Well, Ted, I thought we were friends, but after a question like that....
Look, I think collecting empirical evidence is important. If the empirical evidence shows that maybe some of the assumptions that have been made are wrong, it could go both ways. This is not a normal issue or a normal piece of legislation. This is about morality, autonomy, and charter rights.
I think the most important part that we're discussing is what the Canadian Association for Community Living mentioned, and that is, are we talking about “terminal” or not? They make the argument that it's not terminal or it is terminal. I'm making the argument that the Supreme Court intended it under any circumstance, and that there are situations where people can live for decades while meeting the criteria of the Supreme Court.
My suggestion to the committee on this question is to refer it to the Supreme Court. See what they say. We did that with the marriage debate. The Liberals did that on the marriage debate, and we did something very similar on our democratic reform legislation. We got the Supreme Court to tell us what they meant.