Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech from my hon. colleague. He very clearly said that he believed this legislation would conform with the Supreme Court decision in Carter.
I have read a very spirited and well-reasoned letter recently from Joe Arvay, the lawyer who argued the Carter decision. He very vociferously disagrees with that comment. Specifically, he focuses on the fact that the Supreme Court decision very clearly has said that physician-assisted death should be available to those who suffer purely from a grievous and irremediable condition. Yet, this legislation would go further than that and would add the additional requirement that the death be reasonably foreseeable. Mr. Arvay argued that was an unwarranted and illegitimate extension of the Supreme Court decision. In fact, he argued that the test of reasonably foreseeable death was specifically raised through the court process and rejected at all levels of the courts through this process.
Could my hon. colleague tell us how he thinks the legislation would conform with the Supreme Court decision when it so clearly contradicts the Supreme Court's statement of the criteria required for access to physician-assisted death?