Thanks very much, Madam Chair.
I want to start by cautioning my fellow members of the committee to stay away from inadvertently implying that because we have differences on how to implement the court decision that took away “reasonably foreseeable”, it somehow indicates that some of us either care more or care less about sectors of the Canadian population.
What we're really dealing with here is a situation where removing “reasonably foreseeable” has not taken away the very high bar that's been set for receiving medically assisted dying. A person must still suffer from an incurable condition, they must be in an advanced and irreversible state of decline and they must be in intolerable suffering.
Specifically with regard to this amendment, the 90 days for assessment is a minimum—not a maximum—assessment period. By increasing this to 120 days, we run the risk of enforcing another 30 days of intolerable suffering on someone who has been assessed, has made their decision and is dealing with end of life. This is not about suicide. It never is about suicide. It's about people dealing with the hand they've been dealt by nature, for whatever reason, and then trying to make certain that they have autonomy over their end of life.
I'm very much opposed to extending what is now a 90-day minimum for assessment to an arbitrary 120 days, since obviously the assessment could take longer and would take longer under the decision of both the individual and the professionals providing care if necessary.
Thank you.