Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There probably isn't going to be a more important debate in clause-by-clause than the one we were just having on Mr. Rankin's amendment and my attempt here, through three different amendments, to fix what's wrong here.
What's wrong here is that the draft legislation states at subclause (2) “a person has a grievous or irremediable medical condition if”. That's language from the Supreme Court.
We then purport to define the Supreme Court's unanimous decision by language that contradicts the Supreme Court decision.
Through (a), (b), and (d), the draft legislation actually contradicts the reasoning of the court and contradicts the court's conclusions.
It's disturbing that this is before us. There is no question—and I want to say this with respect to all members around the table with all the different concerns we have about an issue as important as this—that the issue is difficult.
As lawmakers we have an obligation to ensure that the legislation we put forward does not so badly depart from the logic of the Supreme Court that we bring forward legislation, which is currently, in the view of Joe Arvay who litigated on behalf of Kay Carter, actually worse than nothing.
It would be better to leave a legal situation where once the Criminal Code provisions are removed, public policy and the conduct of medically-assisted dying would be guided by the court's decision and not by this act.
I'll move the first one quickly because I have about 20 seconds left.
In my recommendation here, we would take subclause 3(a), lines 22 to 23, and remove the word “incurable.” That's basically the essence of what I'm trying to do here. It is unnecessarily and unfairly restrictive as drafted.