It should be gone anyway, but obviously, if I had to choose between the reasonable foreseeability clause and the “advanced state of irreversible decline” clause, I definitely want you to get rid of the reasonable foreseeability clause. If the advanced state of irreversible decline clause could be better phrased to simply mean that a person is symptomatic, then it might be workable. Our position is that you just don't need this definition; the Supreme Court of Canada has already sufficiently defined “grievous and irremediable”.
One reason, by the way, that we rejected the idea of “incurable” is that I don't know whether any cancer is actually curable, but there may be some diseases or illnesses that are curable but the cure for them is actually worse than the disease.
One thing I want to say is that I've heard the minister say in the House that the premise of this bill is to alleviate suffering in the dying process. The premise of the Carter decision is to allow physician-assisted dying to remedy or alleviate intolerable suffering in life. The premise of the bill is just at odds with the premise of the Carter decision.
I'll leave it at that.