Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think that the proposal of my colleague Mr. Genuis is closest to the Quebec experience, which clearly indicates that care has to be provided at the end of life.
As for the government's initial proposal regarding the term “reasonably foreseeable”, we have all spent three weeks trying to explain it without really being able to find a clear definition of what they are taking about.
Mr. Genuis' amendment is appropriate, as it truly clarifies that an individual is at the end of their life when, “their imminent natural death has become foreseeable”. Having spoken to a few physicians who worked in Quebec under the regime of former Bill 52, An Act respecting end-of-life care, I believe this definition is necessary. In addition, that care must truly be provided at the end of life, and the prognosis must be made and all the processes undertaken at the end of life. That is why the term “imminent natural death”, as proposed by our colleague Mr. Genuis, is very fitting.