Mr. Speaker, this member and the previous member referred to the “flexibility” of this legislation. Flexibility may be a good quality to have at a dinner party, but it is not much of a virtue in the context of legislation. Flexibility does not help physicians who are going to have to look at this legislation and decide if something is legal or not. Let us not call it “flexibility”; let us be clear and call it “ambiguity”.
I wonder if the member would support at least clarifying the ambiguous criteria, because the more he talked, the less I understood.
He talked about death being “reasonably foreseeable” and said that one has to be on a course toward end of life. Again, we are all on a course toward the end of life.
What prevents the government from amending the legislation to actually, in a very basic and sensible way, define what we are talking about? Ideally it would put in the word “terminal”, because that is what is implied but not said—and if it is not said, then it is not in the legislation.
Could we get some clarity around what these things actually mean?