I understand that the disabled are, on good grounds, concerned about removing the reasonable foreseeability of death criterion. However, I would say that it wasn't the government that decided to do this; it was the Truchon decision. As I've heard other people say, basically the reasonable foreseeability criterion is off the table and it was the court, in its Truchon decision, that took it off the table, and our government felt that the Supreme Court would only uphold the Truchon decision. That's one problem.
The other problem is that although I agree with almost everything I've heard from the disabled, there are people out there who insist—and I have spoken to a lot of people who feel it is very important to them—on being able to make such a fundamental choice should it arise for them.
Now this proposed legislation is here. It's before us. The Truchon decision was made. Is there not, in your opinion, any way we could amend the proposal to make it more acceptable to you? There are certainly a lot of safeguards in it, including proposed paragraph (3.1)(g), which requires from a medical practitioner or nurse the following:
ensure that the person has been informed of the means available to relieve their suffering, including, where appropriate, counselling services, mental health and disability support services, community services and palliative care and has been offered consultations with relevant professionals who provide those services or that care;
Hence, there is a requirement to tell people who might be contemplating using MAID about alternatives that would make their lives better.
Could we not amend what is here? Do you have any suggestions, or is the only way we can deal with this to appeal the Truchon decision or use the notwithstanding clause?
That's for anybody wanting to take it on.