Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm actually quite distressed about this issue. I want to speak in support of the suggested amendment.
I appreciate MP Zuberi's thoughtful comments. However, again, in a past life as a lawyer, I've had the opportunity to draft many a will. When you are dealing with your assets and are of sound mind and body and have full cognitive abilities and you draft a will, at least in British Columbia, you have to have that will witnessed by two independent witnesses who are not mentioned in the will. They don't have to read what's in the will. In fact, they don't need to do that at all. However, they need to be present and they both need to sign the will. That establishes the authenticity of the signature and the intention of the testator.
If we have those safeguards legally in place when someone anticipating death is dealing with their assets, it seems to me that we should, at a minimum, have the same requirement for someone who is anticipating ending their life. It seems to me that one's life is a lot more important than one's assets. Yet, we seem to be throwing away that sort of...again, another safeguard, even though it may not even be the biggest one we're throwing away with this new legislation. However, it's an important one. It establishes that the person who is making this decision is signing on to it and requesting it to support that intention and that authenticity.
I just can't imagine how we would place, in law, a higher onus and a more careful environment for one's assets than one's life.
I would urge members of the committee to reconsider this one. It's not a big amendment—it's a small one—but it's a very important one, and I ask you to really think on that.