Thank you, Madam Chair. I so move.
In terms of CPC-3, as we discussed in Bill C-7, there are two tracks: where death is reasonably foreseeable and where death is not reasonably foreseeable. The government has introduced on the track where death is not reasonably foreseeable a requirement that one of the physicians have expertise in the patient's ailment. What this amendment would do is require and apply that same criteria that one of the physicians signing off has expertise in the patient's ailment—which I think is a smart criteria—to all cases of assisted dying, not just where death is not reasonably foreseeable, but also where death is reasonably foreseeable.
As mentioned—we just had this debate—“reasonable foreseeability” is not defined. I thought we should have defined it a few minutes ago with the BQ amendment, which would define it at 12 months. We chose not to do that. In light of that and in light of the fact that the government did see fit to include it for the track where a death is not reasonably foreseeable, I think there's merit in that, and I think it should apply as well where death is reasonably foreseeable. That's why we've moved this amendment.
Again, we didn't pull this amendment out of thin air. It's partially based on what the government has done on the new track where death is not reasonably foreseeable, but also due to testimony. We heard very compelling testimony both from physicians and from specialists, as well as persons with disabilities, about the importance of having someone who knows what they're talking about with regard to someone's condition.
We're going to get to other prospective amendments later, but we've heard about the amount of time it takes someone to get in to see a specialist, to begin treatment and to have treatment take effect. If someone has had a diagnosis of a very serious ailment or a very serious injury, oftentimes there are ups and downs in their thinking about their future, but also in the prognosis. Ensuring that one of the physicians dealing with this patient has a speciality in the condition the patient has I think is a good safeguard that the government has introduced on the track of not reasonably foreseeable. I think it should apply where death is reasonably foreseeable as well, and that's why we've moved this amendment.
Thank you, Madam Chair.