseeable or proximate, then in our view it's appropriate to drop it and to add in a greater certainty clause that makes it explicit that a terminal illness or proximity to a natural death is not a requirement.