Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the minister. I am going to ask a serious question, and I hope she has the respect for me and the House to answer it correctly.
In the Carter decision, the Supreme Court said clearly that people should be able to access physician-assisted suicide who had a grievous and irremediable condition. The issue of whether the condition had to be terminal was addressed specifically throughout the court process and rejected. Yet the government brought legislation before the House that would not adopt the Supreme Court's test of grievous and irremediable, but would add the requirement that death be reasonably foreseeable or, in other words, the additional criterion that the condition must be terminal. The Alberta Court of Appeal yesterday ruled three to zero that this was unconstitutional and did not conform with the Carter case.
When my hon. colleague talks about her concern for access on June 6, does she not realize that she is going to deny access? This bill would deny access to people accessing physician-assisted suicide if it adds the requirement that their condition be terminal, when the Supreme Court of Canada specifically has said that is not required.
Would the minister tell the House why she is proceeding with a bill that we know right now is unconstitutional and would deny access to many Canadians by requiring them to have a terminal condition, which the Supreme Court of Canada specifically has said is not required?